Thanks for the articulated response.I'm not wanting to get into this due to my zen thing.. but I'll eave this 1 single response and be done with it.
everyones got an opinion.. everyone's entitled to have their own opinion.. whether it's an agreeable one or not.. or generally accepted as right or wrong, if it is that type of issue.
stop.. right there. that's the issue. while everyones entitled to have an opinion. the entitlement stops there. NO ONE has to 'accept' anyone else's opinion. we can all have opinions.. but there is no social rule saying we have to accept any particular other persons opinion.
same deal. you can have an opinion.. that's fine. that's where the universal entitlement ends. wheter i comprehend or not, your opinion.. nuttin says I gotta like it or agree with it. and just because I don't agree with it.. well. that doesn't make either of us correct or incorrect. it just makes us in 'disagreement' over an issue. at which.. both of us may present 'argument's to try to influence each other, or others to side with our opinion, or at least voice it as a differing / alternative competative but equal opinion. Just because someone does not agree with someone else's opinion, they may, in context, 'see where you are coming from' and understand why you may have a certain opinion, , again, even if they do not agree with it.
personal attacks are classic non legitimate argument schemes. IE.. red herrings or ad hominem... ie.. logical falacies. I have no specific use for either, and will try to point out either if I see them used in an argument, as they only serve to distract from the real issue.
responding to an ad hominem with another ad hominem mires the entire 'argument'. I like to point out ad hominems when used against me, and otherwise move on. a reprisal, as you say with another ad hominem, only serves to reduce the credibility of the person making the ad hominem. Logical argument debate is not a good place to 'fight fire with fire'.
I wasn't going to bring this up.. but since you seem to want to delve there... lets look at the history of this thread.
Back in post #14 I made a reference to soylent green , in reference to a nother post. 5030 replied to ME in post #16, and we both had a good chuckle about the soylent green comment and about ignoring others who may bother us. that post / reply was between me and 5030, he quoted my message, it was clear to see who he was responding to.
You posted #17 and ended the message with a comment about 'lack intelect' and ' stupid people'. In context, and chronological progression, it's most likely you were replying directly to 5030, though you could also have been replying to me, or BOTH me and 5030, and directly impled that we lacked intelect or were stupid, because instead of getting down and dirty wasting time arguing , we prefered to avoid conflict and merely ignore some people.
thus.. YOU massey990, hurled the FIRST ad hominem.. ( congratulations! )
it was in reply to that that 5030 made some comments. I personally would not have and would have instead, kept in lockstep and just added you to MY ignore list and kept going, however it was his choice to do whatever ..e tc.. thus your comment above about making a personal attack and not expecting a reprisal. well, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, since you tossed out the first pitch of the game.
Whether or not I was a party to that comment you made in post 17 ( ie, you may hve been refering to 5030 only, or me only, or both of us ), I either WAS a party, or I was a casual observer. As a casual observer, again.. it sure looks like you thru the first tomato. if I was a party and included in the scop of your comment.. so be it.. I chose not to toss a tomato back .
anywho.. I won't further debate this particular issue or set of issues with you. that's -neither- a indication that I will ignore you, nor does it mean that I will not continue to post and otherwise follow this thread and contribute and continue posting about other issues or post about this issue with other posters. And that's not an opinion by the way .. that's a statement of choice of direction.
soundguy
Although I cited (quoted) another contributor's post my response (#17) I did not state "you" or "your", (as was the case in #70) I was merely relating my philosophical opinion on the quoted material. So NO I did not "cast the first stone"/ad hominem IMO.
By stating that all should accept another's opinion I did not intend that they should accept the virtue of it, thus my original point of not ignoring anyone else's posts/opinions merely because of a disagreement in nature.
