Skip to main content

tools in the trade of “being a tool”

Conversational Terrorism is rife with lessons about other unfair tactics to employ in debate or, indeed, any conversation. This is akin to a follow-up post to my other one, ages ago, about fallacies and how to recognize them.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3/08/2006 7:18 AM

    It's nice to have a taxonomy to work off of, so I can check them off my list when I argue with Kevin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bwana3/08/2006 8:48 AM

    ;-)

    I was wondering which one of you would post something like that first.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3/09/2006 4:55 PM

    It's not worth my time to consult, because Tim is an ASS.

    Which one does that fall under?

    ReplyDelete
  4. bwana3/09/2006 4:58 PM

    I think you hit two or three of them. Impressive for such a short sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3/10/2006 6:29 AM

    Well, the reading level of the article is a bit high for Kevin, as evidenced by the fact that he had to ask about the content. I do salute his continuing efforts to educate himself, however.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous3/11/2006 1:32 AM

    Tim, you ignorant slut...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3/11/2006 3:47 AM

    Bite me, fan boy.

    Which reminds me, the article is missing two important techniques:

    1) Physical Threat
    "I believe your opinion would be different with my foot up your ass."

    2) Appeal to Spurious Authority
    "Well, I'm the last person to win a game of Mario Kart. Therefore you are wrong."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tony diTerlizzi and classic D&D monsters

The sixth entry of his series on drawings of classic D&D monsters is up. He's one of my favorite fantasy artists. His work tends toward the charming and cozy, rather than others' focus on machismo or melodrama.
Post a Comment
Read more

sad fate

“Our legendary personalities are evergreen ‘brands’ with the benefit of worldwide recognition,” reads a message on the Richman agency’s website. Guardian UK Article *vomits* Where is the line drawn between “public figure” and “celebrity”? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It’s one thing to insist that Duck Soup is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn’t personalities and such pass into the public domain as well? ( boingboing : Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al )
Post a Comment
Read more