|
Post by geode on Sept 2, 2018 11:20:26 GMT
I don't think there's a net benefit. At least in Christianity, the idea that one is saved and that your name is in "the book" often leads to careless, negligent behavior like that of a spoiled overprivileged rich child that knows its parents will always back them up regardless of how they behave. I hope you know that idea is not universally subscribed to in Christianity. I don't subscribe to it, and there are others. Don't know how many, but they exist. Anybody that follows the actual teachings of Jesus rather than men's interpretation of what Christianity means will agree with you about this.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 2, 2018 8:44:18 GMT
Most call-out threads are basically ad hominem attacks. As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults. Not being able to "hold one's own" in a discussion can be due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of intelligence, or both a lack of knowledge and intelligence. Yes, there are people who are intelligent who have taken using insults to an art form showing great wit when making them. Of course Don Rickles comes to mind, but also Oscar Wilde, Oscar Levant, Dorothy Parker, Winston Churchill and others. These all were very intelligent people. But have we really seen people possessing their intelligence and fine-tuned wit starting call-out threads here? I don't remember seeing evidence of this, and if anything those starting them here are generally exposing their limited cognitive abilities. Is this aimed at one particular person on this board? There was a thread "All Christians Should Die" (now strangely vanished) and if it was still around I would ask if it was aimed at one particular person on this board. Would the answer be, "No, it is just aimed at Christians?" This thread is aimed at anyone who starts a call-out thread. I posted something similar a couple of times on the old IMDb board. Was I reminded of how inappropriate I thought call-out threads by a couple that were present when I posted this? I think that this is probably true.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 1, 2018 18:53:32 GMT
Frank Drebin: It took me two weeks to find Stella's apartment...she had neglected to give me her address. At the 14:50 mark:
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 1, 2018 8:32:04 GMT
I agree that they both were bad (did you see any of them?) and they do not have a cult status, but I think most of the ones you have listed also lack such status. I have not seen any except Spiderman so i don't know if they were any good. Yes I have watched episodes of both Captain Nice and Mister Terrific. Spider-Man is not good. Here is another superhero tv show that has a cult status and *is* very good. The Flash. www.imdb.com/title/tt0098798/?ref_=nv_sr_3Is "The Flash" short-lived?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 1, 2018 5:41:51 GMT
The first part of the sentence is accurate; the second part is where you went off the rails a bit. Dismissing an argument (for any reason) is not an ad hominem, it’s just dismissing an argument. If your only basis for dismissing the argument is that you find something objecionable about the person who made the argument, then it's an ad hominem. I'll give an example of an ad hominem. A: Richard Wagner was a great composer. B: Well, you also believe the Earth is flat, so you are off the rocker. Therefore Richard Wagner was a shitty composer. B is making an Ad Hominem. If person A is Adolf Hitler, and instead of Flat Earth we condemn Hitler for his politics, then the argument also becomes the type of ad hominem known as "Reductio ad Hitlerum". You literally just contradicting your previous argument. I did? My previous argument was that an ad hominem is when you attack the person and not the argument. If someone insults me, and I reply with "You're stupid, therefore I don't care", how is this not attacking the insulter? It's stooping to the insulter's level by using an ad hominem; but trying to rationally debunk the insults with facts, evidence and logical reasoning could be casting pearls before swine, and a waste of time. Here, you are acknowledging that what I stated the first time (that he is in fact using an ad hominem) is indeed correct. I don't know what argument you are talking about; and I don't know if I care. I’m not interested in what you or geode thinks anyone else “deserves” because what who deserves is subjective and frankly wasn’t what I addressed. I only addressed the hypocrisy and irony of using an ad hominem attack in his condemnation of ad homonim attacks. Whether you think it’s deserved or not is an entirely separate discussion. I still don't know what ad hominem geode supposedly did. I of course did not use an ad hominem in what I wrote. Anybody who claims I did does not understand the definition of what this entails.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 1, 2018 5:35:39 GMT
Interesting but irrelevent to the discussion I last rendered, as I have not relied upon a rule to make my point, but have instead offered an observation that I and many others have seen in conversations, whether they have been on message boards or elsewhere. As I already mentioned, I tend to address the board rather than particular individuals. I think my comment is relevant to the general topic. I have found that the people who cite "logical fallacies" in these amateur settings are usually the ones whose reasoning is flawed. And perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you mean that citing an ad hominem is an ad hominem in itself? In a rather round about way I suppose you could say that. I said your comments were irrelevant to what I had last written, to which you were apparently making a reply. You can make all the comments you wish about a general topic.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 31, 2018 12:55:48 GMT
I agree completely that most call-out threads are cries for attention even more often than just attempted insults. I guess I have not been the only regular to step away from this board? The problems you have identified are a large part of the reason I left. Yeah, although we've always had shit-posters to one degree or other, even on the old IMDB. Another part of it was a simple decline in people who actually discussed religion or spiritual stuff. Yes, the off-topic content became far too prevelent even if Fleetspam is excluded.
