Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 7:41:46 GMT -5
MOD NOTE:
Let's take the chatty stuff elsewhere, please. Indeed, I might move it when I get a chance. This thread has an important purpose: to be a permanent reference for members on argument fallacies. I think having lots of chatty back and forth detracts from that purpose.
ETA:
As a matter of fact, I think it's probably best to move the entire conversation on the previous page to its own thread. I'll add a reference to the new thread in the argument fallacy thread as a discussion of a specific example of an argument fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 8:28:46 GMT -5
Back on the topic of the thread, c.e. --
Since I spent literally hours explaining to you, at your own request, why your argument was a fallacy -- going into further detail when you said you didn't understand my original explanation, going into context and providing a cite -- your whistling past it and chit-chatting instead of responding to it is quite annoying to me. I'm going to be paying for my taking that time the rest of the week, and I can tell you I'll think twice before I do it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 9:51:18 GMT -5
Just freaking shoot me. Another (better) comparison to illustrate the difference between your post and mine popped into my head and I can't help but give it.
Joe and Sue are arguing over why attendance at an outdoor performance of Antigone taking place in Smithtown was low, while an indoor celebration of beer and puppies taking place next door on the same day was a smash success.
Joe asserts that it's because the weather was bad.
Sue says "pfft, the weather wasn't bad. Yes, it was slightly cooler than usual and there were a couple of clouds. But it was 70 degrees, plenty nice enough for an outdoor event. And look, the next day the beer and puppy festival took place outside in exactly the same weather and it still drew huge crowds, showing that Smithtowners were happy to attend an outdoor event in such weather. People in Smithtown all have dogs and drink beer; it's not surprising that a festival celebrating them appeals to them more a three-hour-long Greek drama. Also, tickets to Antigone were twenty dollars, whereas the beer/puppy festival was free. Lots of factors account for the popularity of PuppyBeerFest; the slightly cooler than usual weather was likely not a factor at all."
Joe says "You've agreed the weather was unseasonably cold and cloudy. If the beer and puppy festival was successful largely because of the bad weather, what's stupid is people shunning the far more educational and erudite performance of Antigone to get drunk and cuddle puppies because of the weather. Tell me this -- if it were thundering and lightning and it were 40 degrees outside, do you think anyone would have gone to see Antigone? If your answer is "probably not", which mine is, then how can you scoff at my assertion that the weather was why the Antigone performance failed?"
In a separate conversation, Joe and Sue agreed that the reviews of BeerPuppyFest in the local paper were over-the-top cloying. Sue mused that part of the reason for the cloying reviews was that puppies are just so dang adorable.
In the context of this particular argument over whether the weather was lousy or not, and whether that was why the Antigone performance tanked, is Joe's hypothetical -- that a stormy, miserable day (utterly unlike the day in question) would have decimated an outdoor performance; therefore a slightly cooler than usual but still nice day must have done so -- the same as what Sue did (musing that one reason people wrote cloying reviews of BeerPuppyFest is because puppies are adorable and people love puppies)?
No. No, it is not. And this, I submit, is essentially what happened in our argument above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 10:50:50 GMT -5
Oh, fuck me. I can't help it. Here's an example of a hypothetical that I feel WOULD be a legitimate argument. Joe used to have a neighbor whose dogs barked all day long. He complained about it for years, saying it destroyed his quiet enjoyment of his home. That neighbor eventually moved away. Now Sue lives next door to Joe's brother Pete, who plays really loud mariachi music all day and all night. When she complained about it to Joe, he said "pfft, Pete has a right to enjoy his music. You need to be more tolerant." Sue says "if such a neighbor lived next to you, you would be complaining. Pete's music is far louder than barking dogs and moreover continues all night. You are only defending Pete because he is your brother" She points to the fact that Joe constantly complained about his neighbor with the barking dogs. IMO, it is perfectly fair for Sue to assert that if Joe lived next door to someone like Pete he'd be complaining. True, Joe has never lived next to a neighbor who plays mariachi music 24/7. But Joe's own past history demonstrates that he vehemently objected to noisy neighbors when they lived next door to him. It's also fair for her to assert that Joe's defense of his brother, in light of this history, smacks of hypocrisy. In this context, btw, it would not be a personal attack for Sue to assert that Joe was being a hypocrite -- Sue has supported it by demonstrating Joe's inconsistent actions. Moreover, Sue's assertion that Pete being Joe's brother likely gives Joe a bias in Pete's favor is not fallacious because the fact that people generally have a bias in favor of their own families is not something most people would dispute.