The political threads are rather rough and tumble anyway. The philosophical threads, we generally keep cleaner. I think that's the way it should be. Btw, @schopenhauer1 has taken an enormous amount of stick for his philosophical hobby horse and @Gnostic Christian Bishop has been heavily criticized too. @Shawn (formerly Wallows) hasn't been pushed around by the community much but has been ban-threatened several times. It is possible to go too far with this and as I said the flag function can be used. Best I can do.

I wasnt singling you out in the post you responded to. — DingoJones

I realize that.

The political threads are rather rough and tumble anyway. The philosophical threads, we generally keep cleaner. I think that's the way it should be. Btw, schopenhauer1 has taken an enormous amount of stick for his philosophical hobby horse and @Gnostic Christian Bishop has been heavily criticized too. @Shawn (formerly Wallows) hasn't been pushed around by the community much but has been ban-threatened several times. It is possible to go too far with this and as I said the flag function can be used. Best I can do. — Baden

I would say the shit those folk have to take over their shenanigans is lesser in scope and frequency. There isnt the same venom, nor as many people onboard the hate train. Also, Im not suggesting mod involvement or anyone needs to be warned or reported. Rather its the kind of thing we hope people will hold themselves accountable for.

Rather its the kind of thing we hope people will hold themselves accountable for. — DingoJones

I'm quite upset about you pointing out my weak character. Do you by chance hold yourself accountable for that, kind sir?

@Baden .
So should we give shit to Plato for being so narrowly focused on the idea of the Ideas? Should we give shit to Aristotle only zeroing in on Virtues? Should we give shit to Schopenhauer because his focus was on Will or Frege and Wittgenstein with their dogged focus on language use or mathematics? I mean, if someone's philosophy has a theme, that may be due to consistency and building a philosophy on that core consistency.

I think there is a difference between being consistent in philosophy and then defending a political figure, no matter what he does. I haven't read NOS4A2's posts enough, but it seems like he is simply defending Trump at all costs. Perhaps he really does think anything Trump does is good. One can argue that this is arguing in bad faith as, no matter how bad Trump does, he will never admit that this is bad because he will always point to other politicians who screw up but in much different ways, and is perhaps not even relative to the fact that Trump screwed up. There are other ways people troll. I know posters on here enough to know where they are coming from. Anyone who has been on this forum long enough, if they JUST see one argument from a recent thread from a frequent poster (like myself), and do not take any previous arguments made into consideration (and they have seen the previous threads), that would be trolling. They are purposely too narrowly focusing on the one current argument when they (possibly) know all the other arguments that have been made besides the current one that they are (purposely?) too narrowly focusing on.

It's just the case that the poster is currently using a new argument or a variation when clearly they addressed the objections in previous ones. It could be the case that the interlocutor sincerely doesn't know the objections were addressed previously, or it could also be the case that the person knows the previous arguments but are going to go through with posing the objections anyways as if there were never previous defenses made in other threads.

Anyways, the point is, I don't know if it is fair to lump me in the camp that you are doing, Baden.

I was just saying you'd been criticized a lot not that you'd done anything wrong.

I understand you might feel the need to chime in, luckily I wasnt talking to either of you so you can ignore me. Win win.

TDS is not mythical. — DingoJones

Unless you can quote an authority it's another adhom

Ah, of course, where are my manners! :scream: Do be a gentleman and please forgive my inexcusable intrusion.

No its not. An Ad Hom is when I attack the person instead of the argument. I wasnt addressing an argument.
Identifying when someone is allowing their views of Trump to cloud or impair their normal behaviour (TDS in a nutshell) is no more an Ad Hom than observing that the sniffles and cough mean someone has a cold. In fact, what you just did is closer to an Ad Hom than what I said, since you didnt actually address what I said. You just posted to throw shade on me (the Ad Hom accusation).
Note, TDS is not exclusive to Trump haters. I would say it also applies to people who are so pro Trump that they behave in abnormal ways as well.

I don’t know what response you could possibly expect from me, given the see through attempt to manufacture something to mock about me in your posts.