|
|
|
Fleet
Aug 31, 2018 12:52:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by geode on Aug 31, 2018 12:52:19 GMT
I still think this is a good idea. Let him have his own board. If I had his ego and you had offered this to me I would have jumped at the chance. "Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see..." LOLOLOL my irony meter just catapulted itself onto the surface of jupiter and refuses to come back until the remnants of religiously-tooled thinking have been wiped off the planet. And why did this happen?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 31, 2018 12:48:54 GMT
The U.S. releases a lot of movies, so they will have a lot of winners....but also a lot of trashBut that would apply to every single country who make movies? So not a good argument. Yes, every country has releases that are poor. But I think my argument, if in fact I was making one, to be excellent. I was only making a statement about judging a country's output on a percentage basis rather than just the quantity of superior productions. The United States releases many more movies than virtually any other country except India. As such it has an advantage in terms of quantity over countries with much smaller industries that may actually consistently make a higher percentage of superior movies. So it may be valid to consider them better than the U.S. from this point of view.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 12:52:20 GMT
I simply said that those who understand logical fallacies generally believe that those who make ad hominem comments have little or nothing left to say but insults. This is a true statement in my opinion. I was not saying that the use of logical fallacies in and of itself meant somebody had lost an argument. One can litter an argument with ad homs and still be making valid points. There are people with great intelligence that use ad homs to great effect. But generally insults are used by people with average intelligence or lower intelligence due to a lack of anything left to say that comes from being informed and able to contribute meaningful comments. "Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument." Lost Arguments Most of the time on these boards I tend to address the whole board, not just the person to whom I reply. That however is not how most people do it. They are not addressing the "public" they are addressing the individual and in that case there can be (I didn't say always is) a good and logical reason to address the problem the individual has in relation to the topic. It can help them understand why they keep making the same wrong move. In a recent prolonged exchange over what the "appeal to nature fallacy" actually meant, I had considerable difficulty explaining that nature already has informed public policy and will continue to do so quite logically, citing several examples. The problem is with amateurs who do not understand the rules and yet depend on them to claim a victory. On these boards it is usually the person calling a rule who is failing logic, not the other way around. I recommend that you (generally, not you, geode especially) do not depend on rules for your victories, at least not until you understand how complicated they really can get. No one has yet argued that the examples I cited should not be decided because nature dictated. That is in fact the good reason they were decided. Interesting but irrelevent to the discussion I last rendered, as I have not relied upon a rule to make my point, but have instead offered an observation that I and many others have seen in conversations, whether they have been on message boards or elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 9:35:11 GMT
I had an experience feeling uncomfortable eating a kind of meat many years ago. I was sitting next to my Jewish friend Mark. Pork chops were the special that evening, but I chose something else in deference to the religious beliefs of my friend. He was the next to order and went for the pork chop.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 9:28:10 GMT
I thought I was the only person on the planet who hated this movie. I gave it two chances and that was it. I think Meryl Streep is tremendous in just about anything, but this one was a misfire. It remains the only performance by Meryl Streep that I dislike.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 9:03:00 GMT
Admin
Let him have his own board. Why not as he routinely occupies 75% to 50% of every page.
