My Pet Peeves of Debating

I make no claim to innocence (nor admit to any guilt ), and with that said I offer up these pet peeves:

• People who offer their presumptions as truths.
  ​
• People who believe their writing is perfectly understandable and that misinterpretations are always the fault of the reader.
  ​
• People who interpret the holding of a perspective they do not share as a personal flaw.

I just want to go on record as believing that anyone possessing these flaws is evil, that if you don't understand this you're stupid, and that if you disagree you're wrong and probably have BO. --Percy

i would suggest rewording the last part of the last sentence there... you didn't quite completely defy your first point.

Oh, well, it was the best I could do at the time. Can I make up for it by violating the middle one twice: You obviously haven't contemplated my post deeply enough. --Percy

quote:

---

People who offer their presumptions as truths.

---

Typical moderator prejudice. You're obviously ignoring the facts here, to keep from shattering your precious little worldview.

quote:

---

People who believe their writing is perfectly understandable and that misinterpretations are always the fault of the reader.

---

And the fish believe this too?Yeah. I thought so. Lemurs, lemurs, lemurs.

quote:

---

People who interpret the holding of a perspective they do not share as a personal flaw.

---

You would think that. Jerk.

I think the Z-man personifies all my pet peeves, especially in posts like this one, where he tries Brian's patience with his time-tested techniques:1) Facetious nonsense with obnoxious smilie: 2) Semantic bullshit with rhetorical question: 3) Insulting self-righteousness: 4) Bizarre strawman metaphor delivered with scorn: 5) Evading the question, with annoying smilie: 6) Claiming victory by failing to convince opponent. Note use of 'Hehe' and bad spelling: ------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

...people who claim their lack of knowledge or complete ignorance of a subject suggests that they have an open mind to the subject of debate and that their uninformed opinions thus either carry the same weight or are superior to those who actually know what they are talking about.

quote:

---

I make no claim to innocence (nor admit to any guilt ), and with that said I offer up these pet peeves:

---

..people who completely distort what you say to make it look exactly like the opposite of what you said...So Percy, why do you persist in claiming you are innocent when you keep admitting you are guilty?..what are you? Konrad Lorenz???

Why do you keep questioning answers with statements? The true subject of guilt encompasses all knowledge that debates with opinions of weighty innocence, even when you're talking and as Lorenz has confirmed.--Percy

1) People who use colors instead of quote brackets
2) People who try to emphasize their names in their posts
3) (especially) People who split up a single post into multiple posts across the thread.
4) (especially) People who not just dodge points, but openly admit that they're ignoring them on purpose.I can handle people who use broken logic just fine - I don't get frustrated. I also have no problem with people who don't do their research - that actually makes the debate more fun, when you get a chance to correct them. It's the style things that get to me. I would put "personal attacks" on the list, but I know I don't always manage to stay polite in the middle of a debate (it's something I'm working on ).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-18-2003]

Would you like some help with this Brian.

This Sonic guy is fast becoming a favorite of NosyNed. How many irritating debating habits can you isolate in the following?"in order for a fox to become a dog or vice versa you would need about 25-35 or more intermediates for the fossil record to suggest evolution of this catagory. You would also need the DNA record to support the idea for it to become factual, which we dont have today.
Dont try and tell me no you would not, I say you would because, if you look at the skin color ratio today, it is obviouse to say that eather white or black was first, I believe the theory is that black was first and lead to white, but if you were to look at the people today you would find over 30-40 complexions between black and brown and the same for brown to white. with this principle in mind, I would expect to find the same information in the fossil record concering fossils but we dont we just find black brown then white for example, sure brown would be a intermediate fossil and sure we may only have 1% of the fossil record but that would suggest 1% of that 1% would be intermediate fossils atleast, but we are lucky if we have .1% of 1% intermediates. Which means that those .1% claimed intermediates are not intermediates. In otherwords the fossil record does not support evolution to the magnitude of macro-evolution. Then we have the dna record which reports a huge difference between man and ape and whatever else. To many differences to say that macro-evolution occured, Macroevolution is theoretical and a guess at best. (note: this conclusion of mine does not say that macro-evolution didn't occur it just exemplifies that I dont agree with it.)"Pencils down! Okay, I counted a Straw Man, three Non Sequiturs, one Argument from Personal Incredulity, and no less than eight Unsupported Assertions! And I don't even know how to categorize the classic line 'a huge difference between man and ape and whatever else'.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-24-2003]