Karl Heidenreich wrote: When have you brought up you sources to support your claims?
When I make claims I useually post sources especially if requested.
Bring up your own sources and then ask for the rest to show theirs.
In many cases I'm not even sure sources exist. What you don't seem to realize is that a lot of times people assume something is one way when there is no real evidence to support it. This doesn't mean they are wrong, they may indeed be right but it does mean that the claim is based on an assumption/opinion only unless there is some supprot.
You break down the claims or arguments of the rest and put them out of context,
The intent is to to take them out of context but to look at particular claims/assumptions/opinions to see if they stand on their own. If they do then they contribut to the logical argument for whatever the post was claiming if not then they bring it into question.
try to mock and ridiculize the rest and show you "superior knowledge"
I very seldom "try to mock", indeed I seldom mock people. When I do I'm usually sucessful at it. As for superior knowledge, again in many cases I'm not attempting to show it I'm attempting show that the "knowledge" that some claim is simply not there for any of us. Of course there are those who over use superlatives and what might otherwise be a valid point runs afowl of that.
and usually in front of evidence you came with Reduction Ad Absurdum and try to go to rethoric and semantics, not even discussing the topic. Sick, sick, sick!!!
Well let's see you accuse me of relying on rhetoric, looking at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric
we find as the first definition:
: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
Guess I'll plead guilty as charged to that one.
And of relying on Semantics using the same source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/semantics
it defines the word to mean:
Since I try to use the correct words to get my meaning across guess I'll plead guilty to this one too.
As for using using reductio ad absurdum lets look at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
where it states:
Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.
This shows it to be a valid form of argument however I don't think I use it all that much. What I do point out is often times applying th elogic some do leads to the absurd if other cases are considered. The implication of course is that something more is at work at the least or they are wrong at the worse.
Hardly sick in my book.