* Also, here it is also supported by the fact that Joe consistently objected to his own noisy neighbor. *In this regard, see the exception to the "begging the question" fallacy: Now. Joe could assert that he, unlike most people, was not biased in favor of his brother, and in support of that contention, cite their long history of disputes. So perhaps his defense of mariachi guy was not motivated by his desire to defend his brother, but by some other factor, like the fact that, hey, the music wasn't keeping HIM awake all night. But he cannot deny that when he had a noisy neighbor, he was constantly complaining about it. Sue's assertion that if Joe had a mariachi music-playing neighbor he'd be complaining is perfectly fair, and so is her assertion that Joe is being a hypocrite. Now. If Joe instead had a history of being tolerant of very noisy neighbors, Joe could fairly assert that no, he personally would not object to such a neighbor, and show that his general policy has consistently been "live and let live" when it comes to noise. (Of course, the fact that Joe personally feels that way does not mean that Sue is wrong for objecting to the noise, or that most people wouldn't object to the noise--it just means that Joe as an individual is fine with noise.) Nor, in this context, would it convert Sue's assertion that Joe was being hypocritical into a personal attack -- it would mean that Joe had put forth an arguably adequate defense to it. (Had Sue instead said Joe was a deliberate liar and an asshole, that would have been a personal attack. But pointing to the fact that Joe has a bias and that his own behavior demonstrates that he'd act differently absent the bias and if the behavior personally affected him, and hence his defense of his brother is hypocritical -- not a personal attack, however insulted Joe may feel by it.) ETA: If it isn't clear, I am going to all of this additional trouble because you (and others) have sometimes complained about being personally attacked when in fact what someone is doing is attacking your bad argument. I am trying to show that context, as well as the way something is framed, can be extremely important in making the determination of when something is a reasonable, if harsh, criticism, and when it is simply a personal attack. Personal attacks: Joe says: "You're only complaining about the mariachi music because you're a bigot and hate Mexicans." (There is no evidence at all that Sue is a bigot or hates Mexicans. There are other reasons to object to the music other than bigotry.) Sue says: "You're a liar and you know it." (Joe is not necessarily lying, even if what he says is untrue. He may be doing a poor job of imagining how bad the mariachi noise is and its effect on Sue's peaceful enjoyment of her house.) Not a personal attack: "You are now arguing X with regard to this person you like, but when someone else you disliked did exactly the same thing, you argued Y. That is hypocritical because the situations are the same." "When someone who was not your brother did the same thing you criticized him harshly. Now you are defending your own brother for the same behavior. Therefore, I believe your defense of your brother arises from bias in favor of your own family." ETA: Finally, I must add that Joe would most decidedly be making a personal attack in this situation: Sue's and Joe's other neighbors (except the mariachi guy) all agree with Sue, and join her in arguing with Joe, making the same points Sue was making. Sue finally says, "oh whatever, I'm exhausted. The rest of you go ahead and argue if you like, I can't even anymore." Joe says "Oh, sure, call in your henchmen." Henchmen is an insult. Taking aside the definition of the word, even taking the kindest one you can argue, in this context, Joe is implying that Sue and Joe's neighbors are not arguing out of principle and because they believe it is the correct argument, but because they are subservient to Sue and/or biased against Joe. That's a flat out unsupported insult. There is no evidence of either, and certainly Joe has not presented any. The mere fact that the neighbors are making the argument is not such evidence -- there are plenty of reasonable motivations for them to hold the position that 24/7 mariachi music sucks. Joe may feel ganged up on, he might feel like they are being harsh, but that does not mean the neighbors are doing anything wrong or that they have bad motivations. Hence, Joe has made a personal attack on the neighbors and owes them an apology.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 24, 2018 11:41:59 GMT -5
So I've been trying to take my time to read and ingest these responses from you, Cassandra. You think this is easy for someone who is actually trying to understand something new? And last night I finished reading them at midnight. I usually go to bed around 11, but I wanted to respond to you. I was sorting out my thoughts when my older daughter came home and needed to talk about something personal. We finished our conversation at 1:15 a.m. By that time, I couldn't possibly formulate much of a coherent response.
Last weekend when I was doing all the posting, I was in San Diego while my daughter was at a college volleyball camp at a school she's being recruited for. I had literally nothing to do with my time besides go through a large pile of mail. I am now back at work and family obligations.
I've done some work this morning, and now I have a break, so here I am trying to respond. But now you've got more posts up, so I will have to read them, too. I did not ask you to post more. Indeed, I specifically said I wasn't asking you to post more, because I didn't want to infringe on your time.
We all have constraints on our time, and I'm trying to do the best I can. After a long day of rehab medicine (with particularly sad cases yesterday), making a couple of goofy social comments or looking at the cartoons took all of 3 minutes, if that. And it was a nice break. But it doesn't mean I wasn't reading your posts or giving up a fair amount of my own time to try to learn something. I even tried to let you know why I wasn't posting. But you continue to take the worst interpretation of my presence here.
As I said before, I appreciate you explaining things, but I did not ask you to take your time doing it. You said this morning, you can't help it. And I will say again, I am trying to get through this information. Thank you again. Please don't get yourself into time trouble with your job because of me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 11:53:52 GMT -5
So I've been trying to take my time to read and ingest these responses from you, Cassandra. You think this is easy for someone who is actually trying to understand something new? And last night I finished reading them at midnight. I usually go to bed around 11, but I wanted to respond to you. I was sorting out my thoughts when my older daughter came home and needed to talk about something personal. We finished our conversation at 1:15 a.m. By that time, I couldn't possibly formulate much of a coherent response. Last weekend when I was doing all the posting, I was in San Diego while my daughter was at a college volleyball camp at a school she's being recruited for. I had literally nothing to do with my time besides go through a large pile of mail. I am now back at work and family obligations. I've done some work this morning, and now I have a break, so here I am trying to respond. But now you've got more posts up, so I will have to read them, too. I did not ask you to post more. Indeed, I specifically said I wasn't asking you to post more, because I didn't want to infringe on your time. We all have constraints on our time, and I'm trying to do the best I can. After a long day of rehab medicine (with particularly sad cases yesterday), making a couple of goofy social comments or looking at the cartoons took all of 3 minutes, if that. And it was a nice break. But it doesn't mean I wasn't reading your posts or giving up a fair amount of my own time to try to learn something. I even tried to let you know why I wasn't posting. But you continue to take the worst interpretation of my presence here. As I said before, I appreciate you explaining things, but I did not ask you to take your time doing it. You said this morning, you can't help it. And I will say again, I am trying to get through this information. Thank you again. Please don't get yourself into time trouble with your job because of me. I feel compelled to do this because, as I said, you started this thread asking why your argument was fallacious and mine was not. You then said you didn't understand my explanation. Moreover, you have repeatedly complained in a number of threads that I in particular, as well as others on the forum, have been unfair to you and committed personal attacks on you, in situations where IMO that is not the case. Indeed, you have another thread you started on that very topic. And you have repeatedly made argument fallacies, and then accused others of making them when they did not do so. So yes, since you are having difficulties distinguishing strong (and yes, sometimes harsh) arguments from personal attacks, and argument fallacies from legitimate arguments, and it is causing you to repeatedly complain, I feel some obligation to try to explain that I (and others) are not simply out to persecute you because you are a conservative or because we hate you, which is what you seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 24, 2018 11:58:52 GMT -5
Here's a hypothetical, since we are talking about hypotheticals: Try to imagine if you spent a long day working as an attorney, and later in the evening, you had several long and detailed posts from c.e. trying to explain how you identify an MI (heart attack) on an EKG. (I'm trying to use an example of something very different from the work you do on a daily basis.) I suspect (though after reading your posts, this may very well be a fallacy) it would be difficult for your tired brain at that time. Maybe the EKG squiggles would look much like the widget example you gave. I had to read that a few times because my brain glazed - note, it wasn't your fault, it was unfamiliar stuff and how tired I was. Just trying to explain why it's taking me a while.
Edited to Add: If Robo has to step in, then it's a personal attack. I also have identified fallacies that others posted in that thread, and I will post about them later. After I get through this thread. Thank you again for your efforts to explain. I do appreciate your time and effort and knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 12:10:19 GMT -5
This isn't the equivalent of an EKG or an MI. I'm not explaining some arcane legal doctrine or procedural issue in federal court. This is logic, not legal expertise. You're a smart person. You're a freaking doctor. Is logic really so out of your ken?
I do not see Amadan, Prozyan, Opty, etc., none of whom are lawyers, constantly complaining that they just don't understand argument fallacies and the whole idea is all new and bewildering. And surely you have seen them all go hammer and tongs at each other and at me. To note, I was not the only one who immediately spotted your argument as fallacious -- it does not take special expertise.
But whatever. Read what I said and consider it. Now I really am going to do some work.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 24, 2018 12:10:44 GMT -5
Another point. Let's take a look at your hypothetical in context: (bolding mine) In applying your hypothetical to your argument, you were not only assuming a completely different candidate than Ms. O-C (one from a wealthy, privileged background), but also assuming the truth of your arguments -- assertions that I (and others arguing my point) are very much disputing -- and indeed are at the heart of the dispute in the thread: -- first, that "[Ms. O-C] gets to congress largely because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood". No. There were a number of factors discussed in the thread that led to her victory, and that is only one. There was also her platform (which they like, though you don't), her stumping door to door, the fact that she lives right in their 'hood today, her seeming to understand their concerns, her speaking their language (literally and figuratively), her being a charming, pretty, young woman, and the general discontent with status quo. Do I think they liked her background? I do. Do I think it was the only factor? Absolutely not. -- second, that she was "stretching truth or omitting truth in her bio" in the way she represented herself. I and others don't think she did in any meaningful way. That's what we're arguing about to begin with. In my opinion, and in that of others in the thread, the house in Yorktown, in context, was not a truth stretch -- and, actually, it wasn't even a secret, nor was the fact that her father was an architect. Sure, you think it's a stretch and an omission, one that matters -- but we don't. And as I keep saying, I think the evidence points the other way. Even if you assume that the Yorktown house and architect thing were somehow secrets at some point, the continuing enthusiastic support for her now, after they've been publicized and discussed left and right, defended by the very people you claim were deceived, is evidence that these fact were, as I assert, immaterial to her future constituents. Knowing her bio, they obviously accept her representation of herself as materially accurate, as do I, and continue to support her. In short, you are assuming the truth of your (disputed) argument in the thread that her biography was materially inaccurate. You are assuming that her alleged misrepresentations were what won her the election, which is not only disputed in the thread but is refuted by the fact that her constituents continue to support her. And you are assuming that a candidate with a totally different background would have lost the election, which is not only not conceded but is not provable -- it requires you to disregard all the other factors that made Ms. O-C an appealing candidate to her electorate. To support what you're trying to claim in your hypothetical (that a candidate just like Ms. O-C, but with a privileged background would have lost the election), you need to assume that all your disputed arguments are correct to begin with. But you are using it to prove the truth of those disputed arguments. If you want to just spitball how a wealthy, privileged candidate who was otherwise just like Ms. O-C might have done in that district, sure, we can spitball it. But it's not only speculative, but a different conversation -- one that does not support your argument in the thread. This is your response that makes the most sense to me. Much more than whether the hypothetical is addressing the argument or an intriguing side point. I could also picture you in court saying this sort of stuff while I was reading it. I am in the process of reading your new posts and will post a more detailed response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 12:14:10 GMT -5
Good. I'll be back tonight or tomorrow to read what you say.
(The reason I went off on the examples is because I thought it might help to have an illustration or two that was utterly removed from politics. I also thought that it might help to come at it from a couple of different angles.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 14:19:15 GMT -5
Edited to Add: If Robo has to step in, then it's a personal attack. I also have identified fallacies that others posted in that thread, and I will post about them later. I can't quite let this slide, I'm afraid. On personal attacks: Yes, if Rob steps in and says it's a personal attack, than by the terms of this board, it is one. That much is true. But guess what? The same is true if I do so. Rob made me a mod. Of course, he can override me. But also guess what? Rob and I pretty much agree with each other on what is and isn't a personal attack. We might rip one other to shreds sometimes in arguments at times, but we are on pretty much the same page when it comes to what is over the line and what isn't. It's also conceivable that Rob and I both might miss a personal attack, either because we're focused on some other aspect of the argument or we didn't see it at all. That's why we have a report button -- so you can say "hey, yo, this was a personal attack." You don't have to use it, but then don't complain that we didn't spot what you think is wrong. (And guess what again? It's also possible that we won't agree with you that it's a personal attack. ) My point here is -- the failure of Rob (or me) to have said "that's a personal attack" actually doesn't necessarily mean it isn't one -- we may just not have spotted and flagged it. But it's not a totally arbitrary standard that Rob (or I) picks out of the air at random, though, yeah, there are judgment calls. We actually have an entire THREAD devoted to what is and isn't a personal attack. There are guidelines. Rob and I have both explained them. As I've said before, I think you frequently confuse harsh attacks on arguments, exasperation, anger, and general not-niceness with personal attacks. They are not the same thing. Your henchman remark? I identified it as a personal attack on Prozyan, Christine, and Amadan. Guess what? It is one. I didn't ban you or time out you, and they restricted themselves to making a dry remark about it rather than getting angry, so all's well that ends well, but it's still a personal attack. I've flagged it and I've told you why it is one. Every harsh statement is NOT a personal attack. Anger doesn't make it a personal attack. If it's attacking the argument, it isn't a personal attack. If it is making an supported observation about several arguments as a whole (e.g, "you have made similar unscientific arguments here, see X, Y