Mind Over Manner

Samuel's picture

My usual blog space can be found at http://blog.myspace.com/aven_phoenix
I currently have 106 blogs posted there.

When the name Samuel Thomas Poling is heard by those who know me, most of those people will think bastard in association with that. Thats fine. Theres nothing wrong with that, especially once it is true. Not Bastard in the literal sense but, I am a total dick. No surprise there.

However what isnt okay is shallow mindedness, which people desperately attempt to use against me all the damn time. This is pretty much three logical fallacies every time they do it.

Non Sequitor (Not linking to your conclusion.)

Red Herring (Trying to distract from the argument at hand.)


Argumentum ad hominem. Argument to the man. The error of attacking a persons characteristics, possible motives, or previously held views or said words in previous debates in attempt to refute an argument by that man. For example: Why should I listen to what you have to say? Youre ten years younger than me! Or, Youre just saying that because you want it to be true! Or, You took the other side of this debate a while back! And, this is very important, these things must be said in attempted refute to an argument. AFTER refuting an argument you can say these things as separate statements and not be illogical. Calling someone names or something isnt illogical unless they are actually trying to deflect an argument by doing so.

So, with that said, heres a simple little test. Which insult is logically fallacious?

A.) So you made an aver without justifying it at all! That argument is fallacious. And thats why youre wrong. That was very illogical, and therefore you were being very stupid. Idiot.

B.) Youre just an idiot, why should I have to consider what an idiot says?

Yep, thats right. B is argumentum ad hominem, A is not. However, A may be considered sliming or dishonorable or not allowed in a certain set-up debate. However, that still does not make A: fallacious. A is not fallacious.

However, true shallow minded assholes think they can actually refute what you say by insult alone! Hammer them on it.

And worse, they may try an accuse YOU of ad hominem because you said something similar to example A above. And when they do so, they are similar to example B above and ARE guilty of ad hominem, if they didnt attack the argument you made before hand and just the insult at the end.

Why is pointing out profanity or insult in what you said in an attempt to refute what you said fallacious? Well, simple, because it is ad hominem. Just because someone said a curse word or tacked on an insult does NOT mean their argument was wrong. It does not make their argument fallacious.

If I said one plus one equals two, you moron, does that make me wrong because I added an insult? Is my math any less correct because I added an insult?

How about if I said, one plus one equals two, you fucking piece of shit.? I cursed! I said bad, bad words! But does that make my logic wrong? Does one plus one suddenly NOT equal two because I cursed? Of course not!

But there actually are dozens of people out there who think that I am guilty of ad hominem, the logical fallacy, when I insult or when I curse.

Well, guess what, they are guilty of ad hominem. They are being illogical. They are shallow minded cowards who cant even touch my reasoning, so they make desperate whines at my manner. Argument to the man, rather than to argument at hand.

So often people do this. So often do complete and utter fools think they can deflect what you said because of your manner in saying it. Call them out on it, people.

Now, when you insult someone as an aver Which Ive been known to often do, you also must have supporting statements for that. If you call someone an idiot or a fool, you better be able to back it up But dont let them ask you about it quiet yet. You have to finish the debate at hand first, then you can debate their intelligence, or lack there of, later. Dont let the weasels try to wiggle out of traps you catch them in.

They are shallow minded. Because the argument isnt in a pretty, pleasant, inoffensive manner, the inside logics must be bad too. Shaaallllllllllooooooowwww. I have a saying. If you were offended, then, quite frankly, you needed to be.

People chose what offends them. They go inside their own mind and make their own choices on what they dont like, change those choices as they see fit, and are sure to speak out when these things are violated. And for some completely selfish and stupid reason people think they have the right, when they are offended, to shut the offender up. Well here is some bad news for those twits. You dont have the right to shut the offender up. It was your damn choice to be offended. Now you desire to force something on the offender? You are the evil, twisted, freak, here. You are the dishonorable sack of shit who forces things on other people.

Lets face it; people can be offended by anything! Vegans, for example, and other animal rights fanatics, can get offended seeing someone eat meat, or wear a leather belt, hat, or shoes! People can get offended by mustaches, maybe reminding them of their abusive father, or Hitler. People can be offended by clothing and toys and objects made in countries that dont pay the workers well enough. Maybe some people hate scientists, others hate religious Does that give the offended the right to take the belts off of offender? Does that give the offended the right to shave the mustaches of the offender? Does that give the offended the right to ban eating meat or wearing a cross? The right to force all science to vanish? Does the offended ever have the right to shut up the offender?

Only the shallow minded believe so. The twisted, selfish, and sick. The enemies of freedom. Maybe theyre right. Maybe freedom is bad. Naw. Theyre just twisted assholes. Who wants rights for themselves but desire to restrict the rights of others as their pathetic tea-bags they call brains see fit. Can you say shallow? If not, then you can certainly say evil. I say both.

These people also are crazy enough to think a certain set of sounds, in a certain order, warrant them attacking the rights of others. Words are certain sets of sounds in certain orders that human language gives meaning. Our brains decode them for is. Bad brains do that (enough of the time) and also assign an urge to fight against hearing certain sets of sounds. I am talking, of course, about profanity.

Rather than H-ell-o, loose the o sound and you got something that will get a moron trying to force away some of your rights of speech. Honestly, ladies and gentlemen, this is how idiots work. Not much thinking involved. Such little things as leaving the o sound out of a segment of sounds is enough to spur a human being to evil action.

Rather than f-a-th-er, try f-u-ck. This will get you even more fools after you. They choice to be offended, and now they think they have the right to chose to shut you up for you. These people exist. They are everywhere.

And unfortunately, many of the times they think you uttering these certain sounds in certain patterns makes a logical argument you made illogical. Huh. And theyll continue to debate you, trying to be calm and professional. However, the truth is they already lost. And if there is but a shred of reason in the shell of their skull then they know that, deep down. Because, I mean Jesus Christ, its hard to believe anyone can be that stupid. I find it hard to believe that someone could be that gone. I find it much more likely the person who says you cursed and insulted me, you must be wrong to actually know hes bullshitting than to actually believe he isnt.

Attacking someones manner does not refute the argument they made unless their argument was, and only was, the poor manner.

If you believe otherwise, you are, well, "stupid" just doesnt quite say it.

Samuel Thomas Poling: Blog #96, Mind Over Manner