New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

<title deleted> - Page 7  

post #91 of 260
10/6/07 at 9:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Back on topic:


No it ain't!
How about "holy cable burn-in, crap is real", then?
post #92 of 260
10/6/07 at 9:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vul Kuolun View Post
How about "holy cable burn-in, crap is real", then?
At least that makes sense!
(Well, more or less anyway)
post #93 of 260
10/6/07 at 9:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vul Kuolun View Post
"holy cable burn-in, crap is real", then?

Am I the only one not getting this?


or how about, "holy crap, cable burn-in is real" ...and we stay on topic.. "nay-sayer" you..
post #94 of 260
10/6/07 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwojciec View Post
OK, fine, but why do you need to call people names? Do you think that describing a group of people as "wild baboons" somehow makes the *claim* they are making about the reality of cable burn-in less valid? How about speaking about the claim, not about the (supposed) characteristics of the people who make it? One does not win debates by means of ad hominem attacks - ad hominem attacks are just evidence of the impotence of your arguments.

He's trying to demonstrate the character and credibility of those people and thus help others with their judgments of those posts.

Character counts for a large part of what someone says in court.

I think it's a worthwhile point to post.

Funny too.
post #95 of 260
10/6/07 at 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
He's trying to demonstrate the character and credibility of those people and thus help others with their judgments of those posts.
That is called "argumentum ad hominem"... Trying to disprove the person, not the argument. Even though it's common in the media and politics, it's still a logical fallacy.

They really should be teaching logic in schools. It's amazing at what passes as "valid debate" on the internet.

See ya
Steve
post #96 of 260
10/7/07 at 12:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
He's trying to demonstrate the character and credibility of those people and thus help others with their judgments of those posts.
What you have described is, basically, a textbook example of ad hominem. I know that can be an effective rhetorical technique - but only when people don't realize what is going on and are easily intimidated by aggression. We can either discuss arguments or call each other names. Either - or. And please don't say that calling people names is a valid form of arguing about claims, because it isn't - it is a logical fallacy.
post #97 of 260
10/7/07 at 12:15am
You misunderstand me. OK, I mis-communicated myself.

If someone has a known stance on an issue, that will be reflected in their comments, obviously. If that stance is not known, their opinions will be judged in a different light.

I'm just saying that I like to know where someone is coming from.

If they are constantly pushing one point of view with hard-headed aggression and refuse to engage in a serious debate, then it is useful for me to know that. That is the information I was trying to convey for the benefit of others.

In my opinion, argumentum ad hominem only comes into play if we are having a valid, logical debate, which, clearly is not possible with the people in question. Which is my real point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fwojciec View Post
And please don't say that calling people names is a valid form of arguing about claims, because it isn't - it is a logical fallacy.
It may have been interpreted as that, due to my poor articulation, but that is not what I was implying.

My comments were not related to the arguing of claims, but the establishment of character.
post #98 of 260
10/7/07 at 1:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
It may have been interpreted as that, due to my poor articulation, but that is not what I was implying.
The problem is, you don't know how to debate fairly. And you don't seem to understand basic logic. You're using a technique that isn't going to help your point any. This isn't meant as an insult. If you'd like a link to resources on the subject, I'd be happy to share some.

See ya
Steve
post #99 of 260
10/7/07 at 1:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
The problem is, you don't know how to debate fairly. And you don't seem to understand basic logic. You're using a technique that isn't going to help your point any. This isn't meant as an insult. If you'd like a link to resources on the subject, I'd be happy to share some.

