Whaaaaaaa

100%. I lived in the UK during the first term. I couldn't figure out why everyone kept saying he didn't mean what he said and why people would explain things away for him. No. Stop that. He means some of the smack in the middle. Madness.

✌️

It depends, really.

I would never say this, even if I did point out the incorrect usage of the vocabulary word. Because we all deserve a spot at the table & an opportunity to contribute. And we all deserve a chance to learn and improve. Be careful of Slippery Slope Fallacy. It is just that. A Slippery Slope...

It would be as if someone used a vocabulary word incorrectly in a sentence, & I then accused them of not having adequate command of the English language. You make a mistake with an English word? This is a sign your English is weak. It weakens your argument... You therefore should not contribute.

The negative first element (questioning my knowledge of polling) leading to the arrival at the assumption that I know nothing about it is the potential Slippery Slope. Because there's a chance one is correct, but what if one misunderstood my meaning? What if one didn't read my response with nuance?

Similarly, be aware of Slippery Slope because it sounds extremely plausible. In the previous conversation, Slippery Slope Fallacy is where one assumes a negative outcome based on a single previous element. If you question my knowledge of polling, does that mean I know nothing of it?

Three elements in summation of my thoughts. Let's be aware of the Straw Man, where we introduce and set up our own argument to attack and untangle. Perhaps it was of our own making all along. Especially when uninvited, this is an imposition.

So I deleted the post altogether because the point in the first place was to help everyone, including me, think about improving our arguments. I will always delete if it doesn't sit well with my soul. And the way this devolved... Not only on me but others' behaviour... I'd like a different approach.

I do not believe that my comment of Ukraine support is an invitation, inherently, for abuse. I don't believe that I should be pushed to comment intelligently on his uninvited, nonspecific comment about polling when he's insulted me in the 1st instance. I will not constantly turn the other cheek. No.

When I originally posted my feelings on Ukraine, I never asked for someone else's opinion. Didn't ask a question. Didn't mention money or polls. I expressed my support (subtext: emotional personal subject). Laughing, bringing up nonspecific polls+funds was completely uninvited. I defended my space.

The point was to increase the discussion and general knowledge of Straw Man, Slippery Slope, Ad Hominem, Red Herring, if/then (etc) and other Cognitive Fallacies so people might arm themselves from disinformation + arguments designed to put them on the back foot.

But when the discussion goes from discussing the Fallacy to constantly attacking ad hominim (either me because I'm triggered or someone else) or people caught constantly in loops of Slippery Slope & uninvited Straw Man arguments (which was happening), I'm not going to continue the dialogue.

When I first started posts related to pointing out cognitive fallacy, this was meant to simply start discussing when to notice it in attacks, but I also pointed it out in myself. Check back in my posts. Fallacies in argument are largely designed to put people on the defensive. I'm not an exception.

I don't really understand how "besmirch" works here, by the way. "Specious means"... I don't agree with you in my case, but I'll keep it in mind.

Ok, here, I was being SARCASTIC. You mistake my usage. I was using sarcasm as a vehicle to illustrate issues with his own comment. You missed my point, entirely. I understand you think I made the point poorly. But I took umbrage with his uninvited Straw Man. And, somehow, the focus is STILL on it.