Jessy, do me a personal favour and don't ever complement Karmicads again. That was the longest post I've ever seen in a forum.
Hmmm... Yeah. I know I was a little windy TS. I sometime have a fair bit to say and just want to deliberate, for however long it takes to say what I need to say. New points and analogies often arise as I write. Having an attention disorder and an aversion to being misunderstood, only makes me more verbose.
Was trying to be civil, just got more name calling for my trouble.
Are you kidding me Jessy?
Really? After the best part of a whole day's writing, to detail the value of the Politics forum and to detail a far bigger picture that needs to be considered, as a lot more serious and important, than your concern about the image which business people wish to portray to their would-be victims, and not only do you falsely assert that I was denigrating you, but you also imply that was the sole message of my (what I would have considered) extremely substantive post.
I don't particularly object to juvenile insults...
Thats Funny, I thought you just did. If you had apparently demonstrated some remarkable feat of humility, by turning a blind eye, rather that taking issue, with someones 'unreasonable' criticism, or unconstructive , then I would be the first to admire the commendable restraint of your temperament. If you want to take credit for being so restrained, by gloating that you are, while at the same time, pointing out that the remarks you "don't particularly object to" were "juvenile insults", then, I regret to inform you, that you could be not be more comically ironic, if you shoot yourself in the foot, while giving a lecture on gun safety.
(Adult professionals are fair game), but it just validates and encourages a decline is substantive dialog.
What, ACTUALLY DOES encourage "a decline [in] substantive dialog", is making unreferenced accusations, that you have been insulted, indeed positing this alleged opprobrium (which you have already claimed you don't particularly object to), as if it were a deliberate, malicious, character assassination, yet you foist this contention, without addressing the comment/remark in question.
Clearly it's YOU Jessy Kang, who would rather have a substance free, declining dialog. In particular, with the shrill accusations of 'juvenile insult', you also seem to be inflaming the emotive rhetoric and trying to provoke hostility. If you were such a noble and tolerant sport, then instead of making an unsubstantiated accusation, of having been maliciously lambasted, by my allegedly 'juvenile insult', you might have instead, pointed out specifically what this insult is (by directly quoting it) and why it is you consider it so unjust and juvenile. Obviously it would be easy then, to put the issue in context and I or anybody else, could attempt a fair assessment.
I make a VERY stringent effort, I think it's fair to say, that if I am going to criticize anybody, I go to whatever length necessary, to give full disclosure of my justifications and address the issue head on. I don't care very much at all, for thoughtless derision and senseless cruelty, to debase anybody, for the sake of pushing their buttons and making them feel bad. If I had wanted to do nothing more than level a juvenile insult at you, I would think, I could have come up with a much stronger flavor of vitriol, an taken far less time, to post a detailed assessment of your proposal and why I think it's so disagreeable. If I happen to express my contempt or disapproval, then at least I care enough to be honest and even more so to show my justification.
For what it's worth, it doesn't make a tinkers damn of difference what I think about you. I have no idea why anybody considers any remark an insult unless they can furnish some measure, for why they deserve any more respect than they are being offered. In any case, playing the victim card and tolerant sage all at once, while failing to mention any specific content, is hardly prone to help address any issue, or foster any 'substantive dialog'. By such means, the dialog I already had been servicing with more than my fare share of substance, may be hijacked, by your plaint of personal offense, in effort to divert it towards one of those squabbles about the debate itself.
You see? This is the sort of divisive, reactionary tactics, that do tend to cause emotional reactions and substance free squabbles. Take a detailed constructive criticism, ignore the details in question and make an emotive appeal, to foist an accusation, that itself has explosive potential for emotive reactionary response. I won't be manipulated into petty bickering. If you don't want to play silly little mind games, and degenerate the dialog from substance, and if you think you deserve credit for being tolerant and mature, then I suggest you might resist the temptation to pander for it, by pointing out how the 'juvenile insults' you "don't particularly object to" were juvenile and insulting, thereby making it clear you DO object and returning a insult by way of name calling. By your own ironic measure, of boasting humbly about your own tolerance, I could just as easily proclaim my own virtues of restraint because 'I don't particularly object to compound hypocrisy'. But I wont do that.
Saying I'm dumb/whorish/amoral etc. is not an argument.
See... Here's where direct quotes come in very handy for the sake of honesty and transparency. Those who wish to have a constructive dialog, often quote another persons text, in order to make reference to it, so it can be seen in the context of the present reply. I would love to know what you are on about. Other than for the sake of disingenuous innuendo, I cant see why anybody might consider this relevant. If you want to address an argument that I have attempted to make, then I would be glad if you would care to point out where I have said any of these things, and why you think I expected them to be taken as an argument? If somebody says something of this sort to you, I think it would be best to conclude that it's just a straight out remark. It's not necessary to construct a syllogism, in order to express an opinion. If you want recognize an ad-hominem fallacy, then don't forget, that a remark expressing discredit or disparagement, has to have been used as a premise. If I tried to establish your argument was false, because you were amoral, then I would be resorting to ad-hom.
Ad hominem or tu quot (to the man), is an attempt to employ emotive, value added judgments against a person (or persons), rather than address the soundness or validity of their arguments. such an ad hominem is exactly what you have employed with the politics forum, by saying:
A) Libertarianism is crazy hysterical vigilante zealotry, that embarrasses the forum.
B) My business friends, are turned off by the crazy hysterical vigilante zealotry, they see in the politics forum.
C) Therefore, bitcoin will suffer if the politics forum is not taken down.
Or perhaps:
A) The Politics forum is a turn off to business people.
B) Business people are needed for bitcoin to succeed.
C) Therefore, the politics forum should be taken down.
If you wouldn't mind, please desist from attempting any further efforts at provoking divisive rhetoric, in your blatant effort, to inflame emotionally loaded venting. I have provided plenty of substance for you to consider and respond to. I appreciate being quoted thanks and not having contentious insults shoved in my mouth.