See ya
Steve
Please do, I'm always up for some education.
post #100 of 260
10/7/07 at 2:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwojciec View Post
OK, fine, but why do you need to call people names? Do you think that describing a group of people as "wild baboons" somehow makes the *claim* they are making about the reality of cable burn-in less valid? How about speaking about the claim, not about the (supposed) characteristics of the people who make it? One does not win debates by means of ad hominem attacks - ad hominem attacks are just evidence of the impotence of your arguments.
You missed my point. I have no interest in engaging you or OverlordXenu on the validity of cable burn-in in this thread. Why would you assume that simply because you brought that discussion here I or anyone else is obliged to respond to it? The fact remains that the OP respectfully requested that you NOT bring that discussion here. The excuse you made as to what gave you the right to ignore his request indicates that you are not a respectful forum-dweller and signals to me that engaging you in a civil discussion is probably not worth my time. Thanks very much for the definition of an ad hominem argument, but I don't need it. I'm not here to discuss your topic in Asr's thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fwojciec View Post
What you have described is, basically, a textbook example of ad hominem. I know that can be an effective rhetorical technique - but only when people don't realize what is going on and are easily intimidated by aggression. We can either discuss arguments or call each other names. Either - or. And please don't say that calling people names is a valid form of arguing about claims, because it isn't - it is a logical fallacy.
I'm a little puzzled at why you're delving into this whole ad hominem thing in what appears to be a defense of OverlordXenu, who in this thread alone has made the following comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Around here, we call that placebo. This section of the forums is full of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Don't even bother with these people. They only say two things. If it doesn't sound right, it needs burn in, or my fallible ears are better than scientific equipment or processes.

...you guys sound like the mediocre artists on deviantart that cannot even take constructive criticism...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Wow, you're an a-hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
If they want to do that, they should create their own forums, so they can ... live in their own little world.
You're standing up for a poo-flinging baboon who's obviously bitter because he spent $30 on a Qables LOD and felt ripped off. Oh my goodness! $30! All cables are evil unless they cost 17 cents! Give me a break. Take a look at the poo he's flung in numerous other threads before you commit to defending this guy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
That is called "argumentum ad hominem"... Trying to disprove the person, not the argument. Even though it's common in the media and politics, it's still a logical fallacy.

They really should be teaching logic in schools. It's amazing at what passes as "valid debate" on the internet.
Couldn't agree with you more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
Only audiophools spend money on expensive wires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!
post #101 of 260
10/7/07 at 2:16am
Not sure if you had noticed that the original poster got sick of this stupid argument believers versus non beleivers (and for the sake of it, as with no new evidence there is no reason to dicuss, and there is none till now, and you will not convince the opposite side otherwise) and even deleted the post, and title of the thread...
post #102 of 260
10/7/07 at 2:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
Only audiophools spend money on expensive wires.

So everything would be right though if I bought a pair of R10's. Or bought a $5,000+ amp to compensate for the headphones..

This quote right here can go 5 trillion way.. but I will only say it once: "Each person has his own priority". If their priority is to attain and manage every ounce of performance from what they got, why stop them?

I'm not stopping "some Joe" from buying a Bentley, or a Mayback, or whatever..


I certainly wouldn't call them "auto'phools' " on the internet, or to their face..




Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!


Well, if you think about, yes. And is that a bad thing, or a good thing? I can't tell.. (maybe it's all the modding I HAVEN'T done to my brain...)


(trying to keep it friendly..)




-Nick
post #103 of 260
10/7/07 at 2:21am
This has nothing to do with believers versus non believers, I have never posted my views one way or the other.

This is about the style of debate we see played out here by some people, other peoples reactions to that, and still other people pointing out what they (we) see as inappropriate behaviour.

Like flinging poo.
post #104 of 260
10/7/07 at 2:22am
this is by far the least useful part of the forum - very little information or actual feedback from users of products. just a few individuals thread crapping to no end.
post #105 of 260
10/7/07 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
Not sure if you had noticed that the original poster got sick of this stupid argument believers versus non beleivers (and for the sake of it, as with no new evidence there is no reason to dicuss, and there is none till now, and you will not convince the opposite side otherwise) and even deleted the post, and title of the thread...

That's because if everyone read everything the OP stated, he didn't want the disbelievers in.. that this was solely for burn-in talk. Not, "oh this crap is fake" stuff around here..


I believe in it, and I practice it. 'Nuff said.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked