|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
#14188175 - 03/26/11 06:19 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You prove my point: over here the tendency is to discredit personal experiences of aliens/spirits/what have you in favor of alternative explanations such as a hallucination or mistaken perception, whereas in the Mystery forum the tendency is to accept a person's explanation of what they saw as the premise to the thread.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
#14188190 - 03/26/11 06:24 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If they said, rather: In the middle of the afternoon, an alien knocked on my door and took me for a trip to Thailand in his cruiser where we had tea and reutrned for dinner at my place- that would be a different story.
Thailand must have one helluva reputation!
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: durantz]
#14188241 - 03/26/11 06:38 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The aliens never take me to Thailand. Usually it is to some poor, rural village in South America.
--------------------
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
|
Don't worry I'll take you for a ride on my rocket ship
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: durantz]
#14188288 - 03/26/11 06:44 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Not sure I like the sound of that!
--------------------
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
|
Not sure if I mind one way or the other
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
#14189571 - 03/26/11 11:16 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Freedom said: If your goal is to 'win', then the easiest way to do that is to look for what's incorrect about a statement, even if that has little to do with the correctness of the main argument. I see this going on all the time in this forum, and IMO it decreases the value of the conversation because it gets dragged into some tit for tat debate about a tangential fact.
Agreed. Sure, it's great if you can point out a flaw, but I'd like to see posters discuss the general idea presented and offer constructive criticism in addition to focusing on small, tangential errors within someone's post.
If any portion of an argument is fallacious, then the entire argument as a whole is fallacious.
Ex: "God is angry at the Japs, and this is why there was an earthquake which caused that huge tsunami over there."
Do you think there's any reason to entertain this argument? It's true that there was an earthquake which caused a tsunami, but it's bullshit that God exists and is angry at the Japs; IMO, if there is a single flaw in an argument, then the argument as a whole is flawed.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
#14189633 - 03/26/11 11:33 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|

Sigmund Flawed
--------------------
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,857
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
#14189726 - 03/26/11 11:53 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Could you explain how something could be incorrect yet the argument premised upon it or somehow related to it not be incorrect?
It seems to me that the only way this could occur would be if the argument was extraenous, which would clearly not lead anyone to conclude it was challenged by the criticism
On the other hand, if it is supportive of the argument, then it is either duplicative or integral, and in either case it is relevant as the proffered grounds for the conclusion would thereby be indicated to be incorrect, at least in part. This limits the applicability of the conclusion in some or all cases.
What I have observed many times is a poster making a strong argument backing up their central point followed by many weak arguments backing up the central point. This is then followed by a slew of attacks on the weak arguments while the strong argument is ignored.
It is not the attack of the weak argument that bothers me, it is the often consequential ignorance of the strong argument and the central point of the poster.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,857
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
#14189744 - 03/26/11 11:57 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: If any portion of an argument is fallacious, then the entire argument as a whole is fallacious.
But if you make 3 arguments to back up a main point, 2 of which are sufficient on their own to prove the point but the third is nonsense, does the inclusion of the third invalidate the first two?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Freedom]
#14189777 - 03/27/11 12:05 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well no, I meant to say that if a point relies on a fallacious argument, then it is necessarily fallacious; I'm not too sure what the use of providing more than one argument in support of a point is, though, if either of those arguments alone prove the point to be true. That's like overkill...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
#14189799 - 03/27/11 12:11 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Freedom said: If your goal is to 'win', then the easiest way to do that is to look for what's incorrect about a statement, even if that has little to do with the correctness of the main argument. I see this going on all the time in this forum, and IMO it decreases the value of the conversation because it gets dragged into some tit for tat debate about a tangential fact.
Agreed. Sure, it's great if you can point out a flaw, but I'd like to see posters discuss the general idea presented and offer constructive criticism in addition to focusing on small, tangential errors within someone's post.
If any portion of an argument is fallacious, then the entire argument as a whole is fallacious.
Ex: "God is angry at the Japs, and this is why there was an earthquake which caused that huge tsunami over there."
Do you think there's any reason to entertain this argument? It's true that there was an earthquake which caused a tsunami, but it's bullshit that God exists and is angry at the Japs; IMO, if there is a single flaw in an argument, then the argument as a whole is flawed.
Read my post again; I'm talking about tangential errors whose falsity does not affect the main argument.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
#14189814 - 03/27/11 12:16 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, it's great if you can point out a flaw, but I'd like to see posters discuss the general idea presented and offer constructive criticism in addition to focusing on small, tangential errors within someone's post.
You're making it seem like it's common for posters to only focus on small tangential errors, and I'm not sure I agree that this is true--can you give an example or two where somebody has done this?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
#14189830 - 03/27/11 12:19 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Nah, I don't really feel like scouring through posts to find examples. I'm about to head out to pick up some milk for a Kava Kava brew, anyways.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
#14189840 - 03/27/11 12:22 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm so sober right now, fuck...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
#14189846 - 03/27/11 12:24 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Can't get any dr00gz?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,857
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
#14189878 - 03/27/11 12:30 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Well no, I meant to say that if a point relies on a fallacious argument, then it is necessarily fallacious; I'm not too sure what the use of providing more than one argument in support of a point is, though, if either of those arguments alone prove the point to be true. That's like overkill...
You're right its of no use but a lot of... i don't want to say stupid but yeah a lot of stupid people think that weak arguments are additive, so a strong argument is even better if it is accompanied by a bunch of weak arguments.
And then the hounds descend upon those weak arguments, tearing them apart while the strong argument sits in the corner, "Just wait till those dogs get near me and I'll show you who's boss." But the cowards rarely confront the big boy.
And by big boy I mean drugz are in me.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
#14189887 - 03/27/11 12:32 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm broke for the next 4-5 days.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Freedom]
#14189898 - 03/27/11 12:34 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
Poid said: Well no, I meant to say that if a point relies on a fallacious argument, then it is necessarily fallacious; I'm not too sure what the use of providing more than one argument in support of a point is, though, if either of those arguments alone prove the point to be true. That's like overkill...
You're right its of no use but a lot of... i don't want to say stupid but yeah a lot of stupid people think that weak arguments are additive, so a strong argument is even better if it is accompanied by a bunch of weak arguments.
And then the hounds descend upon those weak arguments, tearing them apart while the strong argument sits in the corner, "Just wait till those dogs get near me and I'll show you who's boss." But the cowards rarely confront the big boy.
Haha, that produced some funny imagery in my head. 
Maybe they're not interested in confronting the big boy, and aren't under the impression that rebutting the weak arguments means that the big boy has also been rebutted? 
Quote:
Freedom said: And by big boy I mean drugz are in me.
Fuck, is the whole world besides me high getting high right now?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
|