A little Dialogue between Red and Teo about forum and debate etiquette

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

A little Dialogue between Red and Teo about forum and debate etiquette

Post by Red » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:20 pm

Teo, it's rude to respond to someone else's post when they say they aren't finished responding to your other post. It makes things unorganized, makes it more of a hassle for the person you're responding to, and might just be a way for you to direct the focus away from other subject matter.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:20 am

Red wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:20 pm
Teo, it's rude to respond to someone else's post when they say they aren't finished responding to your other post. It makes things unorganized, makes it more of a hassle for the person you're responding to, and might just be a way for you to direct the focus away from other subject matter.
But nothing in my last post was off-topic. That is, unless you think trying to explain how linguistics works to somebody who insists it's a typical pseudoscience (based on ad-hoc hypotheses) is off-topic, which it might be. I was curious how such a conversation would end up. But, when I think about that, I think I can predict it based on what happened earlier in this thread:

Brimstone: How on Earth is the claim that all the historical yers in the first syllables in the Chakavian dialect turned into 'a', rather than disappearing, falsifiable? Again, you don't understand what that word means, because you haven't studied any boring hard science...

Me: Well, for instance, in the standard Croatian, the plural of "san" (dream) is "sni" (dreams). The 'a' disappears in the plural due to the Havlik's Law, because it comes from a Proto-Slavic yer. IN the Chakavian dialect, however, the plural of "san" (also meaning "dream") is "sani", and the 'a', coming from a Proto-Slavic yer, didn't disappear because it is in the first syllable. If you find a word in which there is an 'a' in the first syllable which disappears in the plural, you've falsified that claim.

Brimstone: That doesn't matter. One who formulated that law may have been aware of the lack of existence of such words in the Chakavian dialect, so that is a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Me: So, do you think nothing can be learned from history? You seem rather keen of claiming history proves anarchy can't work.

Brimstone: That's different! [some long-worded nonsense] If you want to reply to this, please start another thread!
...

I don't want to get into such a conversation again, I will rather not respond here further.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:32 pm

teo123 wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:20 am
But nothing in my last post was off-topic.
I didn't say you said anything was off topic, I was saying that it might be a way to draw attention away of the other topics of debate.
teo123 wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:20 am
Brimstone: How on Earth is the claim that all the historical yers in the first syllables in the Chakavian dialect turned into 'a', rather than disappearing, falsifiable? Again, you don't understand what that word means, because you haven't studied any boring hard science...

Me: Well, for instance, in the standard Croatian, the plural of "san" (dream) is "sni" (dreams). The 'a' disappears in the plural due to the Havlik's Law, because it comes from a Proto-Slavic yer. IN the Chakavian dialect, however, the plural of "san" (also meaning "dream") is "sani", and the 'a', coming from a Proto-Slavic yer, didn't disappear because it is in the first syllable. If you find a word in which there is an 'a' in the first syllable which disappears in the plural, you've falsified that claim.

Brimstone: That doesn't matter. One who formulated that law may have been aware of the lack of existence of such words in the Chakavian dialect, so that is a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Me: So, do you think nothing can be learned from history? You seem rather keen of claiming history proves anarchy can't work.

Brimstone: That's different! [some long-worded nonsense] If you want to reply to this, please start another thread!
...

I don't want to get into such a conversation again, I will rather not respond here further.
You're projecting here, and you're being quite salty.

Your arrogance here is palpable; Maybe you shouldn't assume you're right?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:28 am

Red wrote:I was saying that it might be a way to draw attention away of the other topics of debate.
I don't quite see how it could. I don't even see why it would be rude. I can see how my last post could be rude (implying that the person I speak to speaks like a possessed robot), although it was not really intended that way.
Red wrote:Your arrogance here is palpable
Maybe a little, but the person I speak to also sounds quite arrogant, right?
I mean, he or she is basically insisting that historical linguistics as a science can't possibly work, that the vast majority of claims it makes (being about the unattested and long-dead languages) are necessarily not falsifiable and are therefore not even wrong, all without showing even the basic understanding of how it all works.
Some of his or her arguments are straw-mans (like that the relatedness of languages is determined primarily by the DNA), most of them are not even that, they are simply blind assertions.
People have some intuitive notions about how languages work, like that the sound laws are full of exceptions, and the phonosemantic hypotheses probably also stem from those intuitive notions. Those intuitive notions are, as preconceptions usually are, simply incoherent. Also, in the case of sound laws, it's easy to understand just how precise they are simply by looking at the modern languages. Every sound law I've looked into has a striking number of examples of it being applicable. And I really mean striking. And the apparent counter-examples are almost never counter-examples once you look slightly deeper into them. The Croatian word "kiša" (rain), for example, appears to contradict the law of the Third Slavic Palatalization (that 'k' turns into 'c' before 'i'), but it doesn't actually do that, because the 'i' here demonstrably comes from the Proto-Slavic long 'u'. But some of the notions Brimstone presented here are even worse than those intuitive notions, the notion that the examples you can plausibly be aware of when you formulate the sound law can't affect the probability of a sound law being correct is worse than common sense.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:35 pm

