Dr. Sanity, you are such a gem. It's wonderful that you provide all these insights on your blog at no charge. For you to stop blogging would be the onset of misery 
Thanks for the "Hierarchy of Disagreement" link... it's one of those things I have long known but never articulated as clearly this.
The problem being that a typical leftist thinks "BUSH LIED" is at the top of that pyramid.
Come on Doc, you know how to handle this kind of negative energy.
However, it is always relevant to present your response as you have done. It is educational for those who take the interest and the time to understand what you have presented.
Ignorance is everyone's enemy.
What you don't want is to become "bitter" from such name calling, right?
Ask your God for guidance, load your gun, visit with your simple neighbors, then take aim when you see the whites of those eyes that find you sooo disagreeable!
Be free to be Thee!
That will be $200, (standard rate email healing fee), pay down the hall at the desk and thank you.
Gee Doc,
I thought that the example you cited was of a "typical left winger" arguing the merits of a position. Seems like they're bitter about something......
I wonder if the government has met their needs today.
Thanks for the link.
Kind of puts the visual to the term, "bottom feeding".
!
There is one level of "argument" that is left out: "I am offended by what you said/did." Followed by "you must shut up and give me all your stuff" and/or one or more of indiscriminate rioting, pillaging, burning, and killing.
ARH,
Don't forget the diversion tactic.
Thats where you bring up a subject like Governor Spitzer whoring around and suddenly find yourself talking about restroom stall foot tapping by a republican.
Trying to pin down a leftie on a specific topic is like trying to sit on a beach ball in a swimming pool.
Steve,
Good point. Not sure if your "argument" is higher or lower than mine. They are both below Name Calling by a substantial amount.
Once arguments get so weak, the actual ranking doesn't matter much. Once the signal gets below the noise level, there is hardly any recoverable information. Name calling is right at the level of noise. It gives information about the character of the name caller but nothing about the point at issue itself.
At the same time, I don't think any rational or non-rational verbal or rhetorical tactic works on the vast majority of Faux Liberals. When was the last time anyone could control a wilding 2-6 year old with mere words?
But then, of course, verbal Diplomacy always works.
I don't agree with this at all. And I don't like the way you've put this. Also, I don't think the site you've referenced is much of an expert.
And don't be an ass hat!
And nowhere in that hierarchy can you find any excuse for using the f-bomb. My commenters (who get immediately banned for such behavior) obviously are not aware of this helpful technique. I will have to enlighten them. Hopefully they won't see the baseball bat until its too late to duck!
There's one technique that's not listed there, (probably a subcategory?), and which I've seen them use a fair amount.
When someone is making a complicated argument with a number of points, the Lefty opposition often uses a technique designed to resemble refutation, or refutation of the central point. But, what they do is attack a weak, and invariably superficial point, then act as if they've toppled the whole edifice rather than having just scraped off some paint.
The way it would seem best to avoid that, and drive them further down on the techniques pyramid, would seem to be by being careful, and not stating points that are dispensable. That way they have no choice but to use argument techniques which are more obviously bogus.
You can not enter into debate with a psychotic because it will never be a debate.
That's what this site is all about, no?
Yes.
.
I sort of like the way the author of the email skipped the top 6 techniques of the hierarchy and went straight to the bottom. At least he’s aware that he can't win at any other level.
Meanwhile, Chinese atrocities continue just as intensively or more so than ever. China's terrorism remains under wraps to an astonishing extent. See the clip and photos below for some of what is going on in China:
Here is a video from British Channel 4 entitled "Dispatches: undercover in Tibet" at
http://video.google.ca/videoplay...0976871193492&
q ]
Also: on this one, scroll down for the photos:
http://funreadingemails.blogspot...alth-
china.html
Dr. Sanity, this would have been a perfect post had you spelled "Hierarchy" correctly. I realize that for pointing that annoying trifle out, I might be rewarded with "ass hat" status anyways.
Did Vince just point the bottom tier at himself?
Fascinating.
!
label any disagreeing debater as "leftist" is pretty common on the Right.
So why do they fall so low, I mean the ones who call the opponents "leftists"?
yonason: "When someone is making a complicated argument with a number of points, the Lefty opposition often uses a technique designed to resemble refutation, or refutation of the central point. But, what they do is attack a weak, and invariably superficial point, then act as if they've toppled the whole edifice rather than having just scraped off some paint. "
I believe that's referred to as the Straw Man technique. I'd stick it in above 'ad hominem', since it's at least an attempt to address the substance of the argument, but it's still on the level of 'responding to tone' as unresponsive to the actual meat of the argument.
check out the improved version:
http://digg.com/educational/
Paul...isagreement_pic
(that is a digg link so you can vote it up)
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan.com
