• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

I said I have problems in English - Pardalis said "that's your problem", implying that he does not care - nor is willing to understand me. But as usual, he has to "open his mouth" whenever I post something nevertheless. You think that isn't intolerant? :confused: Well, maybe it's just "bad breeding" on his side. :)
I apologize to Pardalis for speaking for him.

That you resort to logical fallacy due to problems with language is not his problem. That is a fair statement and is not intolerant. You need to find a way to avoid fallacy. The responsibility is yours.
 
Oliver, using strawmen, for whatever the reason, is not a good thing. It is quite insulting.
 
I am very well aware of the argument ad Logicam fallacy.

I never said what he says is untrue, but I am very skeptical of it and do not accept it at face value, especially when he has shown to be a neo nazi.


SO WHAT? :confused:

Personally I hate intolerance and as such, many aspects of Neo-Nazism.
Do I have a problem to talk to people who think this way nevertheless? No
Do I think all they say is crap and I refuse to understand their PointOfView? No
Am I afraid that they could say something that would change my POV? No
 
I apologize to Pardalis for speaking for him.

That you resort to logical fallacy due to problems with language is not his problem. That is a fair statement and is not intolerant. You need to find a way to avoid fallacy. The responsibility is yours.


Well, then I apologize for even trying to translate a thought in the best way I can while using a Strawman to illustrate that thought.

Oliver, using strawmen, for whatever the reason, is not a good thing. It is quite insulting.


What are you, a 12 years old girl? (Was that a strawman again)? :confused:
 
No. You stop doing them.


How can I avoid somthing I don't know? Point it out to make me aware of this behavior of mine.

Strawmen are not metaphors.


I often use metaphors to illustrate my point - and I get an "Strawman-Complaint" in return.

So according to your logic:

Strawmen are not metaphors.
But metaphors are Strawman? :confused:
 
I appreciate skepticism - but that doesn't include "I don't give you an honest answer because I completely refuse to look into a communist source.". That's basically what many people in here do. Now this might be a bad, English behavior - but personally I think it's not only childish, but much more ignorant/intolerant. Besides the fact that it's a bad behavior in terms of "Free Speech", isn't it? :

Uh, misconception Oliver - a big one actually. Free Speech/Freedom of Speech - even in the most open possible situation where you can say, write, perform, express yourself in any way - DOES NOT give you any right to be heard, read, understood, cared about, listened to. It is pointless to try to pay attention to all sources of information on all subjects (if only because it is impossible to do so on even one general topic )SO why use fringe or heavilly questionable (clearly biased) sources. If there are no generally unbiased sources I might understand that, but that will not be the case for most of your topics of choice - and when you use ones that are clearly biased (right-wing, left-wing, religious, for starters) you leave yourself open to the type of criticism you are getting and you become responsible for proving that any statement from a site with a clear bias generally is correct specifically. Much more rational to look for sites / books / documentaries / reports/periodicals etc. with lowest bias available.
 
Last edited:
Christ, you BOTH need to stop. Pardalis, you're being every bit as mad as you imagine Oliver to be, and sheeeesh, quite frankly, I don't think you have so much reason to feel superior to him.

Oliver, stop being so bloody silly yourself. You really don't need to take notice of Pardalis, and for hell's bells, these kind of bloody stupid exchanges make bloody painful reading.
 
Uh, misconception Oliver - a big one actually. Free Speech/Freedom of Speech - even in the most open possible situation where you can say, write, perform, express yourself in any way - DOES NOT give you any right to be heard, read, understood, cared about, listened to. It is pointless to try to pay attention to all sources of information on all subjects (if only because it is impossible to do so on even one general topic )SO why use fringe or heavilly questionable (clearly biased) sources. If there are no generally unbiased sources I might understand that, but that will not be the case for most of your topics of choice - and when you use ones that are clearly biased (right-wing, left-wing, religious, for starters) you leave yourself open to the type of criticism you are getting and you become responsible for proving that any statement from a site with a clear bias generally is correct specifically. Much more rational to look for sites / books / documentaries / reports/periodicals etc. with lowest bias available.


I understand your point here - but let me ask: What is biased in if a "Commie-Source" says:

"20 March 2003 - The US invaded Iraq."

Does that make the data biased or wrong just because the source was a commie-site, for example? No, it doesn't - that's my point with the list in question.
 
Because it was. You constantly do that.


Oh, so sarcasm now is a strawman, too. Thanks for your explanation. :)

ETA: Ever thought about being a Dictator in the Middle-East? :D
 
Last edited:
Christ, you BOTH need to stop. Pardalis, you're being every bit as mad as you imagine Oliver to be, and sheeeesh, quite frankly, I don't think you have so much reason to feel superior to him.

I don't, I just disagree with him. And I'm only asking him to stop putting words in my mouth.

these kind of bloody stupid exchanges make bloody painful reading.

You know how to remedy that.
 

Back
Top Bottom