• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Side discussion regarding October updates to the Rules & Guidelines

Josheb

Senior Member
Joined
May 19, 2023
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
3,628
Points
113
Location
VA, south of DC
Faith
Yes
Marital status
Married with adult children
Politics
Conservative
• Republished the rules so that each section is its own post.

• Added a new rule:
4.9. Do not impersonate a moderator. Members are not moderators and should not impersonate or act as though they are. This includes issuing warnings, referencing rule violations as if in an official capacity, or directing others to comply with the rules. If you believe a rule has been broken, use the Report feature and allow the moderators to handle it.​
🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

Does that mean no non-moderator poster can ever post any rule? Does that mean no non-moderator can ask for topical discourse? Or a return to the topic when digressions occur?

I read through the amended revision of the rules and noticed much of the positive language, the content directing what to do, the goal-oriented language has been removed and what remains is largely a list of what not to do, not what to do, how to post, what goals to pursue. Is that intentional? Informing people what not to do does not inform what to do and, generally speaking, goal-oriented guidance is much more functional and efficacious.

Was that last paragraph considered impersonating a moderator (because it wasn't intended that way)?
• Updated rule 4.4 (addressing logical fallacies) to add the following:
Members who have been called out for a logical fallacy are expected to address that specific charge in good faith, either demonstrating that no fallacy occurred by clarifying their reasoning or conceding the point if valid. Until the charge is addressed, the member may not continue participating in that thread. Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue and may be treated as noncompliance with this rule.​
Can members expect the moderators to abide by this rule?

One of the most frequently occurring uncited fallacies is the appeal to authority. MANY posters will post some quote or direct the conversation toward a specific writer (like Calvin or Sproul) as if that author's viewpoint is definitively authoritative, they argument being either stated or implied their position is correct because Person X says the same thing. If Rule 4.4 is applied uniformly then it will require moderators to hold members accountable in some way or go on record themselves stating the fallacy has been committed. And then what? Will uncorrected appeals to authority be left in the thread (to bear false witness to those not recognizing the falsity of that post and the argument built upon it)?

Real problems with Rule 4.4 have been discussed before and this rule is one of the most inconsistently enforced rules in the TOS. A post that commits multiple fallacies is supposed to have its chief fallacy corrected but 1) sometimes to equally critical (and fatal) fallacies exist among the many so selection of the most rationally egregious is arbitrary or a matter of subjective preference, and 2) that leaves all the other fallacies unaddressed. The rule was developed under the auspices some members use the very real existence of fallacious arguments as a tool of manipulation so how will valid requests to have fallacies corrected according to Rule 4.4 be discriminated from the manipulative alternatives? It might help all the members to have some objective criteria.
Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue and may be treated as noncompliance with this rule.
So what?

I mean that rhetorically. If posters are permitted to ignore the allegation without consequence, then ignoring will most certainly occur. Will a post be edited to remove the uncorrected fallacy? Might an entire post be deleted because it contained a fallacy and the fallacy was denied (or a member simply refused to correct it)? There are members of the forum who are more skilled in formal logic than others and that creates a circumstance where the learned will be able to cite fallacy readily and with just cause and intent. The less informed have an opportunity to learn something about method and not just content but is that the concern of this rule? Will those who practice fallacy often be sanctioned with increasing penalty or permitted to break the rule ten, twenty, forty times while others comply and make the necessary changes in method?

All of this is intended to help the mods establish a functional and efficacious TOS that can be enforced objectively and practically, so please consider the above in that context.
 

Regarding rule 4.9:​


4.9. Do not impersonate a moderator. Members are not moderators and should not impersonate or act as though they are. This includes issuing warnings, referencing rule violations as if in an official capacity, or directing others to comply with the rules. If you believe a rule has been broken, use the Report feature and allow the moderators to handle it.
Does that mean no non-moderator poster can ever post any rule?

No, it means that members cannot impersonate or act as if they are a moderator. If a member posts a rule in a discussion about the rules (like this one), then you are not impersonating or acting as a moderator and thus not violating this rule. If you are posting a rule because you believe that it's being bent or broken in a discussion, then you are acting like a moderator and violating this rule.


