Dr. Spaceman
Bench
Yes, that’s clear. What’s not clear, is what exactly about my opinion is wrong and why you think it’s wrong. If instead of posturing, you’d offer some insight into that, we could have discussed it rather than bicker like school kids. But it’s your call, I’m just following your queue.
I've been explaining it for you, but I guess the comprehension is still broken and you need me to explicitly label those statements for you. Because if the explanation doesn't directly follow the accusation, you're gonna miss it. Subtlety's not your thing, I guess. I'll go back and bold them for you.
pTranslation: I have no problems with any of the viewpoints that I agree with. Well...duh.
Alright, so we've at least established one thing clearly: your world is black and white, and my world allows for gray areas. You're of the thought that if I don't agree with something, that I have to disagree with it. In reality, even if I don't necessarily agree with someone's thoughts, I don't have to disagree with them either. Their thoughts can just be. I can acknowledge an opinion that is different from mine and can differentiate from other opinions that are wrong in my view. Not in your binary world, though. That is clear.
Yes, I get that you think it was wrong. If we’re to have any type of intelligent debate about it though, you need to offer some insight into why you think it’s wrong. A trained parrot can say “you’re wrong”.
I never claimed you were making the statement about anyone else. I can deal perfectly well with someone telling me I’m wrong. However, if they lack the articulation to say anything beyond “you’re wrong” I’m probably not going to take them that seriously.
Again, I did explain it for you, as I said at the beginning of this. I just wish I had the ability to draw arrows and diagram this out for you, since that seems to be the only way you'll be able to comprehend it. It's really a simple argument that I'm making, so don't worry, the bolded parts will be short.
Nice argumentum ad populum. I see you don’t limit yourself to just one logical fallacy.
Was just pointing out a fact. I was not stating that majority rules. I was just telling you to get the hint that your chances of being the wrong one here are much greater because very few people share your view. Am I suggesting that a minority view is a wrong view? No. I'm suggesting that your argument isn't gaining much of a foothold around here.
No I saw it, I just don’t agree that there’s anything reasoned about it.
Nope, you didn't see it, otherwise you wouldn't have missed it the first time and asked for said explanation. And of course you don't think there's anything reasoned about it. We wouldn't be arguing otherwise.
LOL. Wow. So, you have no issues with people thinking different than you unless you think that they’re wrong as well. So in other words, you’re ok with people thinking different than you if you think they’re right. But if you think they’re right, it’s odd they’d be thinking much differently than you.
This goes back to the earlier revelation that your world is shockingly binary. You think that if someone says something that is not in line with my own thoughts, that I'm going to have to think they're wrong. That is incredibly false. There is an in-between in my world. People can just be different. Don't be mistaken though -- I still definitely think you're wrong. Just you.
If you already knew that, you weren’t showing it. You said that I couldn’t make the distinction. So, I responded by clarifying that I don’t think there’s a distinction to be made. Not being able to make a distinction is different from there not being a distinction to be made...Still confused?
No, I was never confused. I used the words "black and white" to describe you the first time, but you couldn't comprehend it. At least you're upfront about it now, though. That's a good first step.
You call those gray areas, I call them excuses.
Yup, we've definitely established that.
And I’ll keep throwing it out, whenever its appropriate.
I’m beginning to see a pattern here. It goes. You’re wrong, that’s incorrect, etc. followed by...nothing. Unless you can cite specific instances where I used red herring incorrectly, articulate why it was incorrect, and provide an example of correct usage, you’re just blowing smoke.
That all depends on how one defines “appropriate context”. If you’re suggesting that I was implying that basketball is as important as the president’s job, well, that would be a strawman argument...Queues Dr. Spaceman saying that I don’t know what a strawman argument is.
I defined the appropriate context for you. I guess I have to make it clear that the context is going to be my opinion, but I did state it. You said that my President statement was a red herring, and I went on to explain to you how it was relevant. Because a red herring is an irrelevant statement thrown into an argument. The explanation you're looking for (which I'll label for you) starts with "The relevance of the President statement...," but you missed it because it wasn't clearly pointed out to you with the appropriate stickers and arrows. That was my bad. I assumed too much of your comprehension.
I wasn't "implying" anything. I was clearly stating that you're blowing this up way too big. I was not stating that you equate basketball with the presidency.
Introducing his personal life is another red herring. It has nothing to do with whether he had an obligation to inform his employers regarding something that was keeping him from performing up to par. Make excuses all you want, they don’t relieve him of that responsibility.
What?? How is his personal life irrelevant? That's what this is all about. Getting his personal life in order so he can play basketball well. Anything else is just being petty. Which I've been trying to tell you that you are. You're blowing his mistake out of proportion and drawing it out for too long. This was my main point to you the entire time. Clearly labeled for you this time, though.
This all comes down to you wanting to crucify him for his mistake (that I and others acknowledge was made) and not allowing for any slack. We're trying to cut him some slack. You equate that with giving excuses. We equate it with growing pains of a young man growing up in a man's world. We grant him the misstep. You don't. That's it. Move on.
I think it's perfectly fine to have arguments, but it becomes impossible when the person you're arguing with continually overlooks the real point of the whole thing. Your broken comprehension and chronic inability to connect the issues that I bring up and my explanations that follow make it just a bit too frustrating (but just a little. Not too much) to continue this, so I'm done with it. Nice life to you.