till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates …
till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity" Dude you are also insane and not just a moron omgðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
First, the number of times I use the word "fallacy" is equal to the number of times you and others make fallacious arguments.
Second, my statement about the young woman was not "unrelated." It was an ANALOGY.
These two points lead directly to the term George Orwell wrote to describe you perfectly:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
You seem to think you are capable of extraordinary mind-reading when it comes to me to the point of knowing for certain that what im saying is the result of me deeply afraid of crimethink or whatever instead of merely what I think my position is reasonable based on a relatively sincere engagement with the evidence and arguments I have seen (even if you think im wrong). I think to come to this conclusion you'd have to have a model of what I think, right? I mean, how could you be so sure that Im deeply attached to my conclusion that I would refuse to genuinely attempt to think about it? I must have some ideological prior, right? So what is it? What do you think I believe in general about stuff, what are my ideologies, my beliefs and so on. No vague remarks about "sophism" or "crimethink" and not the the beliefs I already explictly exposed, such as the belief in the "born this way" view of sexual orientation. What do I believe? Tell me.
I've already explained this to you. You publicly broadcast who you are and what you think. me merely saying what you already said does not require me to read your mind. You are transparent.
You literally accused me of inappropriately using the word "fallacy" and you criticized my use of an analogy as irrelevant. Your denial of obvious logical errors and refusal to grasp analogies is EXACTLY how Orwell defined Crimestop.
If you show all the signs of schizophrenia, you are a schizophrenic.
If you show all the signs of Crimestop, then you are using protective stupidity.
"Sophism" isn't vague. It refers directly to someone who makes fallacious arguments to convince lightly-thinking minds to accept your conclusions. But I'm school trained and educated to spot logical fallacies. I taught about logical fallacies as a professor in three flagship state universities (U. Illinois, U. Kentucky, U. Cal Berkeley).
Your ideological priors are irrelevant when you pervasively use fallacious arguments. I've explained to you each and every argument you made that was fallacious. You simply are either not smart enough, not educated enough, or in too much denial to recognize your own use of fallacies.
Caplan directly addressed your criticisms. You simply don't understand his methodology, and you don't WANT to understand it. That's Crimestop.
You're just going to go on and on babbling nonsense and taking offense like a Duckspeaker, so you're dismissed.
Insteresting that you think you are capable of knowing someone is straight or (rather, not member of the "supremely aberrant class") based on their arguments but cant infer anything about me beyond me engaging in "crimestop" (which apparently you aint so sure anymore cause now I could just be dumb or uneducated) lol
Anyways, you assume someone doesnt know what an analogy is because they didnt find yours valid? Im so sorry for your alumni. Again: a post-pubescent fourteen year old is not a child, so indeed, not a pedo since thats not the protytypical object of attraction of pedos, I agree, but my examples DID involved the prototypical object of attraction of a homosexual/bisexual person.
I went through great lenghts of intellectul charity here, which I value a lot. I seriously attempted to define terms and ask you about your definitions, what you think have and havent changed and so on but you never did it. You never clarified clearly what you even think in the first place. You never bothered to even DEFINE what bisexuality is, you never bother to state clearly what you think happened or didnt happened to the phenomena I describe (like qualias of sexual attraction) and why you think what you do.
Caplan didnt "directly" (sic) "adressed my criticisms" unless he talked about the hypothesis of non-genetic, non-social causes of homosexuality as well as examinations of non-identity based measures of sexual arousal and I, somehow, missed it. This is fine, after all, Caplan didnt respond to my comment, you are the one who did and I am talking to you.
You say you taught logic yet you refuse to the most basic of providing definitions in clear manner. Again, my point was an empirical one about certain patterns of arousal not having changed (or at least there being good reasons to believe so) I provided evidence to why I believe so, you never explained if you even disagree with it. And yes, you provided counter-arguments, but most of them are to strawmen versions of what I believe (which I further clarified). You never engaged with what I actually believe (you say "mere thoughts" when i talked about actual arousal to homosexual stimuli stimuli an analogy involving a non-prototypical example to my examples involving a prototypical ones).
Anyways, this conversation is both dependent on empirical as well as semantic grounds. I tried to lay down some evidence for some of them (behavioural, self-identification, self-report of arousal, physical measures of arousal) some distinct semantic definitions and so on. Whenever someone is having a "does a three that fell makes a sound" discussion, it is nice, for clarity and truth-seeking, to state definitions, and if the discussion may even be more like "did the three feel in the first place? Did someone was there? If someone wasnt there, did it make a sound?" then we definitely need to state clear definitions and then try to argue about those and the empirical facts as clearly as possible.
You claimed I didnt engage with your counterarguments, when in fact, thats what YOU did. Many times you could have defined stuff, made clear your disagreements and so on but you never did. It wasnt even clear what exactly our empirical and semantic differences are because you were more worried with screaming "CRIMETHINK! SOPHISM!" like a midwit teenager who just read Orwell than trying to make clear arguments.
Have you noticed how you never bothered to respond to my clarifications on your non-prototypical analogy or how you misunderstood my point about arousal, and when clarified, you ignored it? Have you noticed how you never gave a clear definition of bisexuality, what related concepts you think changed and which didnt and why? Have you noticed how I referenced a fairly standard measure of sexual attraction that is said to be greatly immune to social desirability bias(!!!!!) and you seemed, somehow, completely uninterested in this? But yeah Mr professor of logic, im the "crimestop" person here, sure. Im seriously sorry for everyone who studied under you and had to suck up to you by making bad arguments to get a passing grade in your classes because you are too much of a dumbass to actually engage with complex arguments without thinking you are dealing with a basic syllogism.
till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity" Dude you are also insane and not just a moron omgðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
The comedy writes itself.
