DrBob

@Strega

Strega wrote:@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

Couldn’t agree more.

@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

SteveInCO wrote:

Davis wrote:
And so…outing someone who works against your interests within a group is okay…but outing someone outside of your group who works against your interests is not okay. I can see how this might be fair…but perhaps you can explain why?

To be clear, I was thinking of the case where someone is pretending to be in Group…

[Read more]

Indeed. I was thinking about this a fair bit this weekend. The only reasonable argument (though not necessarily a good one) for outing someone like this is if the person is in the role of a leader or representative (or internally within an advocacy group) … who is working to undermine the rights of others, not as an ad hominem but as an attempt…[Read more]

Haven’t we slipped a little off topic here? I liked the original poser, got another, anyone?

Unseen wrote:

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already rep…

[Read more]

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already replied to this charge.

Also, you call my defintion “idiosyncratic” whereas it is really merely a minority usage, but it is sanctioned by the dictionary.

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s cre…[Read more]