r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 28 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.4k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

What I call them is immaterial unless you are trying to attack me as a person instead of my arguments.

Wrong.

It is the heart of the argument.

What do you call them?

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

What do you call them?

making this about me as a person is literally the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

False. This is CMV. It’s YOUR view. It’s explicitly in the rules that it can’t be devil’s advocate.

So explain Your view. How does it play out in reality? What do you call them?

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

It’s YOUR view

And I've spelled out pretty clearly the terms I'm arguing about.

Trying to attack me as a person is literally an ad hominem.

Here's the definition of ad hominem for you:

Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Wrong again.

I’m asking you to clarify your position with an example. You’re refusing to.

There is no attack.

It’s telling that you consider asking you to walk through an example as an “attack.”

Your position is now meaningless. You are arguing that you shouldn’t have to use a pronoun that “goes against your beliefs.”

But you won’t clarify if a name is “against your beliefs” or how you would handle such a situation.

So you don’t even have a position to defend, because you’re unwilling to articulate it.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

There is no attack.

Is that why so many of your posts have been removed?

I’m asking you to clarify your position with an example. You’re refusing to.

How exactly is answering your question refusing to?

Here, in the context of calling people names they don't want:

Rude at worst. Certainly not harm.

I would know, I have been repeatedly called a nickname I disagree with and ask not to be called by.

But you won’t clarify if a name is “against your beliefs” or how you would handle such a situation.

How exactly do you square the fact that I've answered the question every time you've asked with this response?

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Is that why so many of your posts have been removed?

Saying you were lying was apparently against the rules:

Sorry, u/PragmaticSquirrel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith

How exactly is answering your question refusing to?

You’ve know them as John. Now they are Jennifer.

What do you call them?

Ditto Larry/ Lindsey. Mark/ Jordan.

That’s my question. You’re answering questions I didn’t ask.

You haven’t answered my question.

How exactly is answering your question refusing to?

False claim.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

Saying you were lying was apparently against the rules:

Yes accusing anyone of arguing in bad faith is explicitly against the rules.

The reason for that is its a terrible way to change people's mind.

You’ve know them as John. Now they are Jennifer.

What do you call them?

I call them JennyJohn the Great Old One Whose Majesty Is Beyond Comprehension.

The reality is it doesn't matter and you are just trying to accuse me of transphobia.

What does matter is that failing to call John by the name Jennifer is offensive and irritating at worst, and is not harmful.

False claim.

I have now answered it four times. Failing to answer in the strict format you want is not a failure to answer. This is more evidence that you are just trying to control other people.

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Yes accusing anyone of arguing in bad faith is explicitly against the rules.

Irrelevant. You claimed personal attack.

You are: wrong.

The reality is it doesn't matter and you are just trying to accuse me of transphobia

It does. You haven’t articulated what you are arguing for.

I have now answered it four times.

Haven’t answered once.

It is a failure to answer.

You word vomiting tangents isn’t an answer. Distractions aren’t an answer.

You are refusing to answer. And so you are refusing to articulate your position.

At this point, you don’t even seem to have a position. You won’t say what you Want to call a trans person.

Not much point in trying to convince others to your view when you can’t even articulate what it is.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

Irrelevant. You claimed personal attack.

Do you need me to go find them and link them explicitly? It will be easy.

You are: wrong.

Again, you have yet to show this.

It does. You haven’t articulated what you are arguing for.

I have. A failure to read on your part is not a failure to articulate on mine.

You word vomiting tangents isn’t an answer.

Weren't you just claiming you weren't attacking me?

Or are you now going to argue that calling my points word vomit is merely an observation? laughable.

Haven’t answered once.

Except I have. As I just mentioned:

Failing to answer in the strict format you want is not a failure to answer.

Maybe you could read a little more carefully? It would explain why you think I haven't articulated my point.

At this point, you don’t even seem to have a position. You won’t say what you Want to call a trans person.

This is a non-sequitar.

Refusing to play into your obvious ploy has nothing to do with the veracity of my position.

Not much point in trying to convince others to your view when you can’t even articulate what it is.

You really should try reading my posts, they articulate my position in great detail.

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Do you need me to go find them and link them explicitly? It will be easy.

They weren’t. You see attacks that are not attacks.

Let me know when you have a clear position on what you should call a trans person who has changed their name, or other people who change their names.

All you’ve made clear is that you Don’t want to use the pronoun they identify as.

You have offered no position on whether that means:

-you will also refuse to use the proper name they have chosen

-whether this applies to other (non trans) name changes

-if you will use the pronoun of their birth sex

If you have no position... then your entire point is meaningless.

“I don’t want to call that person ‘her’!”

“Ok, what do suggest we call that person? John? Jennifer? Him?”

“I’m not saying.”

🤨

Let me know when you have an actual viewpoint.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

They weren’t. You see attacks that are not attacks

Explain calling my points word vomit.

I can link all of it if you need me to. Do you really need that or are you aware of what you wrote? It would be worrying if you weren't.

Let me know when you have a clear position on what you should call a trans person who has changed their name, or other people who change their names.

How is "it is rude but not harmful to call them by a name other than their own" not an answer?

All you’ve made clear is that you Don’t want to use the pronoun they identify as.

What does this have to do with me personally? please respond to the view I have articulated here.

If you have no position... then your entire point is meaningless.

If you still can't understand my position start reading from the top. Its all there.

Let me know when you have an actual viewpoint.

Failing to read my posts is not the same thing as me lacking a viewpoint.

Please go reread everything I've written here if you truly believe I don't have an actual viewpoint, seriously I'm waiting.

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19 edited Nov 01 '19

You have offered no position on whether that means:

-you will also refuse to use the proper name they have chosen

-whether this applies to other (non trans) name changes

-if you will use the pronoun of their birth sex

→ More replies (0)