> Speaking of misunderstanding I think you have misunderstood what shag
> wrote above. The sequence is not: A points out logical fallacy in B’s
> argument B calls A a nasty name => A is in the wrong The sequence is:
> A makes a substantive argument B makes a response that is a logical
> fallacy A finds this sort of fallacious response too frequent to be
> unintentional => A concludes that B is arguing in bad faith => A calls
> B a nasty name
Yeah, I realized later that I might have misunderstood what Shag meant by "logical fallacy." I initially thought she meant "A points out a logical fallacy in B's argument." But now I see she apparently meant "A makes a logically fallacious argument (e.g. ad hominem?) against B."
I got confused because Shag and I once had an exchange a while ago that was a lot like the first example. I had brought up what I thought was a contradiction in something Shag had said. She replied by talking about shitting the bed. When I objected to that, she explained that my use of "logical fallacy" as a point of debate had been a disrespectful affront to her:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2010/2010-June/009061.html http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2010/2010-June/009066.html http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2010/2010-June/009079.html
In my mind, pointing out a contradiction in what somebody says is a legitimate thing to do in a discussion and doesn't indicate insincerity or bad faith. Shag may have a different view. I'm not saying I'm right and she's wrong. I think you have to allow for the possibility that these are just differences in style or taste or temperament.
SA