She is in better shape than 90% of the world population. Not sure why she is supposed to be perfect. She is a singer not a fitness model. Guys would get laid a lot more if they weren’t dicks about tiny imperfections in women.
I assume you are the epitome of physical fitness?
No, but I’ve got just the place for her to do a few squats.
I agree with Billy. I would just point out that so many of the people we see in pictures and movies are dead solid perfect or nearly so, and perhaps photographed to conceal imperfections, so our standards for them get warped.
Also, I just saw a YouTube video called “31 Logical Fallacies in 8 Minutes” and I think that Billy’s last line is one of them, I forget which. As I said, though, I agree fully with his first paragraph.
I think that’s the “tu quoque” fallacy in action.
Yes, I agree, it has that name, tu quoque. I’m not too enthused by the old-fashioned labels however, for the reason we just speedbumped across. We could for instance have just said “deflection” & been none the worse for wear. The top hit (Wiki) on 2qq instantly points out its chic equiv “whataboutism”. I prefer that, too.
MikeP, I think that the “tu quoque” is an accusation specifically aimed at the person you are arguing with and is not just an attempt to change the subject in general.
You probably already knew that, and that is probably what you meant, so I apologize for being obtuse. I hope that apology does not in itself constitute a “tu quoque”, by implying that I think you are thin-skinned. That was not my intent, but if it does constitute a TQ in your mind, I apologize for that also.
Yes, Roger, I did know that & we were talking about Billy, heaven’s sakes it’s not like NM & I were ganging up on you, we were still talking about him. What I was really thinking was I shoulda just said “adhom” my own slangy ver of ad hominem, that’s what it was, it woulda been acc enuf, we all know what that means. We sit here niggling over TQ & minutiae while everyone else, to the right, to the left, canon to the right of us, canon to the left of us volley & thunder, all go about biz as usual with their made-up minds freely using all 31 of those fallacies & a thousand more. There’s no logic, no rules, just a free for all, everyone thinks they know everything & can’t be talked to. They pull crap like that & BS & hell wit yer facts. That’s how I’m feeling about what ownin the libs really means in this gawfasakin place right now. Sounds good? Ya blockin ma way.
I think MikeP is trying to say he ain’t mad at cha.
Also known as a tu pacpac.
Thank you, fwald, I am glad to know that. I lost my way about 4 lines into MikeP’s post, which seemed to get increasingly…Ginsburgian? about that point.
I really did not mean to offend him, but nip-picking is inherently annoying. I do think I was right about what a “tu quoque” is, but maybe I just like typing “tu quoque”.
As Richard Feynman used to say, knowing the name of a thing is no substitute for salient knowledge about it. By focusing on what to call illegit tactics, you’re in effect setting aside (& falling prey to being distracted from) the original question. To engage in this kind of academic quicksand is, like, straight out of The 3 Stooges.
There are other kinds of such tactics including moving the goalposts. One point of which is to keep your opponent busy making futile concessions. In the meantime, you silently take decisive steps to moot the entire debate.
Returning to the specifics of our digression, TQ *is* a form of ad hominem. The umbrella term carries with it a perfectly adequate dose of disapproval. You’re telling me you’ve nothing better to do than squabble over crumbs.
We could’ve leveled any number of epithets at that offending tactic that the offender would’ve been sure to understand. Ad hominem gets it done. If anything, better than TQ. Next time, you can just say ad hominem. It should roll right off your tongue. Easy like cake. AFAIC, you can let your newfound epiphany TQ remain safely stowed away wherever you store your trash.
Sorry for busting a seam. But I’m already fuming about the econ theory dogma that’s still keeping us polarized after a decade of lessons has unearthed a fact: right wing econ canon is high-grade BS. I need to talk about that with someone like Adam. The truth is the “efficient markets” premise is as benighted as “rational actors”. US labor “markets” are segmented, fragmented to the point of monopsony.
Exact same head-bashing never stops. Same old deficit fear mongering, supply-side & trickle-down BS & then… Just today the “alternative fact” that minimum wage hikes cost jobs again rears its ugly head. I’m mad at that. I’m hoping maybe Adam could bolt my flopping noggin back onto my neck.
