Jump to content


Comprehension: The Difference Between Reading And Hearing

print medium spoken word critical analysis

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2 replies to this topic

#1 Schera Do

Schera Do


  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 06:48 AM

Comprehension: The difference between Reading and Hearing
Some may have noticed that I refuse to use the word "say" when referring to what is posted in the forum.

Does anyone have a clue to the reason? In the asylum for the insane, who could "say?" A few examples with the word "say" or "saying" highlighted by me for convenience (Please note that I don't imply that only one user is responsible for a complete list of examples, which would overwhelm the forum.):

‚Äč(on a serious note, all you seem to do is interrupt discussions, can't you say something about the topic instead of me, for once? This isn't the "debate mike the person" forum.)


You yourself, if you are saying my posts are "low quality" are yet again trying to attack the person with an ad-hominem, implicit attack, and your comment is a bare assertion like Normans.

[Please note, tangentially, that an ad hominem would be that the poster's content is "low quality" due to the person's homely face; or that the person has foul body-odor within an argument designed to refute that person's assertions. This is more evidence the this particular person is illiterate with respect to the very named fallacies he wields as as blunt instrument. Not that I need further evidence. The question remains for the peanut gallery, Do want to be part of the solution or continue to perpetuate the problem?]

In other words, realise that just BARELY ASSERTING some codswallop isn't going to impress those readers that actually use their brains to critically analyse what you say. [emoticon removed for my own reasons]


It's easy to ask a purposefully vague, trick question then say, "nyah, nyah, na, nyah, nyaaahhh" when I don't answer it exactly how you want me to, and it suffices much more adequately, to simply look at my test scores for probability, which are good scores.

I can find such examples all day long, every day, for a month.

I will now field objects to my proposition before I give the defense of my proposition. The reason I do this should be obvious to anyone paying any attention: If I do that in advance, then there is little to discuss and I don't allow for others to "shoot themselves in the foot", a.k.a. expose their inability to think critically.

Good luck to everyone.

#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 September 2017 - 07:14 AM

I think you've misunderstood the "ad hominem", usually people commit that fallacy implicitly. They don't come out and say "mike is an X therefore we can conclude his argument is false" but they use rhetoric that represents the very same thing.


There are all types of personal attacks, in debates, which are essentially predicated on attacking the arguer rather than the argument.


Ad Hitlerum; "Hitler says cake is tasty therefore it can't be."

Ad hominem; "Mike you are a turd therefore your argument is incorrect."

Poisoning the well; "This politician can't be right in the policies he is about to expound, in the past he has cheated on his girlfriend and is clearly immoral slime, you can't listen to him, pay not attention!" (poisoning the well is basically used to poison the well before the water is drunk.)




Schera:  This is more evidence the this particular person is illiterate with respect to the very named fallacies he wields as as blunt instrument


Not really no, this topic however, is more evidence that you only seek to argue "mike". Why you have fixated on me and seem to be in love with me and want my babies, I have no idea. 




I can ad some more if you want; Ad Logicam, Ad Verecundiam, Ad Baculum, Ad Novitatem, Ad Hoc, Ad Antiquitatem, Ad Nauseam, Ad Ignorantiam, [m]Ad Veritasium. Ad water, salt and vinegar and stir for five minutes.[/m] 


OBSERVATION: Sometimes in debate I find atheist evolutionists like to claim that I don't understand a fallacy if I haven't precisely shown that the person I am arguing with stated the fallacy exactly in it's form. This is because they google the fallacy and then see how it is stated. What most people tend not to know but the supreme mega-mike does, :D is that a fallacy can still be committed implicitly. That is to say, a fallacy is still committed even if it is more subtle and the person arguing the fallacy, implicitly argues it so as to not explicitly state his real argument. This can be because the person is an adept rhetoricist.


So for example if someone said; "Real scientists use the term hydraulic", although they are not saying this; "all scientists use term X, you are a creation scientist that doesn't therefore that means you are not a genuine scientist", nevertheless they would still be implying a No True Scotsman fallacy., because they still implicitly imply that the creation scientist is not a genuine scientist because of that reason.


I would say that in most of your posts, you don't directly address content Schera, but instead you tend to try to poison-the-well by implying my arguments and writings should be ignored because I am, "illiterate". You couple this with very colourful terms, (question begging epithets.)


The readers must note, I have not stated anything about the Schera-person, and even now I feel no need to. In fact I am very entertained by Schera's desire for me to be his wife for I have never seen anyone go to such lengths to badger me like this, the lad surely has the hots for me!



#3 Bonedigger


    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 08 September 2017 - 07:40 AM

That's enough of this nonsense. Shera Do, if you are determined to become a problem member, you will be treated like one. Bye bye.  :bananawave:

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: print medium, spoken word, critical analysis

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users