--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what > > > > the issues are with Share. Facile observations about > > > > general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut > > > > it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven > > > > different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of > > > > her. > > > > > > For starters, your starting argument is 'argumentum ad > > > numerum', a logical fallacy that makes the assumption that > > > because a number of people believe a certain proposition > > > to be true, it must be true. > > > > Nope, wrong. > > [Unsupported statement, not an argument]
I went on to explain why it was wrong, Xeno. Are you in need of new specs, perhaps? Or are you suffering from the same IQ-destroying virus Steve is? > Very sloppy reading on your part. > > [Characterisation, not an argument] Ditto. > > Notice that > > I didn't mention the proposition you have in mind anywhere > > in what I wrote, much less claim it was true, much less > > that it was true because a number of people believe it. > > [True you did not say the proposition directly (see comments > below about tokenisation), nor did you claim directly a truth > value. But you presented it as the first step of a rebuttal > marshaling a mention of others with the same belief, which > would seem to be a psychological way of bolstering your point. Nope, wrong again. As I said: > > You > > made all that up yourself on the basis of no evidence and > > read it in. IOW, it was you who made the unwarranted > > assumption. > > > > Knowing all this, can you read what I wrote just a little > > more carefully and figure out what my point actually was? > > > > Here's a hint: It directly addressed your assertion about > > different thinking styles as the reason for Share's and my > > disagreements. > 1. You say I do not understand the issues with regard to > Share. I don't care about your issues with Share. But I > understand you and others have issues with Share. No need for you to understand or care about the issues with regard to Share. But if you don't understand them, it's probably wiser not to comment, don't you think? > 2. You think thinking styles are not adequate to explain > these issues. If seven different people have the same criticisms, then it doesn't make sense to claim the issues are entirely explained by the notion that Share and I have different thinking styles. <snip> > 3. For starters (this is the part I addressed in mentioning 'ad numerum'), > whatever the issues you and others have with Share, 7 people at last count, > have according to your reckoning, have the same criticisms of Share, those > issues, whatever they are. That those 7 people, no matter what the issues > are, have that opinion does not make those criticisms of those issues true. Can you find and quote where I suggested to you that seven people having the same opinion makes their criticisms true? If not, Xeno, STFU and stop making shit up. Any time you'd like to discuss what I actually wrote, let me know. The rest of your post is your standard pompous, clueless, irrelevant crap. <snip>