First, the number of times I use the word "fallacy" is equal to the number of times you and others make fallacious arguments.
Second, my statement about the young woman was not "unrelated." It was an ANALOGY.
These two points lead directly to the term George Orwell wrote to describe you perfectly:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
You seem to think you are capable of extraordinary mind-reading when it comes to me to the point of knowing for certain that what im saying is the result of me deeply afraid of crimethink or whatever instead of merely what I think my position is reasonable based on a relatively sincere engagement with the evidence and arguments I have seen (even if you think im wrong). I think to come to this conclusion you'd have to have a model of what I think, right? I mean, how could you be so sure that Im deeply attached to my conclusion that I would refuse to genuinely attempt to think about it? I must have some ideological prior, right? So what is it? What do you think I believe in general about stuff, what are my ideologies, my beliefs and so on. No vague remarks about "sophism" or "crimethink" and not the the beliefs I already explictly exposed, such as the belief in the "born this way" view of sexual orientation. What do I believe? Tell me.
I've already explained this to you. You publicly broadcast who you are and what you think. me merely saying what you already said does not require me to read your mind. You are transparent.
You literally accused me of inappropriately using the word "fallacy" and you criticized my use of an analogy as irrelevant. Your denial of obvious logical errors and refusal to grasp analogies is EXACTLY how Orwell defined Crimestop.
If you show all the signs of schizophrenia, you are a schizophrenic.
If you show all the signs of Crimestop, then you are using protective stupidity.
"Sophism" isn't vague. It refers directly to someone who makes fallacious arguments to convince lightly-thinking minds to accept your conclusions. But I'm school trained and educated to spot logical fallacies. I taught about logical fallacies as a professor in three flagship state universities (U. Illinois, U. Kentucky, U. Cal Berkeley).
Your ideological priors are irrelevant when you pervasively use fallacious arguments. I've explained to you each and every argument you made that was fallacious. You simply are either not smart enough, not educated enough, or in too much denial to recognize your own use of fallacies.
Caplan directly addressed your criticisms. You simply don't understand his methodology, and you don't WANT to understand it. That's Crimestop.
You're just going to go on and on babbling nonsense and taking offense like a Duckspeaker, so you're dismissed.
Insteresting that you think you are capable of knowing someone is straight or (rather, not member of the "supremely aberrant class") based on their arguments but cant infer anything about me beyond me engaging in "crimestop" (which apparently you aint so sure anymore cause now I could just be dumb or uneducated) lol
Anyways, you assume someone doesnt know what an analogy is because they didnt find yours valid? Im so sorry for your alumni. Again: a post-pubescent fourteen year old is not a child, so indeed, not a pedo since thats not the protytypical object of attraction of pedos, I agree, but my examples DID involved the prototypical object of attraction of a homosexual/bisexual person.
I went through great lenghts of intellectul charity here, which I value a lot. I seriously attempted to define terms and ask you about your definitions, what you think have and havent changed and so on but you never did it. You never clarified clearly what you even think in the first place. You never bothered to even DEFINE what bisexuality is, you never bother to state clearly what you think happened or didnt happened to the phenomena I describe (like qualias of sexual attraction) and why you think what you do.
Caplan didnt "directly" (sic) "adressed my criticisms" unless he talked about the hypothesis of non-genetic, non-social causes of homosexuality as well as examinations of non-identity based measures of sexual arousal and I, somehow, missed it. This is fine, after all, Caplan didnt respond to my comment, you are the one who did and I am talking to you.
You say you taught logic yet you refuse to the most basic of providing definitions in clear manner. Again, my point was an empirical one about certain patterns of arousal not having changed (or at least there being good reasons to believe so) I provided evidence to why I believe so, you never explained if you even disagree with it. And yes, you provided counter-arguments, but most of them are to strawmen versions of what I believe (which I further clarified). You never engaged with what I actually believe (you say "mere thoughts" when i talked about actual arousal to homosexual stimuli stimuli an analogy involving a non-prototypical example to my examples involving a prototypical ones).
Anyways, this conversation is both dependent on empirical as well as semantic grounds. I tried to lay down some evidence for some of them (behavioural, self-identification, self-report of arousal, physical measures of arousal) some distinct semantic definitions and so on. Whenever someone is having a "does a three that fell makes a sound" discussion, it is nice, for clarity and truth-seeking, to state definitions, and if the discussion may even be more like "did the three feel in the first place? Did someone was there? If someone wasnt there, did it make a sound?" then we definitely need to state clear definitions and then try to argue about those and the empirical facts as clearly as possible.
You claimed I didnt engage with your counterarguments, when in fact, thats what YOU did. Many times you could have defined stuff, made clear your disagreements and so on but you never did. It wasnt even clear what exactly our empirical and semantic differences are because you were more worried with screaming "CRIMETHINK! SOPHISM!" like a midwit teenager who just read Orwell than trying to make clear arguments.
Have you noticed how you never bothered to respond to my clarifications on your non-prototypical analogy or how you misunderstood my point about arousal, and when clarified, you ignored it? Have you noticed how you never gave a clear definition of bisexuality, what related concepts you think changed and which didnt and why? Have you noticed how I referenced a fairly standard measure of sexual attraction that is said to be greatly immune to social desirability bias(!!!!!) and you seemed, somehow, completely uninterested in this? But yeah Mr professor of logic, im the "crimestop" person here, sure. Im seriously sorry for everyone who studied under you and had to suck up to you by making bad arguments to get a passing grade in your classes because you are too much of a dumbass to actually engage with complex arguments without thinking you are dealing with a basic syllogism.