Unlike you, I'm quite good at quoting stuff.
Note that the questions and statements I'm responding to are numbered and colored blue.
Interesting. You're choosing which points you respond too... This becomes important later.
[3] Wrong. I admit to not insulting Griffionday's playstyle and to insulting him personally, no to the use of Ad Homenem.
Whether you realize it or not, you were using Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is simply degrading the integrity of another man in order to degrade their case. Calling another person a "lying piece of crap" and telling them to "grow some balls" falls into this plane.
Oh, I understand now. You actually don't care whether I refuted his points or not. All you care about is that I insulted someone. By your arguments, any time anyone insults anyone, it is qualified under Ad Hominem. Well Birdy, guess what? WE ARE REAL PEOPLE. We have feelings. We can insult people if we want. For reference, look at the clearly derisive tones and insults Gun shot my way while he pushed inane case. HE turned out to be town.
[4]Perhaps you should read the post that this quote is actually referring to. I DID refute his logic.
Not that I can see.
Wait, yes you can. In your next paragraph you say that I responded to his points.
While you may have responded to his points
But let's move on
[4]Perhaps you should read the post that this quote is actually referring to. I DID refute his logic.
Most of your "refuting" was defending yourself
Which is refuting his points on me, yes.
and demanding that Griffionday make a case against you, as opposed to addressing Griffionday's point that relying too much on the past can be dangerous.
Quote the points that I failed to address. Don't just make them up or reference them without proof.
[5]As I hope you can tell by this quote, I DID RESPOND TO HIS POINTS. I also insulted him. I didn't insult him to dodge his points. Hence Ad Hominem doesn't apply.
While you may have responded to his points, it was not in a manner that contributed to meaningful dialogue.
Define a meaningful dialogue.
Demonstrate how the dialogue Griffionday and I had was not meaningful.
Why does whether or not it contributes to a meaningful dialogue make me scummy?
Particularly, Griffionday prodded you on not looking for the "easy" lynches. I don't classify that as a proper response.
Griffionday neither made a valid point, asked a question, or raised anything other then a vague accusation addressed to me. So, yes I chose to prod him into making something that I actually could respond to.
Perhaps you disagree with my "easy" lynches. Do you disagree with the "easy" lynch of IG?
[6]And that's not the argument that I made.
That was a mannerism of speech on my end regarding Ad Hominem. The infusion of sarcasm and insults into responses infringes upon the validity of the argument.
Do you disagree with the validity of my argument?
[7]I did disagree with Griffionday, and I did PRESENT A COUNTER ARGUMENT.
One tainted with Ad Hominem.
In this statement you implicitly express agreement that I did make a counter argument. This goes against what you said earlier.
I hate to tell Griffin, but "You're wrong, because you're stupid." is not an acceptable counterargument when you are trying refute someone under any circumstances.
If disagree with someone, present a counter argument. The resulting conflict has far more value than if you were to simply insult another player and call it a day.
In both of these quotes you imply that what I didn't present counter-arguments, and now you're saying that I did, but that they also included Ad Hominem. Which is it?
[8]I didn't cite WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument. It WASN'T an argument. It was a possible explanation for my actions, which is heavily affected by WIFOM. If he had actually made an argument out of that point I would of refuted it. Since he didn't, I merely pointed out the WIFOM involved.
Perhaps it wasn't an argument yet. But that doesn't change the fact you still hand waved the idea as WIFOM. You didn't want to address the idea.
You agree that it wasn't an argument, but you still maintain that it's scummy to not address the sentence that wasn't an argument.
It's true, I did state WIFOM. But guess what, IT IS.
[9]How?
I'll answer your one word question with another question that should answer your question.
Urist McPlayer is playing Mafia at LYLO. Near the end of the day, he is the lynch target and is flailing wildly and begging not to be killed. The other Townie now has to decide whether he's telling the truth based on his antics, and the antics of the other player, Urist McShifty, who has been lurking for most of the game until this very last day.
Who is the scum?
You gave one specific example that qualifies as WIFOM. Congratulations. Now answer the actual question. How does WIFOM apply every time you make a character judgement? How does WIFOM apply every time you determine who's scum?
[11]Wrong. I read it exactly as he stated it.
No you haven't. Beyond the words, "WIFOM like none other", I don't see you reading anything.
There's nothing I can say to respond to this. You're arguing with me about whether I read something or not. Stop it.
What he's done, is that he ignored the argument because he knew he couldn't defend against it.
In this quote you state that it WAS an argument. You also stated that I couldn't defend against this argument, and this is why I threw WIFOM at it. Now you still maintain that it was scummy to say WIFOM, despite admitting that there wasn't actually an argument.
In fact, you blatantly ignored this whole paragraph of my response.
All I see is total speculation. I don't see an accusation in here. If I did, I would of refuted it. But perhaps I missed it. Please state what supposed accusation is in this sentence that you want me to answer. From your point of view, this would be a great opportunity. The majority of your case involves me avoiding this point because I couldn't adequately respond to this accusation. So the next logical step for you is to TELL ME the accusation and see if I can respond to it.
And failed to tell me what accusation he was making. The fact that you failed to do so is scummy. It was obviously the next step in your case to see if your reasoning was correct. If I avoided the accusation, that means I avoided it for a reason. By your own statement, "I knew I couldn't defend it." Despite this being a majority of your case, you have yet to press on the particular point that would PROVE OR DISPROVE your case, EVEN after you were prompted to do so. Town has incentive to truly find out if their case makes sense and is correct. Scum have to push cases they fabricate. They have great incentive for their cases to appear strong, and as such avoid trying to prove or disprove them, as they will inevitably be disproved.
This blatant evasion of disproving your own case is now why I think your are scum,
Birdy.
Author
Topic: BM XLII - Game Over: Mafia Win! (Read 76267 times)