Receiving credit for your work
I'm not going to jump into this argument, I haven't read all the posts in detail enough to add anything (other than cool it with the child abuse references), but I'd just like to say that is the best insult I've read on the internet in a long time.
@TheRabbitologist: Thank you.
@shadowmouse: my all time favorite is still http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/beginner/1988/5/#msg20048
@shadowmouse: my all time favorite is still http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/beginner/1988/5/#msg20048
| This argument is flawed. The influence that one can exert on others depends on those others' susceptibility to influence and their natural biases. Just because one has friends with certain views does not meant they will share those views. Need an example? I grew up my whole life with two evangelical Christian best friends. None of my other friends were outspoken members of another religion, vocally atheist, or vocally agnostic. I'm an agnostic (de-facto atheist, really), and never even considered converting to Christianity. |
By it depending on the susceptibility of others, are you then claiming that LB and his circle of friends are not susceptible to feeling it wrong to steal credit for someone else's work in similar fashion to a circle of people not susceptible to feeling to having sex with children is wrong???
| This is not the same as your influence premise above. |
It is the same as my premise listed above, see context of example provided.
| This is illogical thinking here. |
And this is illogical because you and other members now fighting for LB say so. That does not convince me nor any others I associate with.
| Nobody's arguing that LB's arguments WEREN'T flawed. The issue that everyone is taking with you is that you insulted him and are making a huge deal out of a friendly forum debate, as someone who has no standing or respect in this forum (well, you almost certainly don't after this debate). The debate was settled long ago, yet you chose to revive the threat just to insult LB. In fact, you've contributed nothing to the debate except ad-homenim and a number of unnecessary premises that aren't even related to the argument. This is disrespectful behavior, and this level of disrespect isn't tolerated in most circles. |
Well LB recanted but recanted with a but ... each time, saying things like: "if I replace this word with that, then it is ok or better" which is absolute junk.
Playing with words on a wrong idea doesn't make it less wrong.
Either LB recants without some angle to have a come back or doesn't recant at all.
| I think you're trying to bring up child abuse just to try and color LB people who are taking issue with you in a bad light, without considering the disparity between child abuse and stealing credit. |
I agree, the disparity between child abuse and stealing credit is very large.
Personally I would punish child abusers much harder than credit thieves.
Please note the essential difference here between me and LB on this point: he argues that they [credit thieves] are not really guilty of anything while I claim they are - period - regardless of the semantics you wish to employ as it has already been shown via numerous cases how negative consequences can and will arise from allowing such.
| Trying to bring emotions into it is the source of a wide variety of issues in modern politics. And trying to bring such negative light against an opponent... that makes you worse than LB if he HAD stated he supports the stealing of credit. |
Willfully wronging or propagating the wronging of someone is usually cause for emotional upheaval from the victims side. One therefore can infer such arguments to bring an emotional aspect in without it being intentional at all. The negative light I bring against LB is as a result of his views for trying to promote corporate theft - this I was clear on. If you read into me trying to paint him a child abuser then that's on you.
| Nobody's arguing that LB's arguments WEREN'T flawed. |
Then why try and still defend his points ... seem like you can't handle someone pointing out one of your little buddies flaws - but you should grow up and realize that this is just a debate and that if your little buddy does over step the line with someone in my circle, there would be nothing that you or anyone else on this planet can do to "protect" him.
| Can't believe I'm wasting my time on this. |
You are doing this to have the last word in, so as not to have LB's (and most likely) and yourselves shown up for your corrupt views.
| TheRabbitologist: You can play chess with a pigeon, and no matter how badly you beat it it's still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and say it won. |
Seems like this fits you guys pretty well here ... you definitely couldn't respond properly to my posts besides swelling your cheeks and spewing garbage each time from your pie hole.
| you definitely couldn't respond properly to my posts besides swelling your cheeks and spewing garbage each time from your pie hole. |
The reason you're like the pigeon playing chess, is that you don't play by the rules. You use fallacies ( not real arguments ), and use insults ( like crapping on the board ), and then claim you've won, when you haven't even played ( participated in an actual debate ).
You should first learn what an argument is and what a debate is. Then you should go through your posts and figure out which fallacies you are using in each one ( which rules of debate and logic you are breaking ).
These skills are some of the most important skills a person can have. After doing this, you will not only be better at debating, you will be better at thinking.
You have to at least realize, when you participate in a civilized discussion with somewhat intelligent people, your fallacies will be noticed. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to try to be convincing, not manipulative.
Last edited on
| The reason you're like the pigeon playing chess, is that you don't play by the rules. You use fallacies ( not real arguments ), and use insults ( like crapping on the board ), and then claim you've won, when you haven't even played ( participated in an actual debate ). |
I can say that about you guys - you've given me no indication of the fallacies in my argument.
| Then you should go through your posts and figure out which fallacies you are using in each one ( which rules of debate and logic you are breaking ). |
I did do that but did not find any. Why don't you point these fallacies out to me, ie put your money where your mouth is.
| If you want to be taken seriously, you have to try to be convincing, not manipulative. |
So you call someone manipulative in a debate when you don't know them and they land you flat on your arse.
Please show me these so called fallacies - I dare you
Last edited on
It doesn't even matter if your logic isn't fallacious. You're being an asshole. Stop it.
| It doesn't even matter if your logic isn't fallacious. You're being an asshole. Stop it. |
I rest my case.
In case its not clear: all you guys do is call me names (like asshole ...) and cannot provide evidence of my so called fallacious logic. Here's the thing though, I think you guys are assholes for the illogical responses you gave me and for wrongly accusing my logic as being fallacious.
So my views regarding you guys being assholes cancels out your unsubstantiated views of me being an asshole and then we still left with my points to which no valid response was given.
[sarcasm]But hey, you pigeons still win hey?[/sarcasm]
You're still missing the point. You didn't add to the original argument, but instead attempted to by using insults and not adding more logical arguments. As the people who participated in the original argument did so logically and validly, their criticism is valid. Just let it go, this argument isn't getting anywhere and is circulating.
@LB: you unfortunately misunderstood me: please note my request made:
.
This means that you should highlight the fallacies within the argument I put forth and not that I needed the definition of what fallacies are - hahaha.
I would say that the points I made in response to LB trying to soft pedal his views on corporate theft did highlight the negative consequences that would be associated with his views.
In this regard my points did add value to the debate as his soft pedaling did not look so appealing anymore.
Why didn't he commit to then defending his views regarding his soft pedaling and where were all of your valid response then?
As pointed out: all I got was garbage spewing out of your mouths.
| Please show me these so called fallacies |
This means that you should highlight the fallacies within the argument I put forth and not that I needed the definition of what fallacies are - hahaha.
| You're still missing the point. You didn't add to the original argument, but instead attempted to by using insults and not adding more logical arguments. |
I would say that the points I made in response to LB trying to soft pedal his views on corporate theft did highlight the negative consequences that would be associated with his views.
In this regard my points did add value to the debate as his soft pedaling did not look so appealing anymore.
Why didn't he commit to then defending his views regarding his soft pedaling and where were all of your valid response then?
As pointed out: all I got was garbage spewing out of your mouths.
Yes but the point is you revived a dead thread where the argument was finished and didn't need adding to. Also, why should LB go back through your arguments to find each and every fallacy. If you want to develop your logic, look at what was linked, otherwise stop trying to be logical.
If zepher doesnt understand the problem at this point, he never will. I would suggest to ignore zepher and just stop posting.
| Yes but the point is you revived a dead thread where the argument was finished and didn't need adding to. |
LB did not respond to the last points made on the thread before I "revived" it and did so to determine if he accepts his views as wrong or not. Clearly he did fully accept his views as wrong by his action of trying to soft pedal his views.
| Also, why should LB go back through your arguments to find each and every fallacy. If you want to develop your logic, look at what was linked, otherwise stop trying to be logical. |
Because you guys indicated that my logic was based in fallacy and I indicated that I did not find any fallacies within the one's I presented. Since you guys made the claim, the burden of proof rests upon your shoulders. So ... once again, prove it!
Seems though after asking a 3rd time that you guys actually can't and are starting to look really pathetic trying to sell it to me and probably others not part of your little boy scout club.
Are we still in a feeding frenzy here?
Please stop.
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/sep/18/psychology-internet-trolls-pewdiepie-youtube-mary-beard
Pay attention then:
The article is designed to be inflammatory, but it does bring up the salient points: the internet is an easy, ubiquitous place to be smarter and cooler than you (we) actually are, and our alter-egos don't like being put down.
(This is true of everyone who posts on the internet.)
It also touches on the best way to respond to angry responses, which is... don't; Use the pretty little "report" button. Twicker will remove aggressive trolling/flaming/whatever if you make him aware of it. He would prefer to let things stand, because he believes us to be grown-ups, but sometimes we need help anyway.
@zepher
I think you had a valid point to make. (I agree with it.)
The problem is that you went about it the wrong way.
(1) You misunderstood LB's comments and his position on them.
(2) Instead of simply attacking his perceived position, you also attacked him.
This is mainly what got you in trouble with others here.
(3) When rebuffed (however unpleasantly -- this is the internet, remember, and the internet is full of jerks),
you went all "flame ON" instead of remembering that the internet is full of jerks.
My advice to you: go eat a donut, and relax, then come back, ignore this topic, and start posting helpful responses in the other forums. You can't win in this thread. Show us how smart you are by usefully helping others with their C++.
Good luck!
Please stop.
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/sep/18/psychology-internet-trolls-pewdiepie-youtube-mary-beard
Pay attention then:
The article is designed to be inflammatory, but it does bring up the salient points: the internet is an easy, ubiquitous place to be smarter and cooler than you (we) actually are, and our alter-egos don't like being put down.
(This is true of everyone who posts on the internet.)
It also touches on the best way to respond to angry responses, which is... don't; Use the pretty little "report" button. Twicker will remove aggressive trolling/flaming/whatever if you make him aware of it. He would prefer to let things stand, because he believes us to be grown-ups, but sometimes we need help anyway.
@zepher
I think you had a valid point to make. (I agree with it.)
The problem is that you went about it the wrong way.
(1) You misunderstood LB's comments and his position on them.
(2) Instead of simply attacking his perceived position, you also attacked him.
This is mainly what got you in trouble with others here.
(3) When rebuffed (however unpleasantly -- this is the internet, remember, and the internet is full of jerks),
you went all "flame ON" instead of remembering that the internet is full of jerks.
My advice to you: go eat a donut, and relax, then come back, ignore this topic, and start posting helpful responses in the other forums. You can't win in this thread. Show us how smart you are by usefully helping others with their C++.
Good luck!
@zepher, I can help you understand the fallacies you're using later on. In busy most of the day and have only a phone at the moment. Although rather than listing all your fallacies, it would be easier if you posted some the arguments you have made and I can help you to analyze them.
| zepher wrote: |
|---|
| Clearly he did fully accept his views as wrong by his action of trying to soft pedal his views. |
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.