(...) it's textbook appeal to popularity and you're trying to get out of it by pretending to be meta and ironic about it.
Committing a textbook logical fallacy with a wink and "This is totally not the exact by the numbers fallacy I'm literally doing right now" doesn't work.
(...) This is just a dozen paragraphs of saying the tired old "Don't be an atheist because it's mean" nonsense.
Again not telling people you disagree with them and affecting some wishy-washy "Oh we're all right in our own ways, I'd rather be nice then be right" persona doesn't make you a better person.
That is specialist special pleading I've eve seen.
Joe, you keep waving these skeptic buzzwords around, but I'm afraid you don't really understand them.
I've already showed that your ideas about what the special pleading fallacy is are incorrect, in
my post #1763.
Since we were unable to agree on this, I suggested that you refer
that post of mine to someone whose acumen you respect and whose intentions you trust. You refused to do that.
Well, here you have GStan -- with whom, I assure you, I have never interacted with before, so it isn't as if he is sticking up for an old mate here -- who has gone through that post, and he clearly says
here in this post that he finds my POV, as expressed in
my post #1763, to be valid.
I'm perfectly willing to have someone else -- in fact, any number of people as might be interested -- to see that post and see if they don't agree with that focused point.
Heck, I don't want to be mean, else I could have started a poll around
that post of mine, and clearly showed you what people think about your idea of what constitutes a special pleading fallacy. As it is we only have a population of 1 thus far, of unbiased members who've reviewed
that post, but the results of review by that admittedly very limited population is clear.
Lots of other things you're saying here is plain nonsensical. Apparently, going by this post of yours, you don't understand the appeal to popularity fallacy either. I could do another focused post pointing that out to you, but it would be tedious, and I suppose it would be kind of mean as well.
As for
"Oh we're all right in our own ways, I'd rather be nice then be right", that is an outright strawman. Nowhere have I said or implied anything of the sort.
this is the "You have to agree I'm right before we start the discussion" tactic Chanakya played
Not once have I said anything of the kind.
