[Report] Personal Attacks (?) in Weekend in Haunted House
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:04 pm
I'm not sure if this crosses any lines (maybe it doesn't) but I want to bring this up for the record so there is some awareness of this problem if it should get worse.
I have mentioned, on many many many occasions in the past (and I will post previous posts dating way back if I have to as evidence, please tell me if I should) that I don't want to talk about my law school experience because it involves some very personal/traumatic memories. There is NOTHING in what I post EVER in any of the specific threads that brings up my law school credentials/past as a basis for any of my arguments.
However... it becomes standard practice somehow for people to make jabs at my law school days (or as some phrase it, "alleged law student" past). When I tell them to stop, they "insist" on defending that its not a personal attack and start making further jabs ("oh you never finished law school????" "oh you must have been a terrible student"). And its always the same group of posters; its starting to come across as extremely insensitive and downright borderline harassment.
It is none of their business and there is absolutely no basis or need to bring up this personal issue in debates other than to break a nerve with me.
I am not sure that any lines have actually been crossed but I want to flag this out here so that if it gets worse, I might feel the need to further report, for now I will keep it to this one thread in the Haunted House:
...
...
I'm not sure any of this is actionable but it is truly getting on my nerves.
My law school and exactly what happened there is truly none of anyone's business and I have mentioned tons of times (across many many threads, I will pull out these posts if I have to and I guarantee you the same posters that callously keep bringing this up HAVE read/seen these posts) that I do not talk about law school.
There is NOTHING in my profile or signature or in anything that I've posted within the last 2 years that even remotely INVITES this sort of personalised attack/inquiry.
I have mentioned, on many many many occasions in the past (and I will post previous posts dating way back if I have to as evidence, please tell me if I should) that I don't want to talk about my law school experience because it involves some very personal/traumatic memories. There is NOTHING in what I post EVER in any of the specific threads that brings up my law school credentials/past as a basis for any of my arguments.
However... it becomes standard practice somehow for people to make jabs at my law school days (or as some phrase it, "alleged law student" past). When I tell them to stop, they "insist" on defending that its not a personal attack and start making further jabs ("oh you never finished law school????" "oh you must have been a terrible student"). And its always the same group of posters; its starting to come across as extremely insensitive and downright borderline harassment.
It is none of their business and there is absolutely no basis or need to bring up this personal issue in debates other than to break a nerve with me.
I am not sure that any lines have actually been crossed but I want to flag this out here so that if it gets worse, I might feel the need to further report, for now I will keep it to this one thread in the Haunted House:
...
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
So then a testimony that someone saw a murder isn’t evidence for the murder somehow?
Not the same thing and as a "supoosed" law student, you know this.
Me saying I saw a UFO is not evidence that UFOs are real. Its just evidence that I said I saw a UFO. Lear the difference.
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I don't take kindly to references to my law school days. Please do not go there. Its a personal attack. I don't like where this is going...
evidence that you saw the UFO is evidence of UFO's existing... now you can lower the weight of the evidence by attacking credibility or specifics of the sighting or by alleging that it never happened but its evidence of existence nevertheless
I fail to see how that is a personal attack. You supposedly went to law school and you brought up a comparison with murder. I pointed out that testimony of seeing a murder is not comparable to someone saying they saw a UFO.
Me saying I saw a UFO is not evidence of the existence of UFOs. It’s just me saying I saw one. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, the truth of it will not change. Murders are palpable and happen. We have evidence of them. UFOs, ghosts? Not so much. All we have is here say and here say is not evidence of anything.
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
My law school experience/past is not relevant to the topic. I don't like it when people bring it up.
Its in the same vein as if someone said: "Well, since you are 'supposed' divorced person, you are supposed to know X, Y, Z about divorce etc" You wouldn't like it either if in discussions people started saying, "Well since this is PERSONALLY TRUE OF YOU... you OUGHT to know X, Y, and Z..."
Just no.
Again, you supposedly went to law school and you brought up a comparison with murder. They’re not comparable, in evidence and all. Something you should know. I fail to see how this is a personal attack.
Show me undeniable evidence of the existence of ghosts. Show me photos, show me scientific studies that prove ghosts exist. Not here say. Not folk tales. Anyone can say anything. That still doesn’t make it evidence of the undeniable existence of ghosts.
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Its a personal attack because it invokes a personal experience/qualification of the poster. Its not focused exclusively on argument, it encourages others to draw an inference or to view the opponent's arguments unfavourably by inferring something personal about the opponent rather than the pure substance of the argument itself.
There are no scientific studies precisely because science's official position is: "Ghosts do not exist unless someone else proves it to me and since they are not scientists they won't be able to do it in a way that we find satisfactory... in the meantime, we (the scientists) can also conclude ostensible experiments to 'prove ghosts' but our real purpose is to discredit specific instances of ghosts; this way we can generate a continuous and permanent trail that suggests they don't exist even though we are using a scientific method to measure a supernatural phenomenon..."
It’s not a personal attack, so get over yourself.
Me saying I saw a UFO or a ghost is not evidence of their existence. You comparing evidence of murder with here say about ghosts being real is rather silly. They’re not comparable. Learn the difference.
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
If you're actively bringing up people's personal past in your arguments, then I consider that to be a personal attack.
There is a very valid analogy to be made as they both involve eyewitness testimony.
You talked about comparing heresay with evidence of murder. I told you that they’re not comparable and as a law student you should know that. You getting this “upset” about it is ridiculous. It’s as if I were to get pissy when someone brings up I studied art history in a pertinent subject. The truth is, I did. I studied art history. That’s not a personal attack so really, get over yourself.
It’s not a valid analogy because murder is something proven to happen. Someone saying they saw a UFO is not proof of the existence of UFOs or ghosts. Until there’s undeniable proof with scientific studies and concrete evidence, every account of someone saying they saw a ghost is just heresay.
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I have not brought it up. You brought it up. I do not talk about law school. I do not invite such conversations.
It is your post that brings in my law school past and makes this personalised. There was absolutely no reason to bring it up; you could have argued your point without referencing a personally traumatic experience.
Again, are you going to address my points or are you going to keep bringing up “that which shall not be named”?
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I am going to tell you what I should have told the last person in real life who used this disgusting tactic on me:
You do not get to assume ANYTHING. And I have NO OBLIGATION to confirm or deny any of your unfounded assumptions. For the record, I do not confirm nor deny. Now, BACK... OFF.
Do not talk about my law school experience, it is a sensitive topic.
Stop derailing this thread and stay out of my personal affairs.
With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.
That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.
We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.
...
I'm not sure any of this is actionable but it is truly getting on my nerves.
My law school and exactly what happened there is truly none of anyone's business and I have mentioned tons of times (across many many threads, I will pull out these posts if I have to and I guarantee you the same posters that callously keep bringing this up HAVE read/seen these posts) that I do not talk about law school.
There is NOTHING in my profile or signature or in anything that I've posted within the last 2 years that even remotely INVITES this sort of personalised attack/inquiry.