What to do at Derailed Train threads

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Say someone makes a thread, and then the author makes a post in that same thread. In the post, the author uses 2+2=5 to justify one of his statements.

If I provide a logical proof of why 2+2=5 is not a sensible statement, is that out of bounds in the discussion. Because it is technically off topic and it is not connected to the original post, even though it is a direct response to one of the authors posts in the same topic. If the author says 2+2=5 in one of his posts, it is offtopic to try to disprove that 2+2=5, because it is not a direct response to the original post, but one of the author’s later posts in that same topic.

Also, if I have a few typos, or have subliminal grammar mistakes, then that nullifies my point that 2+2 isn’t 5, because if I forget to put a comma or have incorrect spacing between words, the important thing is that 2+2=5, and unless I can say with perfect grammar that 2+2 does not equal 5, then 2+2=5 and if I comment that 2+2 does not equal 5, there is a risk of Derailed Train threads.

I feel like I made a mistake, I shall sit in the corner with my dunce hat. From now on, unless the topic is specifically about whether 2+2=5, I should know better than to derail the thread by saying that 2+2 does not equal 5, and it is impolite to correct the author if he says 2+2=5, unless the topic is directly about 2+2=5.

Also, if I provide a lengthy logical proof, but I put a small ad hom at the end of it I am an ad hommer, but if the other person never provides any logical proofs and only ad homs, then he is wise of years, and I am a sad, pathetic dunce, and I shall sit in the corner.

2

Apply this to yourself = an improvement. :mrgreen:

3

Not really; I mean, so long as the statement that 2+2=5 is supposed to support is itself relevant to the main point of the thread, I’d say you were on topic. And even if it wasn’t, it would be the author who derailed the thread, not you.

I don’t get what grammar or typos have to do with it. If someone accuses you of derailing a thread because of grammar or typos, then that’s doubly derailing the thread.

Who cares about ad homs, I say. Ad hom fallacies are good to point out if they replace a legitimate argument, but if you simply add them in addition to an argument, just to be an ass or whatever, and someone has an issue with it, you can accuse them of the being-a-pussy fallacy.

So are you speaking from a recent experience? Was it Iambiguous? Was it James?

4

I don’t think you understand.

I don’t kick people out of my threads for disagreeing with me or pointing out my mistakes, and I don’t correct people’s grammar and respond with adhom only replies that have nothing to do with the argument.

5

Nah. Iambugous doesnt really reply with ad homs like that, he just uses wall of text copypasta. And James is smart enough to know that 2+2 does not equal 5. Guess again. Hint, think of fem lace, Anne of Green gables, grass lawns, tea parties, etc.

6

Really???

Arc?

7

No.

8

Fair enough ~ it was there waiting to be said I guess. I would say that you seem in a rush and don’t notice replies n stuff, but generally you are the uncarved block full of potential. :slight_smile:

  • you just need to get past that bullet-like physicalism. there is only one place [in reality generally] so all things are together and all things are also far apart = existence is abstract.
9

This is a bizarre statement. If you use an argument to justify a thesis, the validity of that argument is obviously on-topic.

10

Suppose you own two bulls and two cows. One of the bulls impregnates one of the cows. A calf is born.

So here you have 2 + 2 = 5

Or is that epistemologically unsound? :-k