teo123 wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:28 am
I don't quite see how it could.
The person responding to you might lose track, and forget about the other arguments that have to be made (or disregard them entirely, since they often lose relevance.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:28 am
I don't even see why it would be rude.
:roll: Of course you don't.
It's called COMMON COURTESY.

I assume the children aren't raised with proper manners in Croatia, which explains a lot about your country, and a lot of your past actions. :lol:

What if I were to come into your house, make a mess of everything, let you clean up a little, then just made a mess of what you cleaned up?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:28 am
Maybe a little, but the person I speak to also sounds quite arrogant, right?
I'm not all that arrogant you're all that arrogant, myeh!

You constantly fail to comprehend your arrogance. Try learning some humility.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:28 am
I mean, he or she is basically insisting that historical linguistics as a science can't possibly work, that the vast majority of claims it makes (being about the unattested and long-dead languages) are necessarily not falsifiable and are therefore not even wrong, all without showing even the basic understanding of how it all works.
Some of his or her arguments are straw-mans (like that the relatedness of languages is determined primarily by the DNA), most of them are not even that, they are simply blind assertions.
People have some intuitive notions about how languages work, like that the sound laws are full of exceptions, and the phonosemantic hypotheses probably also stem from those intuitive notions. Those intuitive notions are, as preconceptions usually are, simply incoherent. Also, in the case of sound laws, it's easy to understand just how precise they are simply by looking at the modern languages. Every sound law I've looked into has a striking number of examples of it being applicable. And I really mean striking. And the apparent counter-examples are almost never counter-examples once you look slightly deeper into them. The Croatian word "kiša" (rain), for example, appears to contradict the law of the Third Slavic Palatalization (that 'k' turns into 'c' before 'i'), but it doesn't actually do that, because the 'i' here demonstrably comes from the Proto-Slavic long 'u'. But some of the notions Brimstone presented here are even worse than those intuitive notions, the notion that the examples you can plausibly be aware of when you formulate the sound law can't affect the probability of a sound law being correct is worse than common sense.
Well Teo, if you think you know so much, you should write a book about this stuff. Maybe you can call it 'Grammar School Linguistics' or something equally patronizing, since we're all so beneath your level.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am

Red wrote: and forget about the other arguments that have to be made
If he or she will otherwise write another long post relying on his or her arguments, about sound laws being ad-hoc hypotheses, being valid, then I will have saved a lot of his or her time.
Red wrote:What if I were to come into your house, make a mess of everything, let you clean up a little, then just made a mess of what you cleaned up?
I don't see how that would be a proper analogy.
Red wrote:Maybe you can call it 'Grammar School Linguistics'
Done exactly that about a year ago:
http://www.glas-slavonije.hr/365330/3/G ... u-o-jeziku
My understanding of the subject has since improved a lot. But one of the first chapters in that book is about why the relationships between languages are being proven using sound laws. And if you will insist that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, I don't think there is much more to talk about.
That is not at all hard to understand, some parts of the English grammar (the sequence of tenses, for example) are way harder to understand than that. That's why I often think you are not being serious or are even being willfully ignorant.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:55 am

teo123 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am
If he or she will otherwise write another long post relying on his or her arguments, about sound laws being ad-hoc hypotheses, being valid, then I will have saved a lot of his or her time.
What? How so?
teo123 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am
I don't see how that would be a proper analogy.
Of course.

