Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@definitionofinsanity—
The lie was in your claiming that you were using my words. You weren't. And your attempt to substitute a claim that you were paraphrasing me or somesuch is an attempt to hide a lie which was always absurd, since you were anyway continuing to claim that behavior could be justified without making a moral claim; in that context, you might as well have clung to the stipulation which you'd made.
You've taken to flat denial of things follow from definition.
Again, anyone can review the discussion; you invoked legislation to defend a moral claim. Howl all you want.
How much will you pay? I'd certainly be willing to write down to you in various ways if you paid enough.
I was talking about the moral onus, and used the adjective “moral”; you responded with an invocation of legislation.
Nope. You're both returning to earlier confusion of morality with legislation and attempting to replace my claim with an absurd one. As to the first, whether she is morally an adult is not determined by legislation. Second, my claim was not that children have no moral responsibility, but that “the moral opprobrium that attaches to acts by children is different from that which attaches to otherwise identical act by adults”. Whether the female main character has the moral status of an adult nowhere affects my argument.
No, we're just continuing with your flailing.
No, you just respond with a combination of flat denial and misrepresentation. But, as I indicated in an earlier comment, I don't argue in an attempt to get you to acknowledge your errors; I'm simply arguing for the sake of anyone in the audience who is interested.
No; an argumentum ad logicam is a claim that a conclusion must be false because an argument for it is invalid. Noting invalidity (which I've of course repeatedly done) is not itself engagement in such argument.
That's not my motivation, and you're about to contradict yourself again:
What you do when you block someone is simply to remove your ability to read and respond to what they say with your account. It makes no sense if you want to defend yourself. And, when one is dealing with an actual troll, he or she implicitly responds with the aforementioned “So what?” to reasonable argument and draws delight from the victim's frustration. (And your combination of simply rejecting some things out-of-hand and caricaturing others without carefully addressing anything constitutes a very poor defense.)
And no one believes that I now think it nonsense.
The reason that I gave a careful explanation was to show that it wasn't a matter of “just deciding”.
Nope. On the one hand, I've explained why it can be seen what you were arguing. (Indeed, at the time, you expected it to be seen, which is why you used a rhetorical question as an argument.) On the other hand, the point about your moralization is simply a matter of understanding that statements about justification (or the lack thereof) are moral statements. You keep trying to have your moral cake and eat it too.
You're doing the equivalent of squealing “I'm rubber! You're glue!”
No, I answered your question and placed it in a more general context, within which one could see whether the principle that you advanced made sense.
You're misusing the term “whataboutism”. Whataboutism is attempt to defend one thing with a flaw by pointing to a flaw in a rival thing, as if these two things were the only possibilities. Showing that a principle doesn't make sense when tested in a different context is not whataboutism. And your claim that I was “changing the subject” is like Oz demanding “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Like Oz, you're not a very good wizard.
I've been utilizing it from the outset.
Again, the audience can read my explanation of why your rhetorical question has a specific reading.
And the audience can note your repeated refusal to deal with my actual argument. You either just flatly declare it wrong or, here, caricature it. You don't deal with it logically because you cannot.
Again, these flat denials are a poor defense. You just make yourself look worse by never responding carefully.
The point that I made was that “So what?” would always be valid in the absence of morality. You need to address that point if you want to move the audience.
No one said that all facts were morality; what I noted was that the proposition that one should adhere to facts and to logic is a moral proposition.
It isn't ever mathematics itself that ever tells you that you should be mathematical.
The reader can look at each assertion you've made, and ask where you provided evidence. I did that in the specific case of your first comment, and you didn't respond to where you gave that evidence. The process can be repeated for other comments.
Its pertinence is clear. You looked for a justification for tripping the child in the consequent change in the child's behavior. But he was treated as a victim by all but the female main character, and this treatment (fortunate or not) was to be expected. So the outcome to be expected is quite different from one in which everyone or nearly everyone treated him as deserving to be tripped. In seeking to rationalize your instinctive reaction, you didn't look very far into the process.
which made me realize what reactions are not fitting and should be avoided. I imagine some commentators being on same level as my otaku buddies back then 
