I’ve had (summarised) an argument that went with me starting with a claim,then the counters I received *from the same person* went:

1) Where did you get that idea? (implying that it needed corroboration. When answered with a valid source…
2) Well, that’s just their opinion. (implying that it doesn’t matter if it’s from someone else, making #1 pointless, and that all opinions are equally valid). Then pointing to another source…
3) That place is the worst place to get it from! (saying that, though every opinion is equally valid, some are less equally valid than others)

There is an interesting problem sketched at the end of the book, wherein sincerity is described as an ideal for those who do not believe that there is any (objective) truth, thus departing from the ideal of correctness. Now, Frankfurt does not mention the word ‘postmodern’ at all in his book (which is a good thing, I think), but to some extent the last pages may be understood to be a critical punch on a postmodern rejection of the ideal of the truth. Be this as it may, when a person rejects the notion of being true to the facts and turns instead to an ideal of being true to their own substantial and determinate nature, then according to Frankfurt this sincerity is bullshit.

So, “RickA is an asshole” is name-calling.

“RickA peddles self-serving deceit” is NOT name-calling.

You keep peddling self-serving deceit. We don’t accept it, and you’re not shaming us for it. Try again, RickA.

I love it when you resort to name calling.

It means I am right and name calling is all you have left.

RTFL. I didn’t ‘resort to name calling’.

As for you being right… we’ve established that you aren’t at great length, here and elsewhere. Insisting otherwise is nuts.

Because then you can make different shit up?

“It means I am right ”

No, it doesn’t. You’re

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false)

“and name calling is all you have left.”

No, that is not true. But since you’re bullshitting and when you make a claim and are found out, you bullshit your way into pretending that you meant something else. So argument with you is unnecessary and unproductive, so name-calling is as valid and useful a response to your comments as cogent and logical argument.

If you didn’t bullshit all the time, there would be an actual difference between name calling you (by the way, here’s the world’s smallest violin for you, you special snowflake. Sheeeit, you redneck idiots are always pretending you’re rough and tough and the lefties are all wussies, but call you mean names and you cry more than Gascoigne after winning a football match).

“It means I am right and name calling is all you have left.”

Are you claiming evil despicable people are “right” because people say they are evil and despicable?

It means I am right and name calling is all you have left.