Does that mean no non-moderator can ask for topical discourse?

Members do not need to ask for topical discourse, as those are already provided the moment a thread is started.


[Does that mean no non-moderator can ask for] a return to the topic when digressions occur?

Correct.

However, members may of course state their perception that the conversation has veered off-topic and their unwillingness to follow suit. And, again, there is that Report button.


I read through the amended revision of the rules and noticed much of the positive language, the content directing what to do, the goal-oriented language has been removed and what remains is largely a list of what not to do, not what to do, how to post, what goals to pursue.

That is your perception and I can respect that. And sometimes I am willing to correct misperceptions. (But not today.)

However, perception should not be confused with reality. Approximately 40% of the rules are positive (prescriptive), emphasizing the kind of conduct desired, while roughly 60% are negative (prohibitive), defining boundaries and restrictions (according to ChatGPT).


... [G]enerally speaking, goal-oriented guidance is much more functional and efficacious.

I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion.


Was that last paragraph considered impersonating a moderator?

No, because you are discussing the rules in a thread about the rules.



Regarding rule 4.4:​


4.4. Identify and address only one logical fallacy at a time. To ensure fair and orderly debate, members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time in an opponent's argument. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved. This prevents discussions from being overwhelmed by a cascade of accusations which, if addressed, would derail meaningful engagement. Fallacy accusations should be made in good faith, with careful attention to context and a willingness to be corrected if mistaken.

Members who have been called out for a logical fallacy are expected to address that specific charge in good faith, either demonstrating that no fallacy occurred by clarifying their reasoning or conceding the point if valid. Until the charge is addressed, the member may not continue participating in that thread. Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue and may be treated as noncompliance with this rule.

Can members expect the moderators to abide by this rule?

Members can expect the moderators to abide by all the rules.

However, they can also expect the moderators to sometimes break the rules, as that can happen. And if they think a moderator has broken a rule, there is that Report button.

Keep in mind rule 6.3, though: "Moderators have the final say in rule enforcement." It is entirely possible that a moderator could disagree with your reported complaint. And, other than a DM, that's the end of it.


One of the most frequently occurring uncited fallacies is the appeal to authority. Many posters will post some quote or direct the conversation toward a specific writer, like Calvin or Sproul, as if that author's viewpoint is definitively authoritative, the argument being either stated or implied their position is correct because person X says the same thing.

Thank you for sharing your observations.


If rule 4.4 is applied uniformly, ...

Referencing rule 6.3, it will be the moderators who decide whether it is being applied uniformly. You are free to disagree with their decisions, of course, but not publicly. "If you have concerns, contact the moderation team privately" (ibid.).


... then it will require moderators to hold members accountable in some way ...

Yes, that is how moderating works.


... or go on record themselves stating the fallacy has been committed.

That should not be necessary. For example, if you have identified an appeal to authority fallacy committed by member Smith, rule 4.4 as amended requires him to acknowledge and resolve the allegation by "either demonstrating that no fallacy occurred by clarifying [his] reasoning or conceding the point if valid." (And he is not allowed to simply dismiss or ignore the matter.) A moderator does not need to validate your allegation or jump into the dispute (unless there is a rules violation).

And, yes, "Smith" in this scenario could be a moderator. They are not immune to fallacious reasoning.


And then what? Will uncorrected appeals to authority be left in the thread?

That is certainly a possibility, but I hope it's a rare one.


Rule 4.4 ... is one of the most inconsistently enforced rules in the TOS.

Please feel free to send me a DM with an example of rule 4.4 being inconsistently enforced.


A post that commits multiple fallacies is supposed to have its chief fallacy corrected, but (1) sometimes to equally critical (and fatal) fallacies exist among the many so selection of the most rationally egregious is arbitrary or a matter of subjective preference, and (2) that leaves all the other fallacies unaddressed.

If you are the one alleging the fallacy, then the arbitrariness is on you.

If another member is alleging that you committed a named fallacy, how do you know it was arbitrarily chosen?

(And which definition of arbitrary are you using?)


The rule was developed under the [impetus that] some members use the very real existence of fallacious arguments as a tool of manipulation, so how will valid requests to have fallacies corrected according to rule 4.4 be discriminated from the manipulative alternatives? It might help all the members to have some objective criteria.