thefleetsin? What do you think of that idea? I still think this is a good idea. Let him have his own board. If I had his ego and you had offered this to me I would have jumped at the chance.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 6:48:46 GMT
As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults. Fallacies do not imply that someone has lost an argument or that whatever the person is claiming is false or wrong. The idea of fallacies is simply that they do not amount to valid arguments (validity being defined as the impossibility of premises being true and conclusions false; with a fallacy, it's possible for premises to be true while the conclusion is false, hence we do not have a valid argument by definition). So, if for example part of our argument for the Earth not being flat is that the vast majority of people say that the Earth isn't flat, we're committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy even though our claim that the Earth isn't flat is true. So committing a fallacy doesn't imply that the person's claim isn't true. It's just that it's not true for the reasons that they're arguing. It's true for other reasons. I simply said that those who understand logical fallacies generally believe that those who make ad hominem comments have little or nothing left to say but insults. This is a true statement in my opinion. I was not saying that the use of logical fallacies in and of itself meant somebody had lost an argument. One can litter an argument with ad homs and still be making valid points. There are people with great intelligence that use ad homs to great effect. But generally insults are used by people with average intelligence or lower intelligence due to a lack of anything left to say that comes from being informed and able to contribute meaningful comments. "Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument." Lost Arguments
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 6:38:13 GMT
Most call-out threads are basically ad hominem attacks. As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults. I've found most of them to be simple cries for attention. (Not discounting them also being attacks.) When I stepped away from this forum it was pretty much 80% Youtube links, Fleetsin spam, and callout shitposts. Checked back in today: Fleetspam is 45% of the whole first page content, the Youtube links are now Maya complaining about no one caring about her Youtube links, but at least there seem to be less callouts. So... that's good, I guess? I agree completely that most call-out threads are cries for attention even more often than just attempted insults. I guess I have not been the only regular to step away from this board? The problems you have identified are a large part of the reason I left.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 29, 2018 6:33:39 GMT
So that would in fact include this very thread (would it not). I mean, AJ has basically confirmed that this thread is about me with some interesting if not unsubstantiated claims. Geode has conveniently gone silent on the matter, but if we take AJ’s claims at face value, that would make THIS a call-out thread by your criteria yes? I don't think so. This thread was started by geode , not Aj_June . And geode didn't name any posters from this board. Not in the subject line, not in the OP. So, not a callout thread in my opinion. Yes, you are correct. This thread is about call-out threads but is not a call-out thread in and of itself unless it is a call-out thread of call-out threads in general. I have posted on this board very little for a long time now, for a lack of much intelligent discussion. I often never visit here as several weeks have gone past. I always thought that to be considered a call-out thread that a thread needs to call somebody out. I guess one might say that my comment to the effect that some people here who start call-out threads have limited intelligence might be construed as speaking negatively about such people. If a specific individual takes my thread to be about him or her, is that person feeling that he or she is of limited intelligence?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 27, 2018 14:16:05 GMT
Why are they not accessories before the fact? Then it was premeditated murder, but more importantly, did The Giggler go down laughing? Did he?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 27, 2018 14:13:21 GMT
Once again, only films that had been subject to identification as the subject of a thread were eligible for inclusion in the poll. As was already pointed out D ark Star did not qualify for that reason. It would now as I started a thread for it. You can select up to three choices. Also, if enough "write in" votes are noted, a film can be included in the upcoming runoff poll. Favorite is all subjective from ones own personal repertoire. That is why polls that compartmentalize are really redundant and not reflective or consistent with the whole.
Listing ones favorite cult film\s would be just as effective, without a poll.
Well, that is one reason I decided to make a list for the poll from movies that had threads dedicated to them, and then a second filter that limited the list to movies with threads that had attracted the most attention. If left to my subjectivity there are a number of movies listed in the poll that would not be there. Listing without a poll would not allow the result to be quantified. It would just be a hodge podge of titles.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 27, 2018 9:31:36 GMT
Most call-out threads are basically ad hominem attacks. As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults. Not being able to "hold one's own" in a discussion can be due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of intelligence, or both a lack of knowledge and intelligence. Yes, there are people who are intelligent who have taken using insults to an art form showing great wit when making them. Of course Don Rickles comes to mind, but also Oscar Wilde, Oscar Levant, Dorothy Parker, Winston Churchill and others. These all were very intelligent people. But have we really seen people possessing their intelligence and fine-tuned wit starting call-out threads here? I don't remember seeing evidence of this, and if anything those starting them here are generally exposing their limited cognitive abilities. 100% agree with you, Geode. One more thing - people also give away their long held biases and prejudices when they create call-out threads. It portrays the person as very small minded. Sometimes people create call-out threads apparently against 6 or 7 members (even that is wrong) but you can easily catch the odd-man out out of those 6 or 7 for whom the thread is actually created. At end of the day it represents inferiority complex of the person creating the thread. Especially when the person for whom the thread is created does not even reply. The person who created the thread wants to tell the world something in such cases. But people who are aware of the history know what lies behind the curtain.
Yes, I think you are correct in what you say here. In my experience a call-out thread usually reveals more about the one starting it than the expected target. Probably they backfire most of the time. Many years ago on the old IMDb boards I was having a discussion with a guy named Castlewood about whether or not animals have souls. He considered my thoughts heretical but stopped posting in the thread in question. But he was not through. He started a callout thread on another board, one I never posted on, essentially calling me names over my position. I guess he was surprised that almost every reply disagreed with both his theological thinking as well as his approach of not only using a call-out thread, but one on a different board.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 27, 2018 7:16:06 GMT
Good film, solid performances and a couple memorable set-pieces, however I thought it kinda dragged at times. Mainly surrounding the uninteresting romance subplot. Often a film suffers from an uninteresting and uneeded subplot.
|
|