Identifying when someone is allowing their views of Trump to cloud or impair their normal behaviour (TDS in a nutshell) — DingoJones

It's a made-up-meme, the purpose of which is to discredit criticism of Trump. Period. There is zero more substance to it than that as you're smart enough to know. And, besides, by the definition above, every criticism of any politician clouded by bias against them (which is to a degree almost every criticism of every politician) is X [insert politician's name] Derangement Syndrome. In fact why restrict it to politicians? Let's just call every criticism we don't like "deranged", so we don't have to deal with it. So, it's a primitive political cudgel dressed up in a superficial layer of pseudo-psychological double-speak and employing it marks an end to serious communication and a descent into the same childishness it seeks to condemn. (Like, how does the conversation continue now you've identified your opponent as "deranged"?).

No its not — DingoJones

When you ascribe TDS to someone or some group, you are dismissing their argument about Trump as the result of a accepted medical condition that their critical judgement cannot resist. Thus you don't have to address it and they are wrong before being considered. Calling someone deranged without proof is attacking the man.

"Sniffles and a cough", is a false parallel and affirming the consequent, so again, wrong before being considered. I was not throwing shade since I was giving you a chance to reference it to a medical authority. We are on a philosophy forum. If we cannot provide a source for a claim then we shed light on a logical fallacy.

I think Baden said it better than I did.

There is a point where the absurdity of what is said is such that ridicule is appropriate.

I didnt realise that It was being posited as an actual medical condition. In my experience it was a term of mockery, illustrating a phenomenon where ordinarily rational people become irrational on the topic of Trump.
So you two are telling me I have an idiosyncratic definition of the term?

So, the implication is that the criticism is irrational because it's about Trump. Which itself is irrational. Trump-Critic Derangement Syndrome (TCDS)?

I don’t know what response you could possibly expect from me, given the see through attempt to manufacture something to mock about me in your posts. — DingoJones

I just thought a little transparent mockery would nicely complement the pearls you’re clutching.

a term of mockery — DingoJones

Which means it is an Ad Hom.

You don’t understand what an Ad Hom is. You can address someones argument AND mock them. An Ad Hom is when you mock (or attack) the person rather than the argument.
You didn't answer my question.

I don’t understand how it’s possible, in all honesty, to defend Trump’s performance in the office of President. No matter how you spin it, or twist it, Trump has failed to demonstrate the capacity for the job. So if someone defends Trump then either their judgement is skewed or they’re serving an ulterior motive. There’s nothing you can point to in Trump’s performance or character which constitutes any real defence.

It's a made-up-meme, the purpose of which is to discredit criticism of Trump. — Baden

Or invalidate any criticism.

Chiming in! I dont have Trump derangement syndrome, but I agree that it exists.

We pick on NOS because he's clearly a troll. He puts up ridiculous crap and if no one comments on it, he'll put it up again.

He's fairly dispassionate about it as if it's a job. He doesn't seem to mind being picked on.

He's fairly dispassionate about it as if it's a job. He doesn't seem to mind being picked on. — frank

It could be that he simply enjoys the attention, in which case we might now be serving him up a feast.

I agree that it exists. — frank

Aha! Another sufferer of TCDS! :gasp:

Well thats not a very charitable way of putting it. You’ve never observed that sometimes people have particular blind spots? I would call the phenomenon I mentioned an extreme case of that.
You didnt answer my question either.



Rather than addressing what I said, you both made decidedly unhelpful responses instead.

You don’t understand what an Ad Hom is. You can address someones argument AND mock them. An Ad Hom is when you mock (or attack) the person rather than the argument.
You didn't answer my question. — DingoJones

Of course you can address someone's argument AND mock them, but they are two separate statements, separate claims. You can't make up some hybrid argument that contains any number of fallacies and then tack on some rational statement at the end that gets them all through the door.

Please stop saying I don't understand something without cleaning up your argument first.

Your question was about having a singular definition of of TBS?

I cant disagree with any of that. He likes fucking with you guys.

Yep.

Your question was about having a singular definition of of TBS? — Monitor

Yes, I honestly didnt know that any significant number of people claimed it was some kind if medical term. Is the description I gave not what people generally mean by TDS?

Rather than addressing what I said, you both made decidedly unhelpful responses instead. — DingoJones

Nothing we've said is as remotely unhelpful as accusing someone of TDS. I ignored your question because it didn't directly apply to me.