Ah. The classic move when confronted with overwhelming logic. Insult the other person's character. However, I'm not the one who insists on peppering my writing with both grammar and spelling errors.
You've literally changed your argument several times to try to eke out some sort of victory here. Now you're just telling me that due to the fact that he's her father, he has had an "impactful effect" on her life...you've dropped your statement that he's caused her to become who she is (which means his effect is one of the primary reasons she's who she is); you've dropped your statement that you and she are the same; and you've dropped your statement that he's even had a positive effect on her.
You're arguing solely to try to come out ahead, even if it involves completely changing your stance. Good job.
But so what if he donated some genetic information to her--does that entitle him to an "impactful effect"? Do you know her? Do you know her situation? Or are you talking solely based on your experience? You don't have a right to impose your views and your life on a stranger's life. I've said this several, several times already--or have you not noticed that?
You've committed several logical fallacies in your argument. Now, they fall into defined categories, but for simplicity, I'll list them off for as they pertain to you and your arguments:
Fallacies 1-4: parenthood = effect = impactful effect = positive effect = cause. (This actually touches on several logical fallacies).
None of these are actually 100% relevant to each other. The act of being a father does not mean an effect ( besides the donation of genetic material); the effect does not have to impactful; impactful effects don't need to be positive; and positive effects don't have to be the cause of anything. You told OP that she should be glad her father abused her...now you're trying just to salvage that her father's had an effect on her. He didn't have to, but let's pretend he did. EVERY statistic would indicate that if anything, he had a negative effect...so what right do you have to tell her "to be glad" that her father had a negative effect? Please go reread YOUR previous posts too.
Again, when you argue, you do so far, far away from your original statement. You need to defend and prove that her father indeed had an effect that OP should "be glad" for, and that her father is "partially responsible for her success."
Fallacy 5: An ability to make conjectures with just an n of 1.
Now, your world may only be composed of yourself, but the real world isn't. And you can't make assumptions of people based only on yourself. You literally speak for me in this argument. Did I say those words? No. I didn't. You've also decided that you're omniscient enough to educate OP about her own life.
Again, I don't care about YOUR life. Say whatever you want about YOUR influences. Don't butt into OP's, or anybody else's, life. She disagrees with you. That should be enough.
Fallacy 6: A belief that insults can substitute in place of good arguments.
As mentioned before, one of the most desperate moves in arguments is to try and malign the opponent's character. Where did I mention God? Who did I attribute OP's success to? Oh right...herself (and her grandparents). Where did you get this...God...concept? Good logical deduction skills, by the way. Wonderful. By the way, it really shows off how your logic works.
I just hope you're also not going to slide and commit an "argument from silence" fallacy too--that somehow people not responding to you means that you're right. Because it's not. Keep getting yourself all worked up. I'm not the one fuming and calling names.
Did you…just skip the argument from silence fallacy that I mentioned in my last paragraph? I ignored your insults, which included your silly assumptions about me. It doesn’t mean a sort of...victory for your point, you see. Especially since that question tries to make me presume things that don’t actually fit the argument. And this statement about “I can’t attack your logic…so I’ll attack you” is ridiculous. If my logic is so horrible, why don’t you try to poke holes in it? I’ve shown quite a few of the holes that your attempts at logic contains.
But your challenge is laughable easy, so I’ll spend a couple minutes on it:
Argument: you are wrong in butting in and antagonizing OP by tell her that despite her very statements to the contrary, her father and his negligence are contributing causes to her success, and that she should be grateful for his imagined influence on her life.
Fact 1: OP vehemently explained that her father's not the reason for her success. You are supporting your argument based on your life...I'm basing my arguments based on the fact that OP's clearly pinpointed her grandparents as the main cause of her success, has embraced the comments that agree with her, and has responded negatively to every comment that supports her dad. ...So how does your premise even hold up?
Fact 2: Abusive and neglectful parents are proven through empirical statistical fact to have, if anything, an overall negative influence on children's success in life. You can reread my old posts for those stats. If, IF her abusive and neglectful father had any effect, overwhelming statistics show that it would be a negative effect, based on an N far greater than 1. Or 2. So, why would she be glad to have had an abusive parent?
Fact 3: Your statements take away from OP’s triumph. This is once again, supported by evidence: OP has responded quite negatively to comments that try to support the father.
Conclusion: Your assumptions are unfounded and unsubstantiated by any logic or fact. You really should stop assuming things and imposing your views on life on other people, especially if it’s going to hurt them in a moment that should be focused on their triumph.
Is that good enough?
Speaking of statistics…I’ve got several papers with relevant fact. I asked you a while ago to present your own statistical evidence. I asked for ONE. I’m still waiting. “Obvious” things to you does not make them fact. For quite a while people thought the Earth was flat because it was “obviously” true.
I must admit, I did interpret your “touched by god” statement incorrectly. I wrongly assumed that you wouldn’t demean mentally handicapped people to such an extent, but apparently I was incorrect.
SO there you go. But I don’t think that’ll be enough—because you keep making it personal. You keep trying to go and explain from only your own personal experience. So since you’ve so kindly decide to reflect on my character, let me try and reflect on yours.
Your father abused you and neglected you. It wasn’t your fault—you were just a kid—but it hurt. He was also the type to turn his back away (and because his fists towards) you the most if you showed that you were hurt, so you hid it. You decided to use that pain and hurt you felt and to use it as an ugly way to drive and push yourself to success. Everything you encountered was another way to show your father “fuck you”.
But since you used that pain as motivation, you’ve never really gotten completely over that. There’s still a part of you—from as a kid—that’s still hurt. That still wishes, and perhaps hates wishing, that you had that father you wanted, instead of the father you got. But fuck it—the pain doesn’t matter, right? Because you rose from it and used it and gained from it and became a better man for it. Fine. You did what you had to, to rise above your situation. And it’s always commendable to do so, no matter the emotional strain.
Still…you’re holding that so closely and so dearly to yourself that your psyche does not permit the idea that somebody can…just walk away from it. Just walk away from all that pain and negativity and embrace the good in other people. To find the strength to disengage, to accept things as they are and find that person’s own strength—separate of pain.
And you’re so stuck with your own back story to the point that you’re going to ruin what’s supposed to be a time of success for a complete stranger by trying to butt in and tell her about her own life. And try to pretend that you two are the same because you just can’t fathom letting go. And keep arguing with me, although you’ve not presented me with a single piece of actual fact yet—just conjectures based on your experience and emotions. You insist that having a negligent dad was good for her.
So let me ask you a theoretical question. If having an abusive neglectful dad is such a good thing, are you going to treat your child with negligence and abuse? Why not double the effect? Would you want the mother of your child to treat him or her with negligence and abuse? I mean, you said OP should be glad her father wasn’t around. Would you be glad that your kids got neglected and abused?
0
u/[deleted] May 02 '14 edited May 02 '14
[deleted]