Aaand... my point.

"It goes back to my theory that this thread and others like it exit for the purpose of keeping Byrne and his forum members honest."

Exactly. We're doing him a favor and pointing out his fuck up's whether it's an anorexic clark kent commision or how he treats certain individuals and his etiquette.

What theory might that be? That you don't understand how logical debate works? No, you prove that with every post.

He needs to hear this shit and no one that is a member of his forum can say what we do. Gotta balance out the gushing with some brutally honest observations. It could potentially make him a better person and artist.

It's really just an incredibly Paul response. All blanket accusations and no specifics, coupled with a puff of smoke and a Paul-shaped hole in the wall from when he ran away from direct questions and requests that he back up his statements.

And apparently pointing out his logical fallacies will prove to be my downfall? Okay.

I am happy to accept the premise that you are a random guy who only posts on this thread, and that it is a coincidence that you only appear when Paul is refusing to participate.



I've been on a debate team. The first thing they teach you is how to craft a coherent argument. Because arguments are the substance of a debate.

Arguments can be quarrels or regulated. It depends on the specific arguments in question. Since Paul refuses to provide any specifics at all, we can't really know what his would be.



None that I know of. It may be a good or bad metaphor, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy.



Paul's fallacy is not cherry picking because he told a "Good Byrne" story. (In fact, he didn't.) It's cherry picking when he hand-waves away the bad because of the good.

To carry the spousal abuse metaphor, it's like saying, "I find cause to remain skeptical that he beat his wife, only because of the many MORE times he bought her jewelry."



Only if one assume that because Byrne bans many people who disagree with him, he must ban everyone who disagrees with him. Which would be a fallacy of composition.

Only if everything is painted in black & white.

Oh, Paul.

But guys, let's try to see this from Paul's point of view. He doesn't live in a black and white world where simple questions should be given the courtesy of direct answers, or blanket statements should be supported by specific examples. He sees a world of beautiful color, where the correct response to such petty games is to tell people that they are pitiful, dim, whacked-out detractors with a tenuous grip on reality, then berate them for how low they're taking the debate.

This is truly a rainbow of wisdom, with valuable lessons for us all.

Nordberg/Budman: Thanks ... has there been a noticeable/measurable change in JB's behavior since thread like this have started?

Ceci: I guess my puppetry power is activated when you do a spelled out logic display. That piques my interest and I post. If you just ill-logically ranted I'd probably post even less.

I think you do understand the difference, in common usage, between argument and debate, so I'll leave it at that.

Metaphor: Thanks.

Byrne bannings: OK I must have assumed that someone posted that JB bans everyone who disagrees with him.

Cherry picking: Thanks. Are the "detractors" doing the same by saying Byrne is a bad person on account of all the bad things he does? Or can we truly only say "This was bad behavior, This was good behavior?"

I understand that "argument" can be used with a negative connotation. And so can "debate." For instance, the phrase, "the debate over abortion" does not bring to mind reasoned, measured, polite discourse.

Both words are used frequently in both positive or negative contexts.



You're veering out of logic and into personal morality. (Also known as "opinion.") Paul's statement was not a statement of personal morality, though. He didn't say, "I think that if you weigh up the good and the bad in Byrne's life, it errs on the side of good."* He said that he did not accept that Byrne's actions could have been as bad as described because Byrne has also done good things.

If you see somebody say something similar, like, "I heard Byrne gave a kid a lollipop one time, but I don't buy it because Byrne has done a lot of shitty things in his life," feel free to call them out for being illogical. If you see them say, "I think Byrne is a dick because of all the shitty stuff he's done on the internet," that's another matter entirely.

---
*Of course, such a statement can be ridiculous without necessarily being illogical. For instance, to take the previous example again... a statement like, "I think if you weigh up all the times he beat his wife, and all the times he took the garbage out, it errs on the side of good," would be asinine.