Hmm. Curious. I answered what I meant by we in my response to you - all people, for review.
This response still does not answer the question of what your purpose of asking whether I was a graduate student or licensed clinician, implying that I was one or another, nor how my membership in either, both, or none of those groups was relevant to the content of my response. In this current response to me you just said that my very presence on this graduate student board presumes some degree of membership. Given that base presumption, it’s unclear what the purpose of further identifying me as one or the other is. The act of asking the question implies that it is relevant to the matter at hand for some reason...which is what I’m confused about and so am asking you for clarification.
matter at hand, for reference:
Also, can you point to where or how I used an ad hominem? I don’t see it at all. In fact, guessing that you might presume the articulation of my secondary observation or thought that people who get upset by the idea that all people having access to knowledge and skills rather than those things being reserved for a select few are patronizing elitists was some kind of dig at you, I clearly said that I am not calling you that. And that I do not know you or what you think or feel. And because of that lack of knowledge, I can’t (and honestly don’t care to because it is irrelevant to me and this discussion how you might identify) make that judgement. I suppose you could not believe that I’m being honest when I say that, which may lead you to take my observation about patronizing elitists as an ad hominem argument in reference to you. However, I am being 100% genuine, as I always am on this board and otherwise. It is absolutely your right not to believe me, but the reality is that you do not know me or what I think or feel either. So any presumption that you have about my internal world is solely a matter of your perception. Additionally, I don’t know what your argument even is so there is nothing for me to even respond to with a true counter or with a fallacy.
lastly, you’re right, I am inclined to call out fallacies. My goal always is mutual understanding, regardless of disagreement. The use of fallacies to engage with arguments or assertions makes our collective efforts towards that goal so unnecessarily difficult. Instead of engaging with content, furthering the discussion, and clarifying any confusion or misunderstanding, time and energy is wasted on irrelevant and sometimes harmful tangents at best, and at worst, people belittle one another or turn others against one another (and/or the argument) and the goal of mutual understanding is stymied for all. I don’t think that all people necessarily use fallacious arguments with those motivations in mind nor do I think that all people use fallacious arguments with the intention of being fallacious. However, by calling attention to them, and with a little humility and patiencemaybe even clearing up misunderstanding, it is my hope that we can get back on track with the stuff that actually matters, to me at least, mutual growth and understanding for all.
all that said, I fully respect your right to be, think, engage however you see fit unless I feel you are falsely undermining me or something I said. I feel similarly about the undermining of others. I don’t abide that. I commit to not undermining you or others and in the event that I do, please definitely let me know. I don’t want to do that. Otherwise, I hope that you would give me the same courtesy to be, do, and engage however I see fit.