First, it is not for you to determine whether the request was genuine or a manipulation. If someone alleges that you committed a specified fallacy, your task is to acknowledge and resolve it, either by demonstrating that no fallacy occurred or conceding the point if valid.

Second, the rule was developed to end the Gish gallops.


If posters are permitted to ignore the allegation without consequence, ...

They are not permitted. Review the post you replied to here.


Will a post be edited to remove the uncorrected fallacy?

No.


Might an entire post be deleted because it contained a fallacy and the fallacy was denied[, ignored, or dismissed]?

No.


There are members of the forum who are more skilled in formal logic than others and that creates a circumstance where the learned will be able to cite fallacy readily and with just cause and intent. The less informed have an opportunity to learn something about method and not just content but is that the concern of this rule?

No. The concern of this rule was stated in the rule itself.


Will those who practice fallacy often be sanctioned ...

Yes. It is contained in the rule itself. Members will not be allowed to participate further in the thread if they simply dismiss or ignore the allegation. If they post a response that doesn't acknowledge and resolve the allegation, hit the Report button and a moderator will assess and address the matter.


All of this is intended to help the mods establish a functional and efficacious TOS that can be enforced objectively and practically, so please consider the above in that context.

I don't think any of it helped the moderating team. They were your questions, so I think it helped you. So far, nobody else has complicated this stuff quite like this.
 
Members do not need to ask for topical discourse, as those are already provided the moment a thread is started.
Why then does a rule stipulating topical discourse exist? Why have an option to report violations of that rule? Isn't the report the rule has been violated a request for topical discourse handed over to the mods? Doesn't the requirement to report remove all opportunity for good will and self-correction among otherwise will-intentioned, conscientious and earnest posters?

Do you really mean to prohibit, "Can we return to the original topic of discussion?" and require, "I am unwilling to participate in further digression" (and then report the digression)?
I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion.

No, because you are discussing the rules in a thread about the rules.



I don't think any of it helped the moderating team.
Hmmm.... what is unhelpful to the moderating team is appreciated 🤨.
They were your questions, so I think it helped you.
Clarification and consistency help everyone, and there isn't any warrant to make this discussion personal.
Yes. It is contained in the rule itself. Members will not be allowed to participate further in the thread if they simply dismiss or ignore the allegation. If they post a response that doesn't acknowledge and resolve the allegation, hit the Report button and a moderator will assess and address the matter
That inquiry was intended to address those who violate the rule in thread after thread after thread after thread. Stopping participation in one thread does not stop the practice in other threads and ejecting a poster from multiple threads doesn't do so, either. Episodic-only treatment does not solve chronic problems.
That is your perception and I can respect that. And sometimes I am willing to correct misperceptions. (But not today.)

However, perception should not be confused with reality. Approximately 40% of the rules are positive (prescriptive), emphasizing the kind of conduct desired, while roughly 60% are negative (prohibitive), defining boundaries and restrictions (according to ChatGPT).
A 60/40 split in favor of prohibitive content confirms the reality of the perception (and ChatGP ignored that specific in favor of the general. A rule that states "be respectful" is positive, but not specific. "Be respectful" does not provide the same kind of detail as "do not post any rule," or "Posters may quote a rule only in a thread specifically dedicated for the discussion of the rules" is an example of a positive directive that is specific.). I'm sure if ChatGP was asked to screen for detailed positive directives the results will lower than 60/40, but 60/40 proves the point made. The rules are becoming increasingly prohibitive.
So far, nobody else has complicated this stuff quite like this.
Ironic. That is a logical fallacy.

  • An appeal to what others do, or do not do, has no bearing on Post 2. The topically relevant merits of the post stand on its own content and the answers do clarify the matters broached for everyone, not just me. Furthermore...
  • The rules prohibit Post 3 from addressing me instead of Post 2's content.
  • Post 2 does not "complicate" anything.
  • Whether anything was complicated or not, the matters expressed in Post 2 are valid and legitimate, as evidenced by the answers provided.
  • Perhaps the worse part is that the motive was disclosed for the express purpose of precluding the response it received. The exchange boils down to "My motive is X ," and the response is "No, that is not your motive. Your motive is not "X," it is Y ," with an irrelevant comment about what no one has not done thrown in. Something openly intended as altruistic and benevolent is turned into something selfish, when there wasn't any need whatsoever for such a comment. That's not on me.
  • As a consequence, that unnecessary comment is a red herring.