and Z"), it is not a personal attack. If it is talking about the ARGUMENT, it is not a personal attack. If it is a remark against the character or bad-faith motivations of the person, rather than the argument itself, it IS a personal attack. Some things fall on the borderline in this regard. Rob and I sometimes parse this out and make a call on it. You may or may not agree on that call, but there it is. If you say someone's argument is fallacious, it is not a personal attack. If you say it makes no sense, it is not a personal attack. If you observe that the person's argument is hypocritical, and you can demonstrate the hypocrisy, it is not a personal attack. Saying that every assertion the other person made is untrue is NOT a personal attack. Saying the other person is a deliberate liar IS a personal attack. If you say that the person's arguments are biased, it becomes a closer call. Is that an unsupported allegation? Or is the assertion supported by evidence and examples of bias? If so, the other person can counter with evidence that their argument does not arise from bias. If it's well-supported, it's not a wild-eyed personal attack. Again, though, it's a gray area and there's some judgment calling that needs to be made and some context that needs to be examined, and you may or may not agree with the ultimate call. (Rob and I may not even agree with each other's call -- and if that happens, his call trumps mine because he owns the board and I'm just a mod. I will note, though, that thus far I cannot recall a time he's disagreed with one of my mod calls.) The fact that you feel picked on and outnumbered and criticized and upset does not make something a personal attack. Nor does the fact that the other person is angry, swearing, exasperated, or is joined by every other member of the board make it a personal attack. This is not Mr. Roger's neighborhood. It is a political discussion board with rules that allow for some heat and dissension. So before you go digging through that thread to pull up alllll the examples of when you think other people personally attacked you, and make me and/or Rob respond to them all, I suggest that you stop, consider this post and the personal attack thread in the welcome forum and all the many discussions we've had on this topic. I also suggest you stop and consider your own posts in that same light. To note -- your assertion above, the one I'm responding to, asserts that "if Rob has to step in, that's a personal attack." Did you notice that despite your claim in the other thread that there were bunches of personal attacks on you in that thread, Rob stepped in once, and once only, in that thread to flag something as such? If you still feel like picking through that thread for personal attacks on you, well then, go for it. But, well, everything I just said. ETA: On argument fallaciesAnd before you go through flagging all the alleged argument fallacies in the other thread, as you say you are going to do, I'd advise you to think it through and consider whether they are in fact argument fallacies. You have acknowledged that this is all "new" to you, and I will tell you now that it is exasperating and time-consuming to go through this exercise continually of explaining why things are or are NOT argument fallacies. So take a look at all the links in the argument fallacy thread before you go labeling an argument as fallacious. How about, before you accuse someone of making a fallacious argument, you do some degree of what I did right here -- think it through and think WHY it is fallacious (or hell, not fallacious). Support it with a link that matches that fallacy, like I did here. We have a whole thread with such links! You'll notice that those links give examples of exceptions to the argument fallacy. Does the argument you don't like fall under the exceptions? Why not? (E.g., an appeal to authority is sometimes fallacious, but not always. Context matters, and so does the authority. How authoritative is this authority and how is it being used? Is it an actual expert, or some dubious person with a website? Is it supporting an argument with expert authority, just being posted for discussion and comment -- or is it a substitute for an actual argument? Is it backed by facts and actual expertise, or is it simply a partisan opinion?) Randomly going through and saying "here, I used a hypothetical and so did you!" "I appealed to an authority and so did you!" is not a good way to identify an argument fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 24, 2018 19:14:40 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. And I think the hypothesis-contrary-to-fact bit that Cass linked to is: 1) excellent 2) apropos 3) and descriptive of a ton of other arguments/points that people here have made. A lot of people here. Probably even me.
But it is most definitely a fallacy with degrees, because not everyone will be willing to agree on how well a given hypothetical is or isn't supported. Drawing on my own memory, there once was a thread elsewhere that posed a hypothetical: what if Carter had defeated Reagan in 1980? I argued that it was--in essence--a silly and pointless exercise, because Reagan's victory was hardly slim and it reflected a shift in public opinion on many, many issues. To imagine that Carter had won would require one to imagine a President who simply had minimal public support, who would have been able to get next to nothing done. Now, that hypothetical was being used tangentially to support a point of view, so it was less direct than what we are talking about here, but the fallacy still applies, I think.
Anyway, as to what Robo did when he stepped in, allow me to clarify again:
If someone argues a point of view based on a series of assertions, claiming that they're "just reposting talking points" isn't an actual counter to that point of view, end of story. It's just an empty jab, there's no meat to it. Now, if that someone kept posting the same series of assertions over and over again, there might be something of a point there. But ultimately--as I explained--most any post here that is an attack or a defense of a political entity (person, party, ideology) might be labelled as "nothing more than talking points" because let's face it, we're rarely offering original ideas most of the time. That's why I noted that Cass' response to ce could be so labelled; frankly, most everything Cass said was something--or close to something--I'd already read on Wikipedia (Ms. O-C's wiki page reads like a commercial) or Ms. O-C's website. But doing so to Cass' response would have been a) unfair and b) presumptive.
The point is, saying "those are just talking points" is essentially name-calling. What matters is whether or not the assertions are true--at least whether or not there is enough evidence to argue their truth in one direction or another--and whether or not they are being presented fairly. In my view, ce assertions were mostly factual, but some were definitely being spun in the way they were presented; I thought Cass' direct response in this regard handled all of that.
BUT...I didn't really step in hard because of a personal attack. When I do that, I'll make it clear for sure, probably as CG Admin. In fact, I contemplated doing so, but thought maybe things would work themselves out.
And if I had stepped in as CG Admin, I would have probably been forced to say something like this:
Celawson takes it on the chin here quite often because she's willing to express some level of support for the admin from time to time and because she does offer points of view that seem--to many--to be very much consistent with the Republican party line. And in my view, she handles this quite well. She's not reporting posts left and right, she's not calling people names, and even when the stuff directed at her comes close to crossing a line, she rarely responds in kind. Frankly, that's better than me.
That said, she also posts the stuff she posts and I certainly don't think she should catch any breaks, simply because she might be seen as a lone voice at times. Don's a lone voice at times. So am I.
But again, the point is to attack the arguments, not the poster. Some might feel posting history says something about someone, and that's fine. But that something is not functionally a counter to an argument being made. So it doesn't matter a whit if people think celawson has a habit of posting what seems like stuff from a Repub press release, if people think Don has a habit of linking all bad things to big government, if people think I have a habit of being overly pedantic to justify my criticism of a pol, if people think Amadan has a habit of dumping on anyone he considers to be a SJW, and so on (rest assured, I could do you all). Noting this stuff--all of which can be perceived differently by different people--doesn't make an argument stronger at all.
But I'm not outlawing it, I just decided to note it in the moment. And yeah, it does--in my view--walk right up to the line of a personal attack.
P.S. Have a nice day! And comment in my Ozil thread, dammit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 19:23:43 GMT -5
Okay, okay, I'll comment in your Ozil thread. Of course, I'll have to find it first! ETA: And yes, I completely concur with what Rob said, including about hypotheticals. Lots of us use them -- I'm quite fond of them myself. They can be interesting. They can serve a valid argument purpose, or they can serve valid discussion purposes that are not particularly argumentative -- e.g., "let's talk about what might have happened if Carter beat Reagan" -- it would all be fantasyland, obviously, but it could be fun. Nothing wrong with that. And sometimes they're fallacious as hell. It really depends on the hypothetical and how it is used in context. If it's not fair or not on point, you should be able to explain why. And if it is on point and the criticism is nitpicky, you should be able to explain that, too.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 25, 2018 3:38:39 GMT -5
It was very helpful to have the examples and the different angles. I "liked" the posts that were easiest for me. The examples about the dog barking, and the one with the puppies were very clear and easy to relate to my post. I realize it took you a long time to explain, but examples make things very clear. Now, I can see the assumptions in the paragraph prior to my hypothetical. I should have had something like exit polling data (there was none, but I mean some sort of actual data) to support the following statement I made: *cringe* Cassandra: Yes, I can now clearly see the circular reasoning. So I've read your explanations through many times, read your links (and will refer to that site in the future) and I think I have a much better understanding of the issues. As I've said several times already, I appreciate the explanations and I think I learned a fair amount. Hopefully someone else did too, reading this. So thanks. I do wish you could have left out a few phrases: Is asking one question "constantly complaining"? This is what I said: "You think this is easy for someone who is actually trying to understand something new?" Yes, the detailed hypothetical stuff is new to me (or 30 years old from my freshman year of college so it may as well be new). And where is the "continually" coming from? I'm sorry that I asked, in a thread about fallacies, if anyone could explain. That was one question. I won't ask any more. But remember, when you recently asked a medical question, I was happy to try to help, and I did it without any snark at all. Lastly tonight, I will list the personal attacks on that thread: So I'm not just regurgitating talking points, I'm also plagiarizing. And not just once, but I have a HISTORY of plagiarizing. Wonderful. Wow, that's news to me. And another "continually". I've defended what I think are good policy decisions by this administration. When have I 'continually defended' lies, coverups, or extreme misrepresentations? Who wants to be known as the poster who continually defends lies, coverups and extreme misrepresentations? You put quotes around something I never said. And the daddy issues was referring to Trump and Putin. You're assuming you know what I care about and don't care about. (Especially something that says I didn't care about kids being put in cages (!) or don't care about our POTUS lying. You're painting a disgusting picture of me and attributing quotes to me that are pretty horrible as well as untrue.) And then you tell me I'm guilty of a personal attack because I wrote "Go ahead, call in your henchmen."? That was a satirical statement, and it seems by the jokes following, that most people thought the same. Beyond the fact that synonyms for henchmen include "aide", "ally", "helper", "assistant", clearly you can't believe I think Prozyan and Christine are actually henchmen in the worst definition of the word?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 11:04:36 GMT -5
