Flimflam's shtick is entry level procedural and topical debate tactics with some source mining to spice things up.
If only most of my interlocutors offered any sources of their own, they could reach that elusive entry level, eh?
In other words, flimflam typically focuses on context rather than content
Sometimes context is everything, But usually I reply point by point, unless confronted by dumb repetition, so I guess you haven't been paying too close attention to my replies.
appears to believe that throwing out the likes of fallacy titles carries weight here.
When someone argues fallaciously, that is a fail which negates their point(s), and it is perfectly reasonable to tell them and tell them why. (One of the benefits of a liberal education which includes philosophy, I suppose) Since some here do it constantly and apparently have no idea of their rhetorical failings, that it why I find myself spending time painfully pointing them out to them. The common
ad hominem, or attacking the person not what they say, common here with some types, is particularly depressing.
He rarely provides ideas of his own for critical examination that aren't copy pasted from some article that he source mined with a few key words.
When I copy and paste it is (I think) germane to the occasion. Very often it is to provide an authoritative exact definition and thus save time. In the matter of ideas I have started a number of threads on my own account. In any case criticising someone for lack, or quality of, ideas on this board, given the level of debate often seen, is just a little rich don't you think? But I am flattered you have taken so much time with my career so far, even if you didn't have the courtesy to address me personally. I shan't reply again here, as I really have no need to defend myself over this, I hope helpful, explanation. At least it is not an entire, bullying, call-out thread such as the absent Skavau enjoyed lately.
reply
share