“Because I enjoy it, phanto.”

No you don’t you are lying.

“This is a false dilemma.”

This is not a false dilemma.

“This is another False dilemma.”

This not another false dilemma.

“Can you tell on which psychological perspective you are basing this assessment and what the research is behind it?”

I don’t need one.

“Yes, because that happens so-o-o-o-o frequently, don’t it phanto?”

So it does happen then. Why?

“Can you tell on which psychological perspective you are basing this assessment and what the research is behind it?”

See above.

“Ad hominems are fine so long as they can be justified”

What is fine about them?

“Or it could just be a result of the fact that I have already explained what I had said to Yuyutsu many times before.”

So that makes it your right to tell him how he should behave?

So you’re just going to claim that I’m lying now, phanto? That's desperate.

<<No you don’t [enjoy discrediting nonsense] you are lying.>>

Where is your evidence to suggest that I'm lying? Looks like you may be the only one lying here. We’re mind reading again, phanto. *Tsk tsk*

<<This is not a false dilemma.>>

Yes, it is. I even provided you with a link explaining what a False Dilemma is. Simply asserting that it isn’t doesn’t cut it, sorry. You presented two possibilities as the only two possibilities when others exist. That’s a False Dilemma fallacy. Once again, perhaps you should read the links I provide before making an ass of yourself?

<<This not another false dilemma.>>

See above.

<<I don’t need [a psychological perspective].>>

You do if you want to apply actual psychology rather than ad hominems.

<<So it does happen then. Why?>>

It doesn’t, and pretending to not be able to read sarcasm, in order to insult the one making the sarcastic comment, is something I haven't seen since primary school. You must be proud of yourself.

<<What is fine about [ad hominems that can be justified and aren’t used in place of an actual argument]?>>

The fact that they can be justified and are not used in place of an actual argument. Kind of speaks for itself, don’t you think?

<<So that makes it your right to tell him how he should behave?>>

No, and at no point did I suggest otherwise.

Philips:

“Where is your evidence ...?”

You said that you enjoy discrediting nonsense. If it is nonsense then it does not need to be discredited. There is no reason for discrediting it so why would you enjoy doing something which is unreasonable. People only enjoy things because those things give them pleasure or satisfaction. It is the pleasure or satisfaction which makes them reasonable. What pleasure and satisfaction could you possibly derive from engaging at all with nonsense? You are obviously lying.

You also complained about the fact that I had wasted your post allocation for the day. If you enjoyed it then why was it a waste? Which one of those two is a lie?

“ I even provided you with a link explaining what a False Dilemma is”

Thanks for the patronising link but I am well aware of what a false dilemma is and these are not false dilemmas until such time as you have shown there are more options than these two which I have provided. If you have reasonable alternatives then let’s hear what they are instead of resorting to some patronising guessing game. If your alternatives are reasonable then you will not need to be patronising.

“You do if you want to apply actual psychology rather than ad hominems.”

Who said anything about psychology? It is basic common sense.

“pretending to not be able to read sarcasm”

Why do you need to resort to sarcasm at all? It just shows how insecure you are about your opinions.

“The fact that they can be justified”

How can they be justified? What reason do you have for using them?

“No, and at no point did I suggest otherwise.”

What else could the directive to ‘get used to it’ be? You told him how to behave. You told another adult how they should behave and you think you have a right to do that simply because you have told him what you think on several occasions. Telling another human being how to behave when they have not asked for your advice is sheer arrogance.

Correct, phanto.

<<You said that you enjoy discrediting nonsense.>>

Others often compliment me on my patience and perseverance. However, I don’t think these are needed so much when one enjoys what they’re doing.

<<If it is nonsense then it does not need to be discredited.>>

Not necessarily. There may be some for whom your nonsense is not so obvious.

<<There is no reason for discrediting [nonsense] so why would you enjoy doing something which is unreasonable.>>

The fact that I just provided a reason aside, people enjoy doing things that others perceive to be unreasonable all the time. Reasonableness is not a pre-requisite for enjoyment.

<<People only enjoy things because those things give them pleasure or satisfaction.>>

See? Even you agree.

<<What pleasure and satisfaction could you possibly derive from engaging at all with nonsense?>>

Exposing it.

<<You are obviously lying.>>

Apparently not.

<<You also complained about the fact that I had wasted your post allocation for the day. If you enjoyed it then why was it a waste?>>

Because I wanted to save a post or two to respond to others.

<<Which one of those two is a lie?>>

Neither. See above. Another False Dilemma.

<<… I am well aware of what a false dilemma is and these are not false dilemmas until such time as you have shown there are more options than these two which I have provided.>>

Oh, but I did, and again just above, too.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267#342658

<<Who said anything about psychology? It is basic common sense.>>

Well, you shouldn’t have too many problems presenting your evidence then, should you?

<<Why do you need to resort to sarcasm at all?>>

Why do you assume I 'need' to?

<<How can [ad hominems] be justified?>>

By being true.

<<What reason do you have for using [ad hominems]?

To highlight a point.

<<What else could the directive to ‘get used to it’ be?>>

A suggestion that Yuyustu should get used to the fact that he’s wrong.

<<You told him how to behave.>>

No, I didn’t. What one accepts and how one behaves are not always the same thing.

“Others often compliment me on my patience and perseverance.”

I didn’t ask you about your patience and perseverance I asked you why you enjoy engaging with nonsense.

“Not necessarily. There may be some for whom your nonsense is not so obvious.”

Why would nonsense be obvious to you but not to everyone else? That is a rather arrogant attitude. They are too stupid to see nonsense?

“Reasonableness is not a pre-requisite for enjoyment.”

Reasonableness is a pre-requisite for everything or for nothing.

“Exposing it.”

It doesn’t need exposing if it is nonsense unless you have your own personal definition of the word nonsense.

“Because I wanted to save a post or two to respond to others.”

Well you had that choice and you obviously concluded that it was more ‘enjoyable’ to respond to me so why are you complaining?

“Well, you shouldn’t have too many problems presenting your evidence then, should you?”

Common sense does not need evidence. That is what the word means. It is sense that is obvious and common.

“Why do you assume I 'need' to?”

Everyone that uses sarcasm needs to use it. It is used because of a lack of confidence in arguments.

<<How can [ad hominems] be justified?>>

“By being true.”

I didn’t ask you about their qualities I asked you about the reasons for using them. You have yet to provide one.

“To highlight a point.”

Why do points need to be highlighted if they are good points? Do you lack confidence in your points?

“A suggestion that Yuyustu should get used to the fact that he’s wrong.”

It wasn’t a suggestion it was a directive. Whether he gets used to it or not is up to him and he doesn’t need you to tell him how he should respond to your opinions. He is quite capable of making his own decisions.

“No, I didn’t. What one accepts and how one behaves are not always the same thing.”

You offered opinions but you also gave him directives about how he should behave in response to your opinions. That’s arrogance

I know you didn’t, phanto.

<<I didn’t ask you about your patience and perseverance I asked you why you enjoy engaging with nonsense.>>

You appear to have missed the relevance of what I said.

<<Why would nonsense be obvious to you but not to everyone else?>>

I didn’t speak of “everyone else”. I spoke of “some”.

<<That is a rather arrogant attitude.>>

Indeed it would be.

<<They are too stupid to see nonsense?>>

Not necessarily.

<<Reasonableness is a pre-requisite for everything or for nothing.>>

This is a false dichotomy.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

<<[Nonsense] doesn’t need exposing if it is nonsense unless you have your own personal definition of the word nonsense.>>

Another False Dilemma. Why do you assume there is a ‘need’?

<<Well you had that choice and you obviously concluded that it was more ‘enjoyable’ to respond to me so why are you complaining?>>

I’m not, anymore. You’re just digging up again.

<<Common sense does not need evidence.>>

It does if you want others to accept your version of it. Common sense is as reliable and sensical as the assumptions it’s based on. I could give you a few examples of where common sense fails.

<<It is sense that is obvious and common.>>

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be wrong.

<<Everyone that uses sarcasm needs to use it. It is used because of a lack of confidence in arguments.>>

What is your evidence for these claims?

<<I didn’t ask you about [the qualities of non-fallacious ad hominems] …>>

I know you didn’t, and nor did I provide you with any.

<<… I asked you about the reasons for using them. You have yet to provide one.>>

Yes, I did. “Being true”, is a reason to use a non-fallacious ad hominem. Conversely, some may not be true and, therefore, unjustified.

<<Why do points need to be highlighted if they are good points?>>

For emphasis.

<<It wasn’t a suggestion it was a directive.>>

Call it what you like. Either way, I wasn’t telling him how to behave, and you are yet to demonstrate that I was.

Try again, phanto.