Would it kill her to do a few squats? Fuck sake
She is in better shape than 90% of the world population. Not sure why she is supposed to be perfect. She is a singer not a fitness model. Guys would get laid a lot more if they weren’t dicks about tiny imperfections in women.
I assume you are the epitome of physical fitness?
No, but I’ve got just the place for her to do a few squats.
I agree with Billy. I would just point out that so many of the people we see in pictures and movies are dead solid perfect or nearly so, and perhaps photographed to conceal imperfections, so our standards for them get warped.
Also, I just saw a YouTube video called “31 Logical Fallacies in 8 Minutes” and I think that Billy’s last line is one of them, I forget which. As I said, though, I agree fully with his first paragraph.
I think that’s the “tu quoque” fallacy in action.
Yes, I agree, it has that name, tu quoque. I’m not too enthused by the old-fashioned labels however, for the reason we just speedbumped across. We could for instance have just said “deflection” & been none the worse for wear. The top hit (Wiki) on 2qq instantly points out its chic equiv “whataboutism”. I prefer that, too.
MikeP, I think that the “tu quoque” is an accusation specifically aimed at the person you are arguing with and is not just an attempt to change the subject in general.
You probably already knew that, and that is probably what you meant, so I apologize for being obtuse. I hope that apology does not in itself constitute a “tu quoque”, by implying that I think you are thin-skinned. That was not my intent, but if it does constitute a TQ in your mind, I apologize for that also.
Yes, Roger, I did know that & we were talking about Billy, heaven’s sakes it’s not like NM & I were ganging up on you, we were still talking about him. What I was really thinking was I shoulda just said “adhom” my own slangy ver of ad hominem, that’s what it was, it woulda been acc enuf, we all know what that means. We sit here niggling over TQ & minutiae while everyone else, to the right, to the left, canon to the right of us, canon to the left of us volley & thunder, all go about biz as usual with their made-up minds freely using all 31 of those fallacies & a thousand more. There’s no logic, no rules, just a free for all, everyone thinks they know everything & can’t be talked to. They pull crap like that & BS & hell wit yer facts. That’s how I’m feeling about what ownin the libs really means in this gawfasakin place right now. Sounds good? Ya blockin ma way.
I think MikeP is trying to say he ain’t mad at cha.
Also known as a tu pacpac.
Thank you, fwald, I am glad to know that. I lost my way about 4 lines into MikeP’s post, which seemed to get increasingly…Ginsburgian? about that point.
I really did not mean to offend him, but nip-picking is inherently annoying. I do think I was right about what a “tu quoque” is, but maybe I just like typing “tu quoque”.
As Richard Feynman used to say, knowing the name of a thing is no substitute for salient knowledge about it. By focusing on what to call illegit tactics, you’re in effect setting aside (& falling prey to being distracted from) the original question. To engage in this kind of academic quicksand is, like, straight out of The 3 Stooges.
There are other kinds of such tactics including moving the goalposts. One point of which is to keep your opponent busy making futile concessions. In the meantime, you silently take decisive steps to moot the entire debate.
Returning to the specifics of our digression, TQ *is* a form of ad hominem. The umbrella term carries with it a perfectly adequate dose of disapproval. You’re telling me you’ve nothing better to do than squabble over crumbs.
We could’ve leveled any number of epithets at that offending tactic that the offender would’ve been sure to understand. Ad hominem gets it done. If anything, better than TQ. Next time, you can just say ad hominem. It should roll right off your tongue. Easy like cake. AFAIC, you can let your newfound epiphany TQ remain safely stowed away wherever you store your trash.
Sorry for busting a seam. But I’m already fuming about the econ theory dogma that’s still keeping us polarized after a decade of lessons has unearthed a fact: right wing econ canon is high-grade BS. I need to talk about that with someone like Adam. The truth is the “efficient markets” premise is as benighted as “rational actors”. US labor “markets” are segmented, fragmented to the point of monopsony.
Exact same head-bashing never stops. Same old deficit fear mongering, supply-side & trickle-down BS & then… Just today the “alternative fact” that minimum wage hikes cost jobs again rears its ugly head. I’m mad at that. I’m hoping maybe Adam could bolt my flopping noggin back onto my neck.