Now the thread has become an object lesson, an example of the very matters being discussed. If this statement occurred in a normal thread, the rules would compel reporting the comment and compel the correction of the fallacy before further discussion proceeds.


So..... seeing the difficulty discussing these rule changes proves to be and having little hope the matter can or will be addressed without unnecessarily bringing my personhood into the discussion again, I will move on. On the positive side, some clarifying bits of information has been provided: Neither the rules, nor a request for a return to the subject of the op, may be posted, and the rules have become more prohibitive. Thank you for the opportunity and the clarifications.
 
Members do not need to ask for topical discourse, as those are already provided the moment a thread is started.

Why, then, does a rule stipulating topical discourse exist?

Because we want to discourage the tendency to wander into off-topic weeds. Still, the possibility of going off-topic does not mean that topical discourse must be requested—it already exists the moment a thread is created. Each thread defines its own focus, and every member bears personal responsibility to remain within it. Yet the work of guiding and enforcing topical boundaries belongs to the moderators, not to individual participants.

Are you allowed to ask that things stay on-topic? No. That responsibility rests with the moderators, whose role is to enforce the rules (e.g., 4.3) and ensure that discussions remain constructive and reflect the vision and purpose of the CCAM forums (6.3). And members are not permitted to assume or imitate that role (4.9).

If a discussion seems to be veering off-topic, you are free to quote the relevant material, indicate that you believe it departs from the thread's focus, and choose not to follow that line further. You are also welcome to use the Report button to alert the moderation team.


Do you really mean to prohibit, "Can we return to the original topic of discussion?" and require, "I am unwilling to participate in further digression"?

First, I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. Yes, Josh, I really mean to prohibit members from assuming or imitating the role of moderator.

Second, you are not REQUIRED to state that you won't follow off-topic issues; you CAN state it, but you don't have to.


Why have an option to report violations of that rule? Isn't the report the rule has been violated a request for topical discourse handed over to the mods? Doesn't the requirement to report remove all opportunity for good will and self-correction among otherwise will-intentioned, conscientious and earnest posters?

I am reaching the end of my patience for eristic argumentation.


Clarification and consistency help everyone, and there isn't any warrant to make this discussion personal.

This discussion isn't personal. My statement was an observation about the functional direction of benefit: "They were your questions, so I think it helped you." What I said wasn't personal (addressing the man) but rather situational (describing the dynamics of the dialogue). Do not conflate referential address with personal critique (a subtle but common rhetorical confusion).

From the way your questions were framed, they seemed intended to clarify things for yourself. If you actually understood already and were raising them for the benefit of others, that prior understanding wasn't at all evident from the way your post was written.


That inquiry was intended to address those who violate the rule in thread after thread after thread after thread. Stopping participation in one thread does not stop the practice in other threads and ejecting a poster from multiple threads doesn't do so, either. Episodic-only treatment does not solve chronic problems.

No, bans solve chronic problems.


A 60/40 split in favor of prohibitive content confirms the reality of the perception.

Sigh. No, your perception does not correspond with reality.

You said, "I read through the amended revision of the rules and noticed much of the positive language—the content directing what to do, the goal-oriented language—has been removed, and what remains is largely a list of what not to do, [rather than] what to do, how to post, what goals to pursue."

I don't know what "amended revision" is supposed to refer to. It could refer to the existing forum rules that were published February 21, 2025, and last updated October 5, 2025. Is that an "amended revision"? If this is what you were referring to, then there is a conflict with your perception. (1) Nothing was removed. Two rules were added, one in March and one in October, but nothing has been removed. (2) These rules have always existed with a rough 40/60 split between rules for desired and undesired conduct, respectively. (It is actually closer to 47% desired and 53% undesired.)