Sure, this thread is one question. But this thread does not stand alone on this board. You have frequently complained that other members of this board, including me, were being mean to you, both in the forum and in private (the latter of which I would not mention in the forum, by the way, except for the fact that you did yourself in another thread). You started an entire other thread that in large part discussed how people were mean to you. You have previously pointed out in other threads what you thought were personal attacks and I have explained at length why I thought they were not -- e.g., as I recall, in the Parkland thread. I've spent many, many, many hours in several different threads explaining to you why a remark you didn't like wasn't a personal attack and didn't violate the rules. Do you really dispute that? If you think my paragraph above is unfair, I can go hunting through the board and support all of it. The nature of this board makes it a bit difficult to dig through past conversations so it will be time-consuming and tedious, and I will not be happy about having to do it, but I can. Again, this is a political message board with rules that allow for heat, and no one is making anyone participate. Mean things will be said; they do not all amount to personal attacks (which should be reported and flagged in the moment). You have numerous options -- respond and counter, shrug and ignore, walk away from the conversation. If this sounds like a broken record, that's because I've said this to you many times. And the reason I've said it to you many times is because each time, you were complaining someone was being mean to you. Really, you dispute that? As I do, often, with legal questions. As I have already noted, this has squat to do with legal expertise. This is logic, and to the extent you haven't previously been familiar with argument fallacies, we have long had an entire thread, complete with links, devoted to the subject. This is not the equivalent of a medical question, where you have special expertise, or a legal question, where I do. I may at some point go down your list of alleged personal attacks and explain why they might not be nice, but, in my opinion, are in fact supported by your posting history and/or context and hence are not personal attacks. Because it will take me considerable time to do so -- requiring me to dig through multiple threads to find all the examples of you defending Trump when he did something horrible or making some "it's no big deal" remark and then criticizing a Democrat who did something less egregious, then to go into discussing the context around those examples, etc -- I'm not going to do so right now. I just can't afford to spend another full day on this at the moment. So for now, I'll give you this to chew on: (1) Did you notice that CG Admin did not jump in and condemn the all instances you cite as personal attacks? See Rob's post above. Since he did not so, it seems that he, like me, regarded those remarks as something that had some support or context or at least, did not step over the line. You, of course, were free to defend yourself, e.g., to show that you frequently criticize Trump and defend Democrats, or whatever. (2) Since pretty much all of the remarks you think are "personal attacks" revolve around assertions that you blindly defend Trump and Republicans at every turn and never stray from the Republican party line in your arguments, consider this: several on the board have at times defended you on the grounds that you are generally a polite person. But do you know what no one jumps to defend you on? That particular point. As a matter of fact, I think most of the board has at some point asserted it, in one way or another, sometimes more harshly than at other times. I actually don't even think you dispute that you do this, really. You've said, more than once, that you don't feel the need to criticize Trump/Republicans or defend a Democrat when others are doing it. Indeed, you have prided yourself on bringing this alternative / devil's advocate point of view to the board. Okay, fine. It's totally your prerogative to do that if you wish. But it's then neither surprising nor a personal attack when people remark on your history of doing it. It's bizarre to many of us, for example, to see you decrying Ms. O-C's economic dumbassery, but not Trump's, and her take on her biography to be fallacious, deceptive, and harmful, but not Trump's far worse and more harmful deceptions, coverups, etc. You don't have to condemn Trump for those things, of course, but when you jump in attacking people like Ms. O-C for something he does himself in a far more egregious fashion when you have been silent or put up a defense for Trump, well, it's not unfair to remark on it, especially when you expressly acknowledge that you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's bio if she weren't a socialist. (Compare, e.g., my hypothetical about Sue, Joe, and Pete (Joe's brother and Sue's mariachi-playing neighbor). It would also be fair for you to, for example, point out "you defended Hillary Clinton again and again when she paid off all those porn star she was sleeping with just before the election, but now you are attacking Trump for doing the same thing!" or "you were totally silent when Hillary Clinton paid off a porn star, but now you are attacking Trump for the same thing!" (Caveat -- it may be less fair, or indeed possible UNfair, when it is not an apples to apples comparison. Al Franken is not nearly as bad as, say, Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein. You can certainly say "well, you said Al Franken wasn't totally awful, but you threw rocks at Bill Cosby!" but expect to have others respond by pointing out that the two situations are far from equivalent.) (3) I've already told you why "henchmen" is an insult, even given the very kindest dictionary definition, not to me but to the others in the thread, but I'll give it one more shot. (I'll address the "satire" claim in a moment.) The word is overwhelmingly used in a pejorative sense, not the "ally" or "helper" sense. But taking that aside, using the very, very kindest dictionary definition of the word, you are implying that I am their leader, and that we are all in league. That's bullshit (as clearly evidenced by past disputes on this board). What we are is a bunch of individuals who each separately reached the same conclusions about your argument on the board. There is no alliance. I have zero power to "call them in." Nor was I even trying to, btw -- quite obviously, I was signalling that I was done trying to argue the point with you, but that they were free to continue if they liked. I accept you said it in anger, and I think others did too, and let it roll off them. It was a one-off remark in a heated thread, and in context, not a big deal. That's why there was no mod note, from either me or Rob. And I think that's why Prozyan and Christine shrugged it off and responded with dry jokes. (Which, by the way, was the best possible way to react, and I commend them both for it. It was both an effective way to respond, and it didn't throw paraffin on the flames. We all, including me, should try that approach more often. Well done, peeps.) Also -- if you're going to claim it was only "satire" and not really meant literally, perhaps you might consider sometimes looking at other people's remarks the same way -- e.g., my satire of your remarks defending Trump. If someone dropped in from freaking Mars, they would realize that I was not directly quoting you but instead satirizing your argument. And on the satire front -- Several of us frequently use satire to point out the weaknesses in someone's argument. It can be a fair and effective tactic, used properly. (And of course, it can be used unfairly, too.) But you were not using "henchmen" to respond to the substance of anyone's argument (as I was doing with my satire). Satire of our position would have looked more like this "Oh, poor sweet Ms. O-C, she's just a little girl and little girls can't be held accountable, leave her alllllooone!" Actually, it would have looked like this: Would Cassandra be chuckling lovingly when Ocasio makes a political gaffe on TV if she were male and rich? Of course I didn't literally "chuckle lovingly", did I? But I didn't jump on a chair and scream that you were misrepresenting me. What you were saying with that was not intended to be literal, it was intended to summarize and satirize my general remarks on Ms. O-C, and say they amounted to my minimizing her flaws. Hence, it was a satire of my argument, and though I think my argument is totally fair, I also don't think your satire is unfair. That's not the same thing as agreeing with it, by the way. Whereas if we accept your use of "henchmen" as "satire", the only thing it could possibly be satirizing is the fact that the rest of us in the thread had reached similar conclusions and were all more or less in agreement. And, um, what is there to satirize in that? We all agree the earth isn't flat and water isn't dry and crumbly, too. Using "henchmen" implies that we were all agreeing just to gang up on you or that they were doing so just to suck up to me. What is there to "satirize" in the fact that several different people had all independently reached similar conclusions? If it is a satire, it is a satire on our motivations to all have similar opinions, which is a personal attack. You said it in anger, I know. And I'm not holding it against you and I doubt anyone else is. But since you are complaining about personal attacks, I wanted to point it out. Do you not see how someone could resent being called a "henchman?" for agreeing with someone's argument? Henchmengate aside, a couple thoughts on responding to satirical takes on your arguments: You can always respond to an unfair satire of your argument by explaining why it is unfair. E.g., Ms. Ocasio-Cortez could try to respond substantively to the satire of her that has gone viral. Instead, she and her supporters have chosen to take it literally and scream that a false "doctored" video depiction of her is being circulated. thecollinegate.boards.net/post/22478/thread This is essentially what you are doing with my satire on your defense of Trump. OBVIOUSLY my satire wasn't exactly what you said. No one thought it was. Nor was your "chuckle lovingly" exactly what I did. But the best thing to do if you feel such a satire is an unfair characterization is to explain why it is so, not jump up on a chair and claim you were falsely quoted. Another alternative is to respond with either a satire of your opponent's argument, or if satire isn't your thing, with a substantive, non-satiric take-down of their argument. Or of course you can do both -- explain why their satire of your argument is unfair, and why your opponent's own argument is flawed. Or you can ignore it, walk away, etc. And of course, if you think it is a personal attack, report it. But be prepared for the fact that neither Rob nor I will necessarily agree with you.
|
|