funny stefan puppet

[dsayers]

Exactly...I feel like people are sort of bullying the guy who posted this video, just because it was poking a little fun at Stefan.

 

I don't think bullying means what you think it means. The bulk of interactions in this thread weren't about the video, so suggesting it's due to the content of the video is misguided.

[WasatchMan]

Exactly...I feel like people are sort of bullying the guy who posted this video, just because it was poking a little fun at Stefan.

 

If there was a puppet show about TZM or Peter Joseph, and it was posted here, I find it to be very likely that the only responses would be posts of laughter and "this is hilarious". People are getting overly defensive in this thread.

 

Not an argument.

[luxfelix]

So where do we go from here?

 

I'd like to propose that there is somewhat of a silver lining to the video (even if it does need some polish) in that, if it is true that all publicity is good publicity, than at least some people will have been introduced to the idea that there is some philosopher guy out on the internet named Stefan Molyneux, and of that group some will look up his videos and... voila!, the flame of philosophy lights another's candle? 

[tritonx]

Very good impression.

[prolix]

I don't think bullying means what you think it means. The bulk of interactions in this thread weren't about the video, so suggesting it's due to the content of the video is misguided.

He didn't "suggest" anything of the sort. He was telling you how he felt very clearly. Not very empathetic to just put words in peoples mouths at the expense of what they are clearly telling you they feel. You are calling into question his understanding of a basic thing without any clarification, so it is a veiled insult. Again, not very nice, not very empathetic guy. They were barbs at the poster, you are right, the majority of the posts were not about the video, they were bullying the poster. It is all there to read...

[Jamiroquai]

Not an argument.

 

Ever heard of the fallacy fallacy?

 

I'd rather you address what I posted rather than resort to this level of pedantry.

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

Ever heard of the fallacy fallacy?

 

I'd rather you address what I posted rather than resort to this level of pedantry.

I think you might be making a couple logical errors here. Let me know if this makes sense.

 

First, you are suggesting that he's resorting to the "fallacy fallacy" which says basically that you can't reject a claim simply because the argument in it's favor is fallacious. Which is actually not what he said. All he said was "not an argument" which is itself not an argument. "Fallacy" refers to arguments and not the conclusions of argument or claims made without argument. So, actually, he's not committing this fallacy. (Accidentally right is not right at all).

 

Here's the logical form a "fallacy fallacy" takes:

p1) Claims that result from erroneous reasoning must be false

p2) Your argument contains errors

C1) Your claim must be false

 

Fallacies are logical forms which describe conclusions which do not follow from an argument's premises (or factual errors). The claim "this is not an argument" is does not contain any logic in it to be valid, invalid or fallacious.

 

p1) Fallacies describe the form of an argument

p2) Arguments are premises that demonstrate a conclusion logically

p3) "Not an argument" is a claim and not an argument

C1) Wasatch's claim is contains no fallacies

 

Second, pedantry describes trivial and useless distinctions that don't actually address the core of an argument but just dance around it. But if it's true that what you wrote was not actually an argument, then it's not pedantic (at least if we operate from that definition). You can think of it as being akin to the saying "claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence".

 

It's the reason that putting the burden of proof on atheists makes no sense logically. We have to know what the actual arguments are first. Without argument and clear definitions, there is no goalpost. If you simply assert that god exists, then you extend me the right to make claims without evidence: god does not exist, and you can't take exception to my assertion without being a hypocrite.

 

Third, this is a philosophy forum. Methodology is actually really important. If you cannot demonstrate your conclusions rationally, then it's not really about philosophy, but about something else, right? So, what is it about then?

 

p1) Pedantry is making unimportant distinctions that don't make the point or counter it

p2) Whether or not Wasatch's comment is a fallacy fallacy or not does not bear on the veracity of your point or his

C1) It is pedantic to point out that Wasatch committed the fallacy fallacy

p3) It is your claim that people are being overly defensive

p4) When you say mean-spirited things to other members on the forums, this is an example of defensiveness

p5) It is mean spirited to say "I'd rather you address what I posted rather than resort to this level of pedantry"

C2) You are yourself being defensive

p6) It is projection, a defense mechanism in the form of a reality distortion when you take things you consider negative about yourself and disown them by attributing them to other people.

p7) You have been pedantic when accusing someone else of pedantry and defensive when accusing others of defensiveness

C3) You are projecting your own negative qualities on other people

 

I apologize if I've missed something important. Obviously it's not a nice conclusion and it would be embarrassing to get something like that wrong.