But if you are referring to the old rules prior to February 21, 2025, the conflict is worse: it was more like a 20/80 split between rules for desired and undesired conduct, respectively. So, replacing the old rules with these rules brought the positive and negative balance much closer. If you think "the rules are becoming increasingly prohibitive," I can't see what could be shaping that—other than the fact that one proscription was added a few days ago (which doesn't seem to fit the "increasingly prohibitive" description).
 
Ironic. That is a logical fallacy.

No, it was not a fallacy (red herring).
  1. It was a rebuttal of your argument, a counter-assessment of your post's overall intent (help mods) and effect (complicated things). That makes it relevant and on point, not irrelevant and avoidant.
  2. It was not an attempt to avoid or divert attention from your argument, nor an effort to mislead, deflect, or obscure the real point at hand (definition of red herring). Crucially, it was an aside appended at the end of a post that had otherwise engaged your argument directly and in full.
  3. It did not introduce a new or irrelevant issue. It stayed within the bounds of your post's stated aim and evaluated the usefulness of your contribution toward that goal. You said that your intent was to "help the mods establish functional and efficacious rules," and I responded with a counter-assessment of that intent (and the effect of your contribution). That is not avoidance; it is engagement with your own claim.
  4. This was a misuse of logical terminology. You were using "red herring" not logically but colloquially, intending to say "you made an unnecessary comment." But in logic, irrelevance must functionally derail the argument. Nothing in my statement distracted from or concealed the main issue; it addressed it directly.
It was a rebuttal (responding to a claim with a counter-assessment), not a red herring (introducing a distracting irrelevance).

In response to your specific claims:
  • "An appeal to what others do or don't do has no bearing on post 2." I did not appeal to what others do or don't do as if it was relevant to your post. I simply noted an observation—your eristic post was unique and alone in complicating things—with no connotation, either inherent or intended, that it has any relevance to the validity or soundness of your argumentation (which I had just finished engaging directly and fully).
  • "The topically relevant merits of the post stand on its own content, and the answers do clarify the matters broached for everyone, not just me." Sure, and I addressed the merits of your post, which indeed stand or fall on their own terms. But, again, if you actually understood already and were simply raising these questions for the benefit of others, that supposed prior understanding was not evident from the way your post was written.
  • "Furthermore, the rules prohibit [your] post 3 from addressing me instead of [the content of my] post 2." Interpreting, explaining, and enforcing the rules is strictly the jurisdiction of the moderators, and you are not a moderator. This can serve as a clear example of violating rule 4.9. If you think a post violates the rules, hit the Report button.
  • "Post 2 does not ‘complicate’ anything." So, you disagree with my assessment. That is allowed, of course. Just keep in mind that disagreeing doesn't mean my statement was fallacious. Nevertheless, your post did complicate things. As just one example, in response to my explanation of the procedural intent (how it works in practice), you raised abstract meta-questions about the rule's philosophy of community ("removes all opportunity for good will and self-correction among otherwise will-intentioned, conscientious, and earnest posters")—distancing the discussion from practical clarity.
  • "Whether anything was complicated or not, the matters expressed in post 2 are valid and legitimate." That is irrelevant to the content of my statement.
  • "The exchange boils down to [me saying,] ‘My motive is X,’ and [your] response is, "No, that is not your motive. Your motive is not X, it is Y.’" False. My response did not address motive at all. It addressed the evident intent and practical effect of your post. And even if my interpretation were mistaken—a more charitable conclusion that doesn't appear to have occurred to you—that would constitute a misjudgment, not ill will.

Thank you for the opportunity and the clarifications.

You're welcome. And thank you for the pushback. I am pleased with the object lesson this discussion has become.

(By the way, posts in this thread are not immune to being reported for rules violations. If something in this thread violates the rules, hit the Report button.)
 
No, it was not a fallacy (red herring).
  1. It was a rebuttal of your argument, a counter-assessment of your post's overall intent (help mods) and effect (complicated things). That makes it relevant and on point, not irrelevant and avoidant.
  2. It was not an attempt to avoid or divert attention from your argument, nor an effort to mislead, deflect, or obscure the real point at hand (definition of red herring). Crucially, it was an aside appended at the end of a post that had otherwise engaged your argument directly and in full.
  3. It did not introduce a new or irrelevant issue. It stayed within the bounds of your post's stated aim and evaluated the usefulness of your contribution toward that goal. You said that your intent was to "help the mods establish functional and efficacious rules," and I responded with a counter-assessment of that intent (and the effect of your contribution). That is not avoidance; it is engagement with your own claim.
  4. This was a misuse of logical terminology. You were using "red herring" not logically but colloquially, intending to say "you made an unnecessary comment." But in logic, irrelevance must functionally derail the argument. Nothing in my statement distracted from or concealed the main issue; it addressed it directly.
It was a rebuttal (responding to a claim with a counter-assessment), not a red herring (introducing a distracting irrelevance).
None of that addresses the fact what others have not done is irrelevant. The original comment is, in fact, a red herring, a statement that misleads and distracts from the points being made. In this particular case the comment, "So far, nobody else has complicated this stuff quite like this," is sort of a reverse form of ad populum. If you'd have said, "Others see it differently," that would be an appeal to what others do, but the appeal was made to what others have not done. Since there's no one else here, no reason to bring up others who aren't here, and no reason to bring up what the non-existent people haven't said, the comment is a red herring.

The only proper response is to either explain how what others haven't done is relevant and salient, or concede the comment was fallacious (and, since you're a moderator, you could remove the comment but I think it would serve the community if they had an observable example from which they could learn). Look at the comment as follows:
So far, nobody else has complicated this stuff quite like this.
So what?

  • Nobody else has posted about purple elephants, either.
  • Nobody else has posted about glerbandaffers, either.
  • Nobody else has posted an emoji.
  • Nobody else has uncomplicated "this stuff," either.
  • Nobody else has posted about "this stuff" at all.

The list of what nobody else hasn't done is endless! What nobody else has not done is irrelevant. A rebuttal must demonstrate how what others don't do is relevant and salient. That did not happen. As a consequence of that not happening, the matter of how many tries a poster has to resolve a fallacy has occurred. If the rules allow for one attempt to prove the fallacy isn't actually a fallacy (and this were a normal thread), then it would be time for another moderator to adjudicate the matter (which in this case could prove problematic since it pits mod against mod).
You're welcome. And thank you for the pushback. I am pleased with the object lesson this discussion has become.
Happy to help.

However, in the future, I would appreciate it if personal comments were kept out of the discussion (or, if the need is felt to comment about someone, make it positive :cool:).
 
None of that addresses the fact what others have not done is irrelevant.

Incorrect. It addressed that point directly (emphases added):

I did not appeal to what others do or don't do as if it was relevant to your post. I simply noted an observation—your eristic post was unique and alone in complicating things—with no connotation, either inherent or intended, that it has any relevance to the validity or soundness of your argumentation (which I had just finished engaging directly and fully).

The observation can't be fallacious because it wasn't used to avoid your argument or draw any conclusion about its validity or soundness.


The original comment is, in fact, a red herring, a statement that misleads and distracts from the points being made.

That simply reasserts a refuted claim. You need to deal with the evidence I presented, not ignore it and reassert your claim.


In this particular case, the comment ("So far, nobody else has complicated this stuff quite like this") is sort of a reverse form of ad populum.

This makes no logical sense.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy consists of arguing that X is true, good, or correct because lots of people believe it or do it (which implicates ¬X as false, bad, or incorrect because it's unpopular). The reverse of that would be an appeal to unpopularity, that X is true, good, or correct because it's unpopular (implicating ¬X as false, bad, or incorrect because it's popular). I am not guilty of either one of those, because I wasn't arguing that any particular thing was true or correct. I merely noted an observation, taking it no further than that. My comment was descriptive, not inferential. (If you're trying to infer something from said observation, that's on you.)


... the appeal was made to what others have not done. Since there's no one else here, no reason to bring up others who aren't here, and no reason to bring up what the non-existent people haven't said,

That is demonstrably false. A reference was made to your post being unique and alone in what it did. That is not an appeal to others, it's a referential description of your post.

And the comment was not a red herring, as the evidence demonstrated in my previous post (which you ignored in lieu of dealing with it).


The only proper response is to either explain how what others haven't done is relevant and salient, or concede the comment was fallacious.

That is the false dilemma fallacy, as demonstrated by the third option I chose.


Look at the comment as follows:

"So far, nobody else has complicated this stuff quite like this."
So what?

So nothing, Josh. That's kind of the point. You are looking for an inference. There isn't one.

If you had made that comment at the very end of your post, I would've responded (if at all), "Okay?" There isn't much else to say in response to an observation.

("So what?" works too.)


If the rules allow for one attempt to prove the fallacy isn't actually a fallacy ... then it would be time for another moderator to adjudicate the matter.

Evidently, one attempt to disprove the fallacy was sufficient.

The fact that you ignored the evidence I presented and simply reasserted your claim doesn't mean I need another attempt. The first attempt was left untouched.


However, in the future, I would appreciate it if personal comments were kept out of the discussion.

I repeat: "What I said wasn't personal (addressing the man) but rather situational (describing the dynamics of the dialogue). Do not conflate referential address with personal critique (a subtle but common rhetorical confusion)."

You will need to refute that if you want to insist that I made it personal.
 
Incorrect. It addressed that point directly (emphases added):

I did not appeal to what others do or don't do as if it was relevant to your post. I simply noted an observation—your eristic post was unique and alone in complicating things—with no connotation, either inherent or intended, that it has any relevance to the validity or soundness of your argumentation (which I had just finished engaging directly and fully).

The observation can't be fallacious because it wasn't used to avoid your argument or draw any conclusion about its validity or soundness.




That simply reasserts a refuted claim. You need to deal with the evidence I presented, not ignore it and reassert your claim.




This makes no logical sense.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy consists of arguing that X is true, good, or correct because lots of people believe it or do it (which implicates ¬X as false, bad, or incorrect because it's unpopular). The reverse of that would be an appeal to unpopularity, that X is true, good, or correct because it's unpopular (implicating ¬X as false, bad, or incorrect because it's popular). I am not guilty of either one of those, because I wasn't arguing that any particular thing was true or correct. I merely noted an observation, taking it no further than that. My comment was descriptive, not inferential. (If you're trying to infer something from said observation, that's on you.)




That is demonstrably false. A reference was made to your post being unique and alone in what it did. That is not an appeal to others, it's a referential description of your post.

And the comment was not a red herring, as the evidence demonstrated in my previous post (which you ignored in lieu of dealing with it).




That is the false dilemma fallacy, as demonstrated by the third option I chose.




So nothing, Josh. That's kind of the point. You are looking for an inference. There isn't one.

If you had made that comment at the very end of your post, I would've responded (if at all), "Okay?" There isn't much else to say in response to an observation.

("So what?" works too.)




Evidently, one attempt to disprove the fallacy was sufficient.

The fact that you ignored the evidence I presented and simply reasserted your claim doesn't mean I need another attempt. The first attempt was left untouched.




I repeat: "What I said wasn't personal (addressing the man) but rather situational (describing the dynamics of the dialogue). Do not conflate referential address with personal critique (a subtle but common rhetorical confusion)."

You will need to refute that if you want to insist that I made it personal.
Meh. You're breaking the rules, John. Discussion cannot continue until the matter of the fallacy is resolved!!! Your posts must, therefore, be limited to that one, single effort and they are not and since you've had your chance to resolve the matter it's not time for you to defer the matter to another moderator and that hasn't happened, either.

What others who are not here do not do is irrelevant. The comment serves only to distract.
 
Last edited:
You're breaking the rules, John.

And this statement from you, ironically, violates rule 4.9.

But, contrary to your claim, I was not breaking any rule. See below.


Discussion cannot continue until the matter of the fallacy is resolved!

1. That is not what the rule says.

(Side note: When a fallacy has been alleged and must be resolved, that doesn't mean the rest of the discussion must be suspended. The discussion may continue but it must include resolving the alleged fallacy—as I said elsewhere before.)

2. The matter of the fallacy was resolved. I refuted the accusation with evidence, which you ignored to reassert the accusation.


What others who are not here do not do is irrelevant. The comment serves only to distract.

You are reasserting a claim that was refuted—twice.
 
Back
Top