You don’t seem to be understanding my points, judging from the nature of your responses.
But that isn’t the issue. I don’t care about what you, personally, believe. You’re making logically invalid arguments—that, I care about—and you’re doing so publically—which requires public refutation.
Contacting you personally would accomplish nothing. The point is not to convince you, but to accurately recognize and state the validity and invalidity of your arguments.
First, you are aware that there’s a difference between “You are making logically invalid arguments” and “Your arguments sound logically invalid to me, which means either that you are wrong or that I am misunderstanding them,” right?
Second, you’re contradicting yourself. If your goal is to convince me, feel free to do it by email. If your goal is to state what you think are the flaws in my argument to publically convince other people, then feel free to do it here, and be happy that I won’t be responding to muddle things up further.
The point is not to “convince” anyone. The point is to correctly and explicitly state the logical flaws in your positions. It is then the job of every rational person to convince themselves.
Refusing to ‘contribute’ further rules out acknowledging that the other’s position has been misrepresented.
True but irrelevant. Furthermore, Yvain’s failure to acknowledge anything is immaterial what you claim is the point of the conversation, to wit, to accurately recognize and state the validity and invalidity of his arguments, and not to convince him.
You don’t seem to be understanding my points, judging from the nature of your responses.
But that isn’t the issue. I don’t care about what you, personally, believe. You’re making logically invalid arguments—that, I care about—and you’re doing so publically—which requires public refutation.
Contacting you personally would accomplish nothing. The point is not to convince you, but to accurately recognize and state the validity and invalidity of your arguments.
First, you are aware that there’s a difference between “You are making logically invalid arguments” and “Your arguments sound logically invalid to me, which means either that you are wrong or that I am misunderstanding them,” right?
Second, you’re contradicting yourself. If your goal is to convince me, feel free to do it by email. If your goal is to state what you think are the flaws in my argument to publically convince other people, then feel free to do it here, and be happy that I won’t be responding to muddle things up further.
Your first ‘question’ is merely a veiled insult.
No, I am not.
The point is not to “convince” anyone. The point is to correctly and explicitly state the logical flaws in your positions. It is then the job of every rational person to convince themselves.
Okay. You were always free to do exactly that, instead of asserting that Yvain was
when he was actually ceding the last word and declaring the conversation over just as soon as you were done replying to his last substantive comment.
Ahem:
Refusing to ‘contribute’ further rules out acknowledging that the other’s position has been misrepresented.
True but irrelevant. Furthermore, Yvain’s failure to acknowledge anything is immaterial what you claim is the point of the conversation, to wit, to accurately recognize and state the validity and invalidity of his arguments, and not to convince him.