Originally Posted by arathbon

Ok standardized the argument he made in the following post:



Unless I'm nuts it would go as follows

1. Some sort of implied premise related to your quote
Therefore,
2. Everything you say is bullshit
.

In point #2, you forgot from now on.

Correction : "Everything you say from now on is bullshit"

And he did claim point #2 :

Great, so from now on I have conclusive proof that everything you say is utter bullshit.

The main reason why it is Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, is the form you just showed with a little correction.

Originally Posted by Icecream

In point #2, you forgot from now on.

Correction : "Everything you from now on say is bullshit"

And he did claim point #2 :

That doesn't mean he thinks its hypocritical.

You are right in claiming ad hominem (because he is claiming you are wrong in any other claims you make because you made an incorrect claim) but its not tu quoque unless he is limiting it to a case in which your statement might be hypocritical i.e., "You claim that smoking is wrong now. In the future if you claim smoking is alright it is bullshit". However the general claim "You made an incorrect claim. Any claim you make from now on can be dismissed" is just Ad Hominem not tu quoque.

Originally Posted by arathbon

That doesn't mean he thinks its hypocritical.

You are right in claiming ad hominem (because he is claiming you are wrong in any other claims you make because you made an incorrect claim) but its not tu quoque unless he is limiting it to a case in which your statement might be hypocritical i.e., "You claim that smoking is wrong now. In the future if you claim smoking is alright it is bullshit". However the general claim "You made an incorrect claim. Any claim you make from now on can be dismissed" is just Ad Hominem not tu quoque.

It can be seen hypocritical because I said "Do not assume I was trying to mean something." meaning my claims are groundless and without purpose. His claim is that any further claims will be the same. But then I claimed otherwise (that I was trying to mean something, which is implied because I kept arguing).

Originally Posted by Icecream

It can be seen hypocritical because I said "Do not assume I was trying to mean something." meaning my claims are groundless and without purpose. His claim is that any further claims will be the same. But then I claimed otherwise (that I was trying to mean something, which is implied because I kept arguing).

So you are stating that you initially claimed that your claims are groundless and without purpose and then changed your mind and claimed that the very same claims do in fact mean something?

Unless he is referring to you specifically changing your mind about you claim that "my claims are groundless and without purpose" in reference to the specific claims you initially referenced then it is not tu quoque.

I believe it is clear from his statement that he was drawing a much more general conclusion about all arguments you make, not just a specific reversal of your claims about your own claims.

Originally Posted by arathbon

So you are stating that you initially claimed that your claims are groundless and without purpose and then changed your mind and claimed that the very same claims do in fact mean something?

Unless he is referring to you specifically changing your mind about you claim that "my claims are groundless and without purpose" in reference to the specific claims you initially referenced then it is not tu quoque.

I believe it is clear from his statement that he was drawing a much more general conclusion about all arguments you make, not just a specific reversal of your claims about your own claims.

No, he treated my statement as if I made a hypocritical claim. Why? Because I was arguing at the same time I made the statement " Do not assume I was trying to mean something."

Either way, Mowicz did commit a fallacy. This works for me.

I learned a few new words today. Thanks guys ^_^

No he's right, except that I haven't committed the fallacy yet. If in the future, he had some sort of argument and I went "I dunnooooo, it's bullshit because remember what happened in my signature..." which I fully intend to do, then I will be committing this logical fallacy.

In order to avoid this inevitability, There's one thing to do: throw you on my ignore list. Let's just hope your private messages get filtered out too.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

No he's right, except that I haven't committed the fallacy yet. If in the future, he had some sort of argument and I went "I dunnooooo, it's bullshit because remember what happened in my signature..." which I fully intend to do, then I will be committing this logical fallacy.

In order to avoid this inevitability, There's one thing to do: throw you on my ignore list. Let's just hope your private messages get filtered out too.

You did commit it :

Great, so from now on I have conclusive proof that everything you say is utter bullshit.

You are claiming that I am wrong "from now on" because of that statement. Look at the highlighted words. They show strongly how you made the argument that I am wrong whatever I say.

This is your argument : Whatever I say (from now on) is utter bullshit .

And you claimed the support of your argument is the one highlighted in red. This is a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Icecream

You did commit it :



You are claiming that I am wrong "from now on" because of that statement. Look at the highlighted words. They show strongly how you made the argument that I am wrong whatever I say.

No, actually, I made the argument that you're a troll and from now on I have no reason to read your posts. The evidence was simply the fact that you admitted that you meant NOTHING, and that assuming otherwise is foolish, paired with the fact that you've taken harassment to a new level when you private messaged me. This is true, no matter how blind you are to the facts, and I'll be ignoring you soon enough when I can no longer see your posts.

This is not a good way to make friends you guys

Originally Posted by Mowicz

No, actually, I made the argument that you're a troll and from now on I have no reason to read your posts. The evidence was simply the fact that you admitted that you meant NOTHING, and that assuming otherwise is foolish, paired with the fact that you've taken harassment to a new level when you private messaged me. This is true, no matter how blind you are to the facts, and I'll be ignoring you soon enough when I can no longer see your posts.

Define troll.

I see you are running away from the facts. You cannot even counter-argue properly anymore. You use words like "mean nothing", so you won't have to respond to my claim that you did commit the fallacy.

I dissected your previous statement and showed you how it is a fallacy. Now, admit you committed it. That is all you have to do for now.

You might want to take this to PM.

how do you quote stuff?

It's very difficult to help a person see reason after they're set on being willingly delusional.