You come into brimstone's house and write a list of arguments. brimstone addresses some of them, but then has to go piss, and tells you that it'll be right back to address the rest of your arguments. While brimstone is in the bathroom, you start responding to the rebuttals made towards your other arguments. Don't you see in any way how that's rude?
teo123 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am
Done exactly that about a year ago:
http://www.glas-slavonije.hr/365330/3/G ... u-o-jeziku
:roll: I know that, that's why I said what I did. Don't you think it's the least bit strange that I knew you published a book with that exact title?
teo123 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am
My understanding of the subject has since improved a lot.
Yes, I know that's what you think, but as the Dunning Kruger effect says, the more you know, the more you know you don't know. It seems with you, the more you know, the more you think you know.
teo123 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am
But one of the first chapters in that book is about why the relationships between languages are being proven using sound laws. And if you will insist that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, I don't think there is much more to talk about.
You just have to learn scientific methodology. If you don't do that, that'd be dishonest and lazy on your part. You don't understand how they'd be falsified, so that's why you're so insistent on this point.
teo123 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:43 am
That is not at all hard to understand, some parts of the English grammar (the sequence of tenses, for example) are way harder to understand than that. That's why I often think you are not being serious or are even being willfully ignorant.
You best get that plank out of your eye.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:48 am

Good idea to split this into another thread! If you didn't do that, THAT would be a way to make a thread go off-topic.
What? How so?
That's as self evident as possible. Brimstone has made a very critical mistake by stating that sound laws are ad-hoc hypotheses. Unless I warn him or her before he or she writes another post about it, he or she is probably going to write another post that's largely based on that idea. If I were to let Brimstone do that, that would be wasting his or her time. Don't you agree?
Don't you see in any way how that's rude?
I can see how it's rude on your part to make a post filled with vulgarisms... and to dismiss the effort I've made to do an insane amount of work researching linguistics and writing a book about it as somehow being a symptom of arrogance.
Don't you think it's the least bit strange that I knew you published a book with that exact title?
Because I made a thread about it right on this forum which you've probably seen?
Yes, I know that's what you think, but as the Dunning Kruger effect says, the more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Dunning Kruger effect doesn't exactly say that everyone who feels confident is incompetent.
You just have to learn scientific methodology.
What makes you think I don't understand the scientific methodology? I can be pretty sure I understand it, because I actually published a few papers in peer-reviewed journals.
A much better (but about as off-topic) question would be what makes you think you understand scientific methodology better than I do. Because you took some of your ideas from Brimstone? If so, what makes you think he understands that? Because he apparently understands basic physics? So, we should take all the apparent nonsense he asserts about how modern physics works, and about how social sciences work, not only seriously, but also unquestionably?
Even if Brimstone indeed understands how modern physics works (which I doubt), you need to consider that, in some ways, social sciences appear to be even harder than natural sciences. All those insurances that the studies are properly blinded... there is much more of it in social sciences than in natural sciences.
Brimstone is fractally wrong about how social sciences work, and it's become incredibly apparent in the post where he or she straw-manned historical linguistics as seeking to affirm what genetics says, and it got perhaps even more apparent when he or she said that sound laws are ad-hoc hypotheses. Maybe he or she will change his or her mind, time will show, but, right now, he or she doesn't have any credibility when he or she talks about politics or the philosophy of science.
And, let's face it, Red, what you've written here are not responses to my arguments, what you've written here are obvious ad-hominem attacks.
You best get that plank out of your eye.
The irony in that statement is so... I don't even know if there is a word for that.
Look, Red, all I've gotten from you is mockery, ad-hominem attacks and vulgarisms. I've done my best to keep the discussion reasonable, but you defy all my attempts to do that. Brimstone was at least trying to make coherent arguments, Jebus even appeared to be sincerely interested in my linguistic theories, you have done none of that.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:17 pm

teo123 wrote: That's as self evident as possible. Brimstone has made a very critical mistake by stating that sound laws are ad-hoc hypotheses. Unless I warn him or her before he or she writes another post about it, he or she is probably going to write another post that's largely based on that idea. If I were to let Brimstone do that, that would be wasting his or her time. Don't you agree?
Maybe you should do the same; instead of assuming they are sound laws, humour the possibility that they are not so no one wastes any of their time?
teo123 wrote: I can see how it's rude on your part to make a post filled with vulgarisms... and to dismiss the effort I've made to do an insane amount of work researching linguistics and writing a book about it as somehow being a symptom of arrogance.
What vulgarisms? I don't think you know what that means.
teo123 wrote:Because I made a thread about it right on this forum which you've probably seen?
I just Googled your name and found the same article, that's how I found it.
teo123 wrote: Dunning Kruger effect doesn't exactly say that everyone who feels confident is incompetent.
I know, but the standard does seem to apply to you.
teo123 wrote: What makes you think I don't understand the scientific methodology?
Your posts you've made on this forum in the past, and right now.
teo123 wrote: I can be pretty sure I understand it, because I actually published a few papers in peer-reviewed journals.
Yeah, in soft science magazines. In Croatia. :lol:
teo123 wrote:A much better (but about as off-topic) question would be what makes you think you understand scientific methodology better than I do. Because you took some of your ideas from Brimstone? If so, what makes you think he understands that? Because he apparently understands basic physics? So, we should take all the apparent nonsense he asserts about how modern physics works, and about how social sciences work, not only seriously, but also unquestionably?
Because I've actually studied it, along with other (hard) sciences?

I don't (always) just accept what brimstone says. When brimstone makes a claim, I'm usually pretty sure he or she is right, but I always do a little of fact checking after I am pointed in the right direction.
teo123 wrote:Even if Brimstone indeed understands how modern physics works (which I doubt), you need to consider that, in some ways, social sciences appear to be even harder than natural sciences. All those insurances that the studies are properly blinded... there is much more of it in social sciences than in natural sciences.
WOW, you honestly haven't learned a fucking thing. Have you forgotten how much you thought you knew? Are you denying brimstone's educational background? Do you honestly think you know more than him or her?

Now you're being even MORE rude and insulting on top of that.
teo123 wrote:Brimstone is fractally wrong about how social sciences work, and it's become incredibly apparent in the post where he or she straw-manned historical linguistics as seeking to affirm what genetics says, and it got perhaps even more apparent when he or she said that sound laws are ad-hoc hypotheses. Maybe he or she will change his or her mind, time will show, but, right now, he or she doesn't have any credibility when he or she talks about politics or the philosophy of science.
I just don't think you're honest enough to admit to yourself the truth about the soft sciences.
teo123 wrote:And, let's face it, Red, what you've written here are not responses to my arguments, what you've written here are obvious ad-hominem attacks.
You obviously don't know what that is. I've only said one thing here that might be considered an ad hominem, but it isn't even really.
teo123 wrote: The irony in that statement is so... I don't even know if there is a word for that.
Immense? Because I've used a similar statement towards you before.
teo123 wrote:Look, Red, all I've gotten from you is mockery, ad-hominem attacks and vulgarisms.
I don't think you know what those last two are.
teo123 wrote:I've done my best to keep the discussion reasonable, but you defy all my attempts to do that. Brimstone was at least trying to make coherent arguments, Jebus even appeared to be sincerely interested in my linguistic theories, you have done none of that.
It's not about the other subject matter, I'm just trying to teach you debate ettiqute.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm

Maybe you should do the same; instead of assuming they are sound laws, humour the possibility that they are not so no one wastes any of their time?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Yeah, in soft science magazines.
You are using kind of a circular logic here, aren't you?
"Linguistics is a soft science, therefore it's bad science. Why is it a bad science? Because it's a soft science."
In Croatia.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think the science in Croatia is worse than in the rest of the world?
Because I've actually studied it, along with other (hard) sciences?
What do you mean you've studied multiple sciences? My friend, to fully understand even a single science today, you need to dedicate your life to it. You certainly wouldn't have time to be this active on the Internet forums.
WOW, you honestly haven't learned a fucking thing.
But one example of you using vulgarisms. You are so used to using them you don't even notice when you use them.
Have you forgotten how much you thought you knew?
Now, this is ad-hominem.
Yes, I used to believe weird things (that airplanes don't exist...), because I used the wrong methodology (asserting massive conspiracies for no reason). So what? I am not using the same methodology any more. What I believe right now has very little, if anything, to do with what I used to believe.
Be honest, you probably also used to believe stupid things. You probably believed in God and in Santa Claus at some point in your life. What does that have to do with what you believe right now? Nothing, right? Well, the same applies to my former conspiracy theory beliefs.
You and Brimstone believe that science works certain way and are basing your tyrannical political theory on that. That's what matters now.
Immense? Because I've used a similar statement towards you before.
Let's say so. You are using a thesaurus to find insults, right?
It's not about the other subject matter, I'm just trying to teach you debate ettiqute.
Well, you are obviously not giving me a good example of how I should behave.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest