|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2007 : 20:35:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Well, Dave, you have my sincere apology.
Thank you.quote:
Given the italics placed on my in the sentence, your claim in the same post:
"I made no assumption that you were "only talking about this forum." I had very good evidence to not make such an assumption. You knew that I had good reason to not make that assumption, yet you chose to state that I made that assumption in spite of the evidence."
(which I have no clue why I supposedly knew something), and the two preceding statements:
"Good grief, indeed. "Mycroft and Dave claim I'm far left" is incorrect"'
and
"Your memory is faulty. "I was attacked from all sides" and "Everyone had a cow" are both incorrect."
I think sarcasm was a reasonable interpretation.
I don't follow you. Italics don't necessarily indicate sarcasm, but they always indicate a stressed word. If you're always reading it with that whiny stressing often used when someone is being purposefully sarcastic, then please stop doing so. I made mention of your faulty memory, and then stressed in my apology that I, too, obviously have a faulty memory. It's little wonder why people have taken to using "[sarcasm] tags" when actually intending to be sarcastic in the world of Internet forums, because it is difficult to detect in text.
And you did, indeed, know that you had provided me with reasons to not assume that you'd be talking about "only" the SFN when you said that you were "attacked from all sides" and that "everyone had a cow." You'd spoken freely of your activities on other forums. So, taking all of your Web discussions into account (in other words, not assuming you were talking about "only" this forum), I can say that your claim that "everyone had a cow" was factual incorrect at worst, and a simple exagerration at best, since not everyone did. If, when you said that everyone had a cow, you intended for us to exclude the SFN from our considerations of your statement, you should have said so.quote:
So are you indeed aware how many people did 'have a cow' over at JREF over the World Can't Wait thread? I didn't go back and look if you had posted there.
How many people who had cows elsewhere is actually irrelevant to the fact that at least one person here did not have a cow. When all of your forum activites over the entire Web are taken all together, while the number of people who had cows may be several orders of magnitude larger than the number of people who didn't have cows, the fact of the matter is that the number of people who didn't have cows is non-zero, and so your statement that "everyone had a cow" (my bolding) is factually incorrect.
Again, if I should have excluded the SFN from my analysis of your statement, you should have said so (for example, you could have said, "Everyone at the JREF forums had a cow..."). But you were also factually incorrect when you claimed that I assumed that you were "only" (that was your word) talking about the SFN. I made no such assumption.
Now obviously, most of the above is an exercise in absurdity, and I hope that someone will find the humor in it besides me. But let me note, beskeptigal, that the humor isn't at your expense.quote:
And, by chance might you be apologizing as well for the claim:
"I was actually wondering how many of the right-wing trolls she says have appeared on the JREF forums are actually right-wing trolls, but don't have the time to go try to form an independent opinion on the subject." ?
The only claim I made there was that I wondered about the veracity of your non-specific, generalized claims and in light of the evidence we have of you making hyperbolic statements ("Everyone had a cow," for example), it was a rational and reasonable question. You missed the point of the statement when I made it (because you responded with a bunch of links), and because you're asking me to apologize for it, I believe you're still missing the point. As someone who tries to promote critical thought, I think I have a duty to point out when people - not just you, but anyone - makes a generalization from a very small data set. When people continue to make such mistakes, as you have done in this thread and elsewhere, it destroys some of my trust in them as reliable sources of information.
So no, I'm not going to apologize for questioning how well your statements align with reality, beskeptigal. (Note well that I assign no intent, evil or otherwise, on your part.) Even if you'd made some measurable claim of fact, which I'd questioned and you'd supported with solid data, the proper response on my part would be "okay, I understand now," and not "I'm sorry I questioned you."quote:
How about accepting my statement that whatever I concluded about your political position which was incorrect was not the equivalent of insulting you? I draw conclusions based on what I read just as you do. If someone says I have it wrong, and it was just a matter of interpreting a post, then fine. I'm sorry. But I'm not a liar, I'm not conspiring to send evil coded messages, and I'm not insulting people for the sake of getting off on it.
I never said you were doing any of those things. Why do you continue to refuse to accept my statement about why I felt insulted? Why is it that you continue to ascribe to me ridiculous motivations, even going so far as to imply that I'm a complete moron?
That you think that I would even entertain the idea that you are "conspiring to send evil coded messages" or that you are "getting off" on insulting me tells me quite a lot about just how stupid you think I am, beskeptigal. If that wasn't intended to be an insult, then what was your meaning?
Please, beskeptigal, help me to find a reasonable way to interpret your post in a way that doesn't result in the plain meaning of "I'm sorry I misread your posts, you idiot." Because that's not much of an apology, is it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 20:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ok, I was going to write this the other day, but didn't. Should've, I think. Might'a saved some hassle.
Now, I don't have a cock in this pit and no money riding on anyone else's, so I see it strictly from a bystander's viewpoint. That view is that I must have really been bored to have followed such nonsense for so long. It seems to me that these hassles could be better settled in private: PMs or e-mails. Really, Dude, B'gal, Marf, et al, why air it out in public? It certainly doesn't do anything much for the rest of us. And the topic, whatever that might have been, has been lost in a storm of ad hom, rendering the entire thread meaningless. ...
I thought I was staying to the facts, debate, issues, and not the personal stuff except in reply to some of the personal attacks and then I tried to keep it to a minimum. So I don't like being lumped in there, filthy, but it is your perspective, not mine. And I'll defend some of the personal stuff because it was kindly said on my behalf. I was a bit bothered no one said much about Mycroft's claims I was a liar and Dave's attributing all sorts of stuff I posted to some conspiratorial motive (also a claim of dishonesty), so having a few defenders here was much appreciated.
So don't read my next post to Dave. 
RE Dude:
I will repeat, I ask Dude to take note he said the platform represented the majority and hasn't addressed the fact it is chock full of woo.
I also don't think my opinion or my conclusions (not a lot of difference there) are deserving of any ad homs when those opinions are about something like a political party membership, not about an individual I am posting to. If I called Dude a woo and couldn't back it up (actually it would be saying something he did reflected woo beliefs) that might be considered an insult and we should be careful about that.
In this case, Dude is actually claiming I am not entitled to my opinion, that opinion being based on what I observed about Green Party members I know and have come in contact with. I was willing to consider additional evidence and stated that my observations were limited but short of other evidence, I wasn't going to change my opinion/conclusion. Then reading the platform, it reinforced my original conclusion.
I don't agree that if someone takes personal offense to my opinions regardless of what those opinions are based on that I should always defer to their offense. Sometimes I might but in this case that's crazy. It's like saying we should have polite forum tea parties and never speak about controversial things.
Debate the issue, Dude. That is the problem here. You don't agree with my opinion/conclusion but rather than discuss the validity of my observations now backed up by the revelation the actual platform is filled with woo rather than just one or two things as you first claimed you can't let go of your personal offense. What is so bad about drawing a conclusion about the Green Party membership you don't agree with? I've been active in some politics my whole adult life. Some years more than others and for the last 6 years it's been more. I also go to and meet with many war protesters. MANY of those protesters are everything but mainstream. Lots of them are Green Party advocates. There are more people at war protests on the fringes than there are middle of the road Democrats there, at least earlier on. (