Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
    #14188175 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14188190 -

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!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: durantz]
    #14188241 -

The aliens never take me to Thailand. :sad: Usually it is to some poor, rural village in South America.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14188274 -

Don't worry I'll take you for a ride on my rocket ship :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: durantz]
    #14188288 -

Not sure I like the sound of that! :shiftyeyes:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14188309 -

Not sure if I mind one way or the other :evil:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14189571 -

deCypher said:
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
    #14189633 -



Sigmund Flawed


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: johnm214]
    #14189726 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
    #14189744 -

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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Freedom]
    #14189777 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
    #14189799 -

Poid said:
deCypher said:
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14189814 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
    #14189830 -

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.  :faded:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14189840 -

I'm so sober right now, fuck...:bored:


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
    #14189846 -

Can't get any dr00gz?  :sad:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Poid]
    #14189878 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: deCypher]
    #14189887 -

I'm broke for the next 4-5 days. :mexican:


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The non-argumentative, agreement thread [Re: Freedom]
    #14189898 -

Freedom said:
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. :angrydog:

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? :justdontknow:


Freedom said:
And by big boy I mean drugz are in me.

Fuck, is the whole world besides me high getting high right now? :mad:


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Experimental Thread!
( 1 2 all )		 ferago2 2,413 28 11/23/04 02:43 AM
by Diploid
* The *OFFICIAL* Co-Incidences Thread
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 nubious 5,808 61 07/29/03 01:07 PM
by Source
* A Sound Argument for Free Will shroomydan 2,989 17 10/11/04 08:21 PM
by deff
* Truth in the Ontological Argument or Syntax Games chemkid 1,354 13 12/25/03 10:21 AM
by Anonymous
* The Passion of the Christ (serious thread + lengthy) orion 794 8 02/29/04 10:16 AM
by quarry
* Can I convert an idealist? Reality thread!
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 3,466 35 12/27/03 08:34 PM
by Malachi
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,673 10 12/09/07 07:38 PM
by Holly
* The Nothing thread
( 1 2 all )		 Jellric 1,957 38 08/25/04 10:39 AM
by Jellric

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,682 topic views. 0 members, 30 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.