Talent = gift, faculty, ability, flair, capacity, aptitude. Why is this so hard to understand?
“especially as you are so swift in condemning others for putting down people rather than their arguments.”
So swift in condemning? Utter nonsense.”
WHAT? How can you say that? You’ve had several goes at me for attacking your character rather than the arguments: viz:
“There you go again. If you’re going to be conservative, or even hang with them, you’re going to have to stop doing that. It is the hallmark of the leftist who seeks to avoid discussion of the issue by discrediting the opponent.”
“I really despise this argument. What people attempt to do when they make this argument is discredit the opponent, and not his arguments, by painting him as a closed-minded person who always reacts by saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” without any consideration of the arguments to hand.”
“When caught doing something you shouldn’t, the least appropriate response is to attack the tone of the person who called you on it. Further, the word “condemn” is in the same category as the word “ignorant:” that is, it is not a simple descriptive, but a character slur”
So why do you do it then? And yes you have.
“I could have taken ten years of round-the-clock deliberations, and you would still accuse me of being “so swift,” because you don’t seem to be able to respond appropriately to an accurate description of your conduct.”
Are you incapable of understanding English? Or do certain trigger words set you off? I was saying, clearly, that you are swift in pointing out that behaviour in others, I was NOT condemning you for indulging in that behaviour.
“However, the fact is that the left is wrong, from A to Z. Doesn’t matter what kind of credentials they may have, they should be scorned, ridiculed, and barred from all positions of responsibility.”
Guess we are back to “youth regarding christians as judgemental” again.
“That’s William Jefferson Airplane Clintstone’s real name.”
Really? No wonder he changed it.
“Your sarcasm would be more effective if it couldn’t be more appropriately read as a simple statement of fact.”
Actually I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was trying to graciously concede the point. I do concede that point. I was not and am not attempting to belittle, besmirch or minimise your experience or ideas on that particular point in any way shape or form. I hope that is clear now.
I went on a bit there to be absolutely clear you understand this (this last is sarcasm, but less than
“I guess it’s just a matter of…hmmm…I need to invent a name for that phenomenon. The further to the left a person is, the less willing he is to believe that anyone to the right of him is an intelligent person acting in good faith who has actually examined the evidence and pondered the arguments. And the more likely he is to assume that anyone to the right of him is stupid, malicious, and closed-minded, and the less likely he therefore is to examine the arguments arrayed against his positions in any meaningful way.
Perhaps we could call it the “Doyle Phenomenon,” after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote that “Mediocrity knows nothing better than itself.”
And this argument, apparently, is not “playing the man rather than the ball”, implying to me stupidity, mediocrity, close-mindedness etc etc. What a joke.
“Talent = gift, faculty, ability, flair, capacity, aptitude. Why is this so hard to understand?”
What’s hard to understand is that you equate the word with intelligence and wisdom, even though you apparently have access to a dictionary.
“WHAT? How can you say that? You’ve had several goes at me for attacking your character rather than the arguments”
1. I have remarked on it. That is not the same as condemning you.
2. Your use of “so swift” means “too swift.” In the common parlance, that is to say hasty, thoughtless, without justification. This is not the case. I have seen these ploys countless times before, and my remarks were completely justified.
“So why do you do it then? And yes you have.”
No, actually, I haven’t, and never do. You cannot cite a single instance of my attacking your character *instead of* addressing your argument.
“I was saying, clearly, that you are swift in pointing out that behaviour in others, I was NOT condemning you for indulging in that behaviour.”
No, you don’t get away with that one. Your use of “so swift” clearly means, as I remarked above, too swift: hasty, thoughtless, without justification.
“Guess we are back to “youth regarding christians as judgemental” again.”
The foolish often react that way when confronted with the truth.
“Actually I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was trying to graciously concede the point.”
Well, then, I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
“this last is sarcasm, but less than”
That’s not sarcasm. I’m dead serious. It’s such a common thing, and requires so much bandwidth to explain, that a commonly understood name for it would be a blessing. I think “the Doyle Phenomenon” would do nicely.
“And this argument, apparently, is not “playing the man rather than the ball”
Um, no. Are you feeling all right? It describes a specific behavior, and in no way implies that any given position is invalidated by that behavior.
“implying to me stupidity, mediocrity, close-mindedness etc etc. What a joke.”
You should read more carefully. If I accuse you of anything, it is that *you* impute stupidity, close-mindedness etc etc. to your opponents.
And that is a comment *in addition to* addressing your arguments, not *instead of* addressing them.