 

*UPDATE*

If we accept the premise that pedantry must be a response to an argument in order to be pedantry, then my last argument (C1) doesn't work since Jamiroquai's claim is not an argument. So logically I must concede my argument in the second point, or the 10 part argument at the end. I should have caught that when my definition of "pedantry" changed in premise 1.

 

In this case I concede the argument in the second point since I don't think it necessarily has to be an argument that something is pedantic in response to.

[James Dean]

it has nothing to do with people personaly attacking Stef as that happens all the time and we generally ignore it. it's making light of people who have experienced trauma from spanking or neglect which a lot of people have on this forum and it is unempathetic to present that material to people who have survived that trauma as if it were a laughing matter.

 

 

holocaust jokes might be funny to you, but you shouldn't tell them to a concentration camp survivor.

 

does that make sense?

I think you might be making a couple logical errors here. Let me know if this makes sense.

 

First, you are suggesting that he's resorting to the "fallacy fallacy" which says basically that you can't reject a claim simply because the argument in it's favor is fallacious. Which is actually not what he said. All he said was "not an argument" which is itself not an argument. "Fallacy" refers to arguments and not the conclusions of argument or claims made without argument. So, actually, he's not committing this fallacy. (Accidentally right is not right at all).

 

Here's the logical form a "fallacy fallacy" takes:

p1) Claims that result from erroneous reasoning must be false

p2) Your argument contains errors

C1) Your claim must be false

 

Fallacies are logical forms which describe conclusions which do not follow from an argument's premises (or factual errors). The claim "this is not an argument" is does not contain any logic in it to be valid, invalid or fallacious.

 

p1) Fallacies describe the form of an argument

p2) Arguments are premises that demonstrate a conclusion logically

p3) "Not an argument" is a claim and not an argument

C1) Wasatch's claim is contains no fallacies

 

Second, pedantry describes trivial and useless distinctions that don't actually address the core of an argument but just dance around it. But if it's true that what you wrote was not actually an argument, then it's not pedantic (at least if we operate from that definition). You can think of it as being akin to the saying "claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence".

 

It's the reason that putting the burden of proof on atheists makes no sense logically. We have to know what the actual arguments are first. Without argument and clear definitions, there is no goalpost. If you simply assert that god exists, then you extend me the right to make claims without evidence: god does not exist, and you can't take exception to my assertion without being a hypocrite.

 

Third, this is a philosophy forum. Methodology is actually really important. If you cannot demonstrate your conclusions rationally, then it's not really about philosophy, but about something else, right? So, what is it about then?

 

p1) Pedantry is making unimportant distinctions that don't make the point or counter it

p2) Whether or not Wasatch's comment is a fallacy fallacy or not does not bear on the veracity of your point or his

C1) It is pedantic to point out that Wasatch committed the fallacy fallacy

p3) It is your claim that people are being overly defensive

p4) When you say mean-spirited things to other members on the forums, this is an example of defensiveness

p5) It is mean spirited to say "I'd rather you address what I posted rather than resort to this level of pedantry"

C2) You are yourself being defensive

p6) It is projection, a defense mechanism in the form of a reality distortion when you take things you consider negative about yourself and disown them by attributing them to other people.

p7) You have been pedantic when accusing someone else of pedantry and defensive when accusing others of defensiveness

C3) You are projecting your own negative qualities on other people

 

I apologize if I've missed something important. Obviously it's not a nice conclusion and it would be embarrassing to get something like that wrong.

 

*UPDATE*

If we accept the premise that pedantry must be a response to an argument in order to be pedantry, then my last argument (C1) doesn't work since Jamiroquai's claim is not an argument. So logically I must concede my argument in the second point, or the 10 part argument at the end. I should have caught that when my definition of "pedantry" changed in premise 1.

 

In this case I concede the argument in the second point since I don't think it necessarily has to be an argument that something is pedantic in response to.

*thunderous applause*

[Kevin Beal]

*thunderous applause*

Haha. Thanks!

 

I wish I could upvote my own post...

[Kevin Beal]

I'm sorry for wishing I could upvote my own post...

 

I see now that this is bad.

[Kevin Beal]

I guess I've made myself an enemy, hiding in the shadows downvoting my posts. How exciting

[shirgall]

I'm sorry for wishing I could upvote my own post...

 

I see now that this is bad.

 

This is actually the reddit model. All posts start with one upvote from yourself.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Do you have a link?

It's in the comments of the video.

[MMX2010]

It's in the comments of the video.

 

Yup, just read the relevant comments myself. 

 

If "schlockofgod" is reading this, thanks for your YouTube comments to LifeGoesOnBrah. 

[prolix]

Video was funny. Not to all, but it was funny. It was an artistic expression. Not to leave well enough alone. A lot of posters couldn't just say it was not funny. They had to attack the guy who posted it. Super disappointing...

[Jot]

Video was funny. Not to all, but it was funny. It was an artistic expression. Not to leave well enough alone. A lot of posters couldn't just say it was not funny. They had to attack the guy who posted it. Super disappointing...

Are you saying "Super disappointing" on every comment on purpose?

[Kevin Beal]

Video was funny. Not to all, but it was funny. It was an artistic expression. Not to leave well enough alone. A lot of posters couldn't just say it was not funny. They had to attack the guy who posted it. Super disappointing...

This is a very antagonizing statement. As have most of your posts in this thread. Like you're lashing out.

 

Do you need to revisit your own disappointment over and over again until it gets resolved somehow? Until everyone apologizes and says the video is indeed benign? Until you are appreciated for sticking in there and letting everyone know how defensive they are? Until your self sacrifice of getting all those downvotes is appreciated?

 

Seriously, what are you looking for?

 

There are more healthy ways of dealing with disappointment.

 

Also, if you're the one downvoting benign replies in this thread simply because they belong to people who've said things you really didn't like, then that is petty in exactly the same respect you are accusing others of. And reactive and defensive in exactly the respect you accuse others of.

 

It's often a trap when you accuse others of things because you might grant yourself permission to do those things in retaliation, but that's just a confession of your own self loathing when you do that. How much you hate the people you openly condemn is just you talking about yourself.

[MMX2010]

 

There are more healthy ways of dealing with disappointment.

 

At bare minimum, I hope prolix would follow the comments that LifeGoesOnBrah made on to YouTube video, particularly a facebook link that should NOT be posted on this message board.  Then he can say that he was wrong, and we were right.

 

Better would be if he could also ask how we knew the OP wasn't posting in good faith, so he can learn something about himself and us.

 

Best would be to figure out the childhood elements that led him to defend the OP so strongly. 

[prolix]

Are you saying "Super disappointing" on every comment on purpose?

Well that is how I feel. Is that ok with you? Is this a safe place?

This is a very antagonizing statement. As have most of your posts in this thread. Like you're lashing out.

 

Do you need to revisit your own disappointment over and over again until it gets resolved somehow? Until everyone apologizes and says the video is indeed benign? Until you are appreciated for sticking in there and letting everyone know how defensive they are? Until your self sacrifice of getting all those downvotes is appreciated?

 

Seriously, what are you looking for?

 

There are more healthy ways of dealing with disappointment.

 

Also, if you're the one downvoting benign replies in this thread simply because they belong to people who've said things you really didn't like, then that is petty in exactly the same respect you are accusing others of. And reactive and defensive in exactly the respect you accuse others of.

 

It's often a trap when you accuse others of things because you might grant yourself permission to do those things in retaliation, but that's just a confession of your own self loathing when you do that. How much you hate the people you openly condemn is just you talking about yourself.

Funny how you managed to not respond to the attacks that were sent to the poster. You speculated about stuff. Read way too far into stuff, but at no point did you actually address the point. The guy was attacked and called names. Again, super disappointing...

[Evan Jak]

Stefan makes fun of the callers sometimes on the call in shows, not to the extent of the "butthole" joke but people do not create a debate on those jokes.

 

I found it comical maybe some jokes were too much, you can use lighter ones like "that's not an argument" maybe you can push that and not offend people.

 

I can see where the people who didn't like it come from, one time I tried to watch Louis CK special, when he started talking about his daughter I had to stop right there it's just too painful.

 

An example:

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

Funny how you managed to not respond to the attacks that were sent to the poster. You speculated about stuff. Read way too far into stuff, but at no point did you actually address the point. The guy was attacked and called names. Again, super disappointing...

I did address it and apologized for name calling. (post #47).

 

Does that change anything? If not, then it's interesting to me that you would mention it.

 

I've changed my position and approach based on new information. You haven't.

 

What kind of a person manipulates people with passive aggressive appeals to shame like "I'm super disappointed"? Well, someone who, when they were wounded by disappointing events in their past, were humiliated for for provoking someone else's anxiety about your disappointment. And instead of dealing with it, you take it out on other people by occupying simultaneously the disappointed child and the cruel caregiver who humiliated you. You have to distort reality by projecting to avoid your own trauma. Unfortunately, you want to tear down everybody else for triggering this complex, and so I don't feel sympathy, but resentment.

 

But my understanding of psychology is obviously amatuer. Somebody who knows better is absolutely welcome to correct me.

 

We can falsify my claim by learning how your disappointment was handled when you were young and if you were treated with lots of respect, your preferences honored and invited and all of that. I could be wrong for sure. Let me know if I am.

[prolix]

1. I did address it and apologized for name calling. (post #47).

 

2. Does that change anything? If not, then it's interesting to me that you would mention it.

 

3. I've changed my position and approach based on new information. You haven't.

 

4. What kind of a person manipulates people with passive aggressive appeals to shame like "I'm super disappointed"? Well, someone who, when they were wounded by disappointing events in their past, were humiliated for for provoking someone else's anxiety about your disappointment. And instead of dealing with it, you take it out on other people by occupying simultaneously the disappointed child and the cruel caregiver who humiliated you. You have to distort reality by projecting to avoid your own trauma. Unfortunately, you want to tear down everybody else for triggering this complex, and so I don't feel sympathy, but resentment.

 

5. But my understanding of psychology is obviously amatuer. Somebody who knows better is absolutely welcome to correct me.

 

6. We can falsify my claim by learning how your disappointment was handled when you were young and if you were treated with lots of respect, your preferences honored and invited and all of that. I could be wrong for sure. Let me know if I am.

1. Yes, you did. and I can appreciate that. but I was referring to my post that you were responding to. That was the point of my post. So obviously that didn't apply to you. good for you, you are the minority. But you replied to my post and didn't reference the main point of my post.

 

2.Yes, that is significant. there is a change if you attack someone and then apologize and recognize it. Again, good for you being the one of two people who retracted their overt attacks.

 

3. What is my position? And why would I change it? I have yet to see a compelling argument for that.

 

4.When I tell you how I feel truthfully, and explain why, you can try and characterize it as a "shame attempt" but that is really leaving me out of the discussion and dehumanizing to me. I am not present, or I don't feel present, because I know I had no shaming intentions.. I didn't try and shame anyone for my experience. So calling it passive aggressive is just an unfounded assumption about my intentions. and that is my point here. Intentions mean something. If you go the the video creators channel, he is 100% libertarian and possibly anarchist. His intention was clearly artistic and aesthetic. not philosophical and academic. So spare me the attempting to be like stef and being an uninvited physiologist. Like many children I was not empathized with and listened to. Having grown up and perused self knowledge I am acutely aware of when I am not being empathized with. I am genuinely disappointed in this community on topics like this. I see the same posters that disappoint me here on other subjects in other threads and I am glad they post here and really respect their posts. but I must speak my mind on this issue.

 

5.Yet you tried to emulate stefan so fervently to try to characterize me 3 ways from Wednesday.

 

6. No you are not wrong, in the sense that, yes, our childhoods are where our adult dysfunction stems from. I get it. ButI have been in therapy and look forward to more and relish in self-knowledge that is derived from FDR and therapy. But what you have to understand is this. I am a comic and a musician and a life long artist. That is what is really being triggered. People that do not understand art and the artistic process bring a lot of unnecessary grief upon those that do. So maybe, probably, definitely, I am triggered by that.

 

Likewise. I had, and still have, very high expectations of this community. I barely agree with the OP in how he handled himself. 

And had the rest of the community not responded so negatively and poorly, I would have joined in guiding him towards more self knowledge. But I had to defend him, I just had to. I take full responsibility for my high expectations, maybe unrealistically high, I take responsibility for them as best I can.

 

I stand by every post I made in this thread and honestly do not feel compelled by counterpoints and criticisms of my posts. I explained why I felt like that every step of the way. I just ask that aspects of this community assess the way they converse with those they disagree with. Name calling and digging into that someone "seems" to be saying is the kind of stuff I get from statists all the time, so I recognize it when I see it. and yes, possibly ignore it when I do it, it happens. And I think it happened here a lot by many posters simply because of minor disagreements. I mean, this is the most trivial topic I can think of, a comedy video, and that is my point. I defend FDR and drive people here all the time because this is the kind of place that has a strong emphasis on effective communication. And mostly that is what this board provides. But there is an aspect of "echo chamber" effect where slight dissent, devils advocate, and personal preference are treated like full blown statism. A sort of "keeping score" team mentality arises, even in the very place where it is the least likely by design like here, no matter how hard we try. People get invested and things get personal.

 

Now you are going at it in a healthy way. You are making it personal from first principles and modern psychology. But to do that amateur and with "score keeping" personal intentions and motivations is not up to the expectations and guidelines of this community. I do feel that this happened here and I explained honestly how I came to that feeling...

[Kevin Beal]

Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough response. I'll have to think some more on it.

[prolix]

Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough response. I'll have to think some more on it.

You are the first person to say that to me here, ever...

[MMX2010]

But what you have to understand is this. I am a comic and a musician and a life long artist. That is what is really being triggered. People that do not understand art and the artistic process bring a lot of unnecessary grief upon those that do. So maybe, probably, definitely, I am triggered by that.

 

Likewise. I had, and still have, very high expectations of this community. I barely agree with the OP in how he handled himself. 

And had the rest of the community not responded so negatively and poorly, I would have joined in guiding him towards more self knowledge. But I had to defend him, I just had to. I take full responsibility for my high expectations, maybe unrealistically high, I take responsibility for them as best I can.

 

I've three things to say in response to this.

 

(1) You never told us that you were a life-long comic and artist.  (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)  If you had, you would've gotten more empathy (from me at least....can't speak for the board). 

 

(2) BrentB made a similar argument to WastachMan, "A comedian writing a joke or a sketch is not likely to be passive aggressive. People who are trying to make people laugh are typically doing just that - trying to make people laugh. They're not trying to change you the way that someone in your life might. Their incentive is in getting laughs and feeling accepted and valued by people, not messing with stranger's heads."

 

(3) I didn't like BrentB's argument, because I think it should only apply to established / talented comedians and artists, not to amateurs who're just starting out.  And when I click on Cartanimation's video list, I see only five videos - over one year - and not many followers/subscribers. 

 

It's certainly possible that he'll become a sensation, and I'll look foolish when someone adds my post to his facebook wall - but until then, I feel perfectly comfortable with my assumption that both the video-creator and the OP were trolls. 

[Wuzzums]

Stefan makes fun of the callers sometimes on the call in shows, not to the extent of the "butthole" joke but people do not create a debate on those jokes.

 

I found it comical maybe some jokes were too much, you can use lighter ones like "that's not an argument" maybe you can push that and not offend people.

 

I can see where the people who didn't like it come from, one time I tried to watch Louis CK special, when he started talking about his daughter I had to stop right there it's just too painful.

 

An example:

 

 

The Louis CK clip is very interesting. It's back when he was still married. He got divorced and said he couldn't be happier now, he also has shared custody with his kids. His newest material is A LOT more positive, especially towards kids:

 

Even in his tv show "Louie", there is a lot of stuff about peaceful parenting.

[prolix]

 

 

 

(1) You never told us that you were a life-long comic and artist.  (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)  If you had, you would've gotten more empathy (from me at least....can't speak for the board). 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you would withhold empathy in regards to my personal situation. Can you clarify why that makes much of a difference? Why would you not be "more empathetic" simply because you didn't have this one piece of information? Your statements after regarding how you would treat a struggling artist different than a successful artist only pile on the confusion for me...

 

It's certainly possible that he'll become a sensation, and I'll look foolish when someone adds my post to his facebook wall - but until then, I feel perfectly comfortable with my assumption that both the video-creator and the OP were trolls. 

Ok, if you want to make personal assumptions about people, fine. But I think that is contrary to logic and reason. Where is the evidence and the logic of it, IO see it not, I see however that you are pretty comfortable making negative assumptions about people despite what they have presented you. I personally do not think this is the board for that and I do not think it is productive or empathetic...

[MysterionMuffles]

YEAH wow! I really hated that 4 year olds are Nazis bit, but the second video is AWESOME!

The ending kinda troubled me though, sounds like he was normalizing his experiences. But I'm glad he's at least not hitting his kids.

[MMX2010]

I don't understand why you would withhold empathy in regards to my personal situation. Can you clarify why that makes much of a difference? Why would you not be "more empathetic" simply because you didn't have this one piece of information? Your statements after regarding how you would treat a struggling artist different than a successful artist only pile on the confusion for me......

 

It's not true that there are only two types of "artists" - "struggling" and "successful". 

 

 

 

Ok, if you want to make personal assumptions about people, fine. But I think that is contrary to logic and reason. Where is the evidence and the logic of it, IO see it not, I see however that you are pretty comfortable making negative assumptions about people despite what they have presented you. I personally do not think this is the board for that and I do not think it is productive or empathetic.

 

Which "people" are you talking about? 

[Leevan]

That is a bag. Bags can't talk.

[Jamiroquai]

 

I think you might be making a couple logical errors here. Let me know if this makes sense.

 

First, you are suggesting that he's resorting to the "fallacy fallacy" which says basically that you can't reject a claim simply because the argument in it's favor is fallacious. Which is actually not what he said. All he said was "not an argument" which is itself not an argument. "Fallacy" refers to arguments and not the conclusions of argument or claims made without argument. So, actually, he's not committing this fallacy. (Accidentally right is not right at all).

 

Here's the logical form a "fallacy fallacy" takes:

p1) Claims that result from erroneous reasoning must be false

p2) Your argument contains errors

C1) Your claim must be false

 

Fallacies are logical forms which describe conclusions which do not follow from an argument's premises (or factual errors). The claim "this is not an argument" is does not contain any logic in it to be valid, invalid or fallacious.

 

p1) Fallacies describe the form of an argument

p2) Arguments are premises that demonstrate a conclusion logically

p3) "Not an argument" is a claim and not an argument

C1) Wasatch's claim is contains no fallacies

 

Second, pedantry describes trivial and useless distinctions that don't actually address the core of an argument but just dance around it. But if it's true that what you wrote was not actually an argument, then it's not pedantic (at least if we operate from that definition). You can think of it as being akin to the saying "claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence".

 

It's the reason that putting the burden of proof on atheists makes no sense logically. We have to know what the actual arguments are first. Without argument and clear definitions, there is no goalpost. If you simply assert that god exists, then you extend me the right to make claims without evidence: god does not exist, and you can't take exception to my assertion without being a hypocrite.

 

Third, this is a philosophy forum. Methodology is actually really important. If you cannot demonstrate your conclusions rationally, then it's not really about philosophy, but about something else, right? So, what is it about then?

 

p1) Pedantry is making unimportant distinctions that don't make the point or counter it

p2) Whether or not Wasatch's comment is a fallacy fallacy or not does not bear on the veracity of your point or his

C1) It is pedantic to point out that Wasatch committed the fallacy fallacy

p3) It is your claim that people are being overly defensive

p4) When you say mean-spirited things to other members on the forums, this is an example of defensiveness

p5) It is mean spirited to say "I'd rather you address what I posted rather than resort to this level of pedantry"

C2) You are yourself being defensive

p6) It is projection, a defense mechanism in the form of a reality distortion when you take things you consider negative about yourself and disown them by attributing them to other people.

p7) You have been pedantic when accusing someone else of pedantry and defensive when accusing others of defensiveness

C3) You are projecting your own negative qualities on other people

 

I apologize if I've missed something important. Obviously it's not a nice conclusion and it would be embarrassing to get something like that wrong.

 

*UPDATE*

If we accept the premise that pedantry must be a response to an argument in order to be pedantry, then my last argument (C1) doesn't work since Jamiroquai's claim is not an argument. So logically I must concede my argument in the second point, or the 10 part argument at the end. I should have caught that when my definition of "pedantry" changed in premise 1.

 

In this case I concede the argument in the second point since I don't think it necessarily has to be an argument that something is pedantic in response to.

 

Kevin, thank you for the detailed post. I looked over what you wrote, and I think you may be right, that I incorrectly used the fallacy fallacy. Still, I'll clarify where I was coming from: My reasoning for it was because the definition I came across was, "Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."

The reason why I thought he committed this fallacy was because the argument I was making in the initial post was that posters in this thread were taking offense to the subject of the video and not its substance: that they were subjectively criticizing the video instead of objectively criticizing it, as evidenced by some posts discussing the intentions of the OP instead of the video itself. However, because I put the qualifier "I feel" before my statement, I was met with the reply "not an argument." 

Now, while I do concede that this may not necessarily fall under the argument from fallacy fallacy, I still stand by the position that WasatchMan was being pedantic, in that he made no attempt to actually address what I posted, but instead said my post was "not an argument", though what I actually meant in my post is stated quite clearly. This is an internet forum, one where posting one's feelings are encouraged (a la RTR), and that in conjunction with the fact that he did not point out any other members' posts which fall under "not an argument" led me to the conclusion that he was being pedantic.

 

It could also be true that WasatchMan was referring to something else in my post, but with such a short response with no explanation, I chose the obvious and only mistake I see in what I originally said. This is one of the reasons why I find "not an argument" particularly irksome, because it [in my experience] isn't very productive or useful in helping correct the mistakes the arguer is making, but instead it just comes off as snarky, at least when it is not accompanied by any sort of explanation whatsoever. Stefan's words from the "Monkey Steals a Peach" video come to mind, "Give me something specific, give me something that I can use, give me something that can help to correct my perspective."

Again, thank you for taking the time to give a detailed response, Kevin. 

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

Now, while I do concede that this may not necessarily fall under the argument from fallacy fallacy, I still stand by the position that WasatchMan was being pedantic, in that he made no attempt to actually address what I posted, but instead said my post was "not an argument", though what I actually meant in my post is stated quite clearly. This is an internet forum, one where posting one's feelings are encouraged (a la RTR), and that in conjunction with the fact that he did not point out any other members' posts which fall under "not an argument" led me to the conclusion that he was being pedantic.

Well, either the fact that it's not an argument is important or it's not. If it is important, then his comment was not pedantic. My opinion is that it is important whether or not it's an argument. But in saying so, he's saying that if it is an argument and it is well reasoned, then he's under greater pressure to accept the conclusion. You can ask him the standard by which he'd accept the conclusion and you can argue that, or it doesn't really make sense to engage him further because he's telling you that an argument would convince him.

 

And I think you've misunderstood RTR judging by your comment. If the reasoning is something like:

 

P1: RTR is a generally accepted standard for communicating among people who frequent the boards

P2: RTR is reporting the facts of your experience (thoughts and feelings)

P3: I, Jamiroquai, have shared my conclusion consistently with RTR, using "I feel" statements

C: It should stand to reason that my communication, consistent with RTR, ought be accepted who similarly accept this standard

 

...then I would take issue with P3, since your actual statement "I feel like some people are bullying [the OP and video maker]" is not actually a feeling, it's a conclusion. Feelings are like: annoyance, apprehensive, cold, etc. (I can't find the relevant passage, but this distinctions is regarded as very important).

 

In the RTR model, it's not even justified to make conclusions based on your feelings.

 

From RTR (pg 277)

 

 

When you take the RTR approach, you simply state the facts of

your experience.

You do not make up reasons as to why you feel what you feel.

 

You simply say: “I feel X.”

You can honestly say: “I felt X after you did Y. I am not saying that Y

caused my feeling, I am simply saying that my feeling followed Y.”

This is the truth. It could be that your feeling was triggered by a situation

that just happened to be similar to a traumatic or difficult situation in

your childhood. This does not make you paranoid, just a sensitive person

with a memory. A soldier who has returned from violent combat, and

who ducks when a car backfires, is not paranoid, just painfully

conditioned. He felt fear after the car backfired, but not because the car

backfired – and we know this because other people did not feel fear

when the car backfired.

 

The backfire was thus merely a catalyst, not a cause.

 

Further, one could argue that it's manipulative to phrase conclusions as if they were feelings. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but you can't argue with feelings, but if you're presenting a conclusion that you have in the context of it being true, something other's should react to, then that is something you kinda have to argue or else it's just a conversation stopper. Using "I feel" in that context means you can always just retreat into "but, I just said that's how I feel".

 

If however, you said "I have this thought, and I can't tell you whether or not it's actually true, but the thought is that the OP is being bullied", then you could appeal to RTR, and not have to back up the claim with argument or evidence.

 

Am I making sense? I think these distinctions are important.