*** Official *** BluffTHIS! Cyrus accusation containment thread

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Its worth pointing out to the those not in the know that the reason some are being so aggressive about cyrus is that he regularly crushed them in debate.

Most of if not all of the mud slinging and accusations constitute the archest hypocrisy and pot meet kettle.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "crushed" you mean "used tons of ten-dollar words, cleveryly constructed logical fallacies, and tons of intellectual dishonesty" then yeah, you're right. And I try not to throw the "intellectually dishonest" label around as freely as many here do.

Cyrus is a smart guy, no doubt. And he did OK in debates, but for every debate he did well in there was another one where he limped around on (very well-camouflaged) bait-and-switches.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If by "crushed" you mean "used tons of ten-dollar words, cleveryly constructed logical fallacies, and tons of intellectual dishonesty" then yeah, you're right. And I try not to throw the "intellectually dishonest" label around as freely as many here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've yet to understand the magical distinction between "intellectual dishonesty" and "non-intellectual dishonest". Corollary to that, I don't think I've ever seen a compelling argument that "intellectual dishonesty" means anything more than "I have a fundamental disagreement with this poster but I'm out of relevant objections to what they're saying and yet they continue to disagree with me, so I'm going to accuse them of intellectual dishonesty and hope the [censored] sticks".

[BluffTHIS!]

DV,

Do you see any distinction between two persons who in debate utilize a logical fallacy, perhaps a subtle one, but where one is ignorant of the fact he is so using that fallacy, and the other intentionally uses same in order to mislead?

It seems to me that in debate, we should be seeking to get at the root of our disagreements and examine same. Since two honest debaters can arrive at different conclusions, the usual cause of same is differing axioms, or perhaps unstated premises, on which the logic of the argument rests. But surely the first step in analyzing another's arguments is to see if the logical chain is valid, so as to be able to focus in on the premises and whether they are valid, far-fetched or unprovable, etc.

However if the object of debate is to "win" via any means possible in the manner of a slick lawyer or salesman, then I guess it is only the efficaciousness of the rhetoric to persuade the unthinking or unlearned that matters.

[ElliotR]

hahahahahahaha This is great!

I must confess, I started this thread because I was about to get on a flight home and wondered what would happen without my ability to respond to the inevitable BluffTHIS! excuse making. Seeing all this 11 hours worth of flying later is a rich reward indeed.

For the record, it will come as no surprise that BluffTHIS! is full of it.

As to his number 3, the notion that he and he alone knew that Mickey was Cyrus at any point is laughable.

And as to number 5, I challenge you to post evidence that I've used gimmick accounts. C'mon, BluffTHIS! Put up or shut up, buster.

[BluffTHIS!]

The "evidence" is your indignation in the past when I've posted that I believe it is in bad form/spirit to use gimmicks in this forum to make "substantive" posts (as opposed to obvious jokes). By no means conclusive but indicative nonetheless. However are you denying same?

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
The "evidence" is your indignation in the past when I've posted that I believe it is in bad form/spirit to use gimmicks in this forum to make "substantive" posts (as opposed to obvious jokes). By no means conclusive but indicative nonetheless. However are you denying same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am indeed. Moreover, I want to see the links to what you call my "indignation".