billyshelby
Well-Known Member
1) There is no tu quoque fallacy at play (very fancy, had to look that up): aint, in my opinion, is accusing me of the very same things he is guilty of. He could put me on ignore, he's just as guilty of 'sophistical ad hominem attacks, fallacious reasoning, bluster, and insult,' he crams half baked opinions down people's throat, he 'plays to the crowd' (badly), he employs 'simplistic and bogus tactics,' and I love intelligent discussion, I just haven't seen it evidenced in things aint says. That may be the literal definition of 'tu quoque fallacy,' but the only distinction to be made is he said it first. If I said it first, and aint rebutted that was me, he'd be 'guilty' of the same fallacious reasoning. Bottom line: I think I'm right, he thinks he is, the truth is whatever it is.
2) If you weren't such a robot, you would understand that aint isn't directly asking me to express myself in a certain way. He's "above" that. He simply belittles my way of expressing myself as being uninterested in "intelligent discussion." As usual, aint is careful to claim moral victories by way of semantics, but I assume most people see through the words to the meaning.
3) Don't see where aint claims to be playing his own game. Seems his game is the 'intelligent discussion crowd', whereas I'm catfishing the gutter. But as best as I can tell, he's not claiming to play a game. He's claiming I am. I dispute that, and my "claims" to be playing a game were meant rhetorically which is why there were quotes around it--as in, neither of us is playing a game. We're both posting on this board, but I'm not going to sit idly by while he claims I have a 'game' and he doesn't.
4) It's hilarious you actually think most people can't differentiate between inductive and deductive teaching methods. Everyone gets aint is inductive. What I expressed, which is not to claim opinions of others, is that aint is very bad at inductive teaching. He's really not interested in debate so much as the smoke and mirrors show to prove his own intellectual prowess. I realize you're going to disagree with me on this and that's OK with me.
5) aint doesn't make sense because he never tries to. Yeah, some people like his schtick. He likes being the guy with a million questions, no answers, but a common sense feeling. Answers are always relative and unreliable. He loves to fall back on the unknowability of the universe. He's very careful to take no opinions so long as it doesn't involve Jerry Sloan, Deron Williams, Mat Harpring, or the few other rocks in his stream which are unassailable, and of course totally corrupted by his emotion. They're heroes to him, and he won't see his heroes tarnished, at which point he disingenuously employs his reason to affirm those rocks. So in final answer, my guess is people understand aint perfectly. He just wouldn't like the conclusions.
