What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
GiggliG
Regular MemberPosts: 100
Like?
Re: False Dichotomy
In reply to texinwien, 10 months ago

texinwien wrote:

GiggliG wrote:

texinwien wrote:

I consider it very similar to raising the white flag.

I feel exactly the same way about nitpicking somebody's use of quotation marks, writing a novel about exempli gratia when a sentence would suffice, lecturing (rather than merely distinguishing) on subject vs. object, referring to yourself as someone's intellectual superior, indirectly calling another person an imbecile, inter alia.

Those behaviors are also the white flags when it comes to garnering respect and being taken seriously. Reflect on that.

It's possible to have a polite, rational discussion without constantly asserting your ego.

It's rich that someone who resorted to haughty ad hominem out of the gate, only to fall back on their list of titles almost immediately after entering into the fray is lecturing me on the possibility of polite, rational discussion without the need to constantly assert one's ego. I'm sure you see the irony there. I'm certainly enjoying it.

Considering that I never engaged your actual arguments about lenses, and in fact agree with many of them, my statements about your behavior, in the relevant context, are not logically ad hominems. They stand on their own. I could insert a snarky comment here about you misunderstanding logical fallacies, but then I would be playing your game.

I lectured you on being polite. You effectively lectured other people on how they are idiots. I see a distinction, I'm sorry for you if you don't.

You, as a solicitor and barrister, of all people, should understand the value of being specific, exact and correct in one's choice of words, especially when discussing technical minutiae on a gear forum.

Someone should make another meme for you that says: "If you hold every person to the highest formal linguistic and logical standards... you're going to have a bad time".

The problem with your way of interpreting things is that instead of trying to understand the intent and meaning behind something another person has said, you, in your contentiousness, look only at what is typed, don't make any of the usual interpretive assumptions people make, and nitpick. Then you get extremely demanding (e.g. repeating 'provide an example/source' several times), which just turns off everyone who might engage further with your actual contentions.

By the way, e.g. literally translates to 'for example'.

Are we interested in discussing facts here, or what? What say you, GiggliG, Esq.?

I'm interested in discussing facts and experiences. So I guess that doesn't really help you.

Anyway, hopefully you won't respond too fervently to this post, as I need to do other things on my long weekend in order to avoid incriminating myself via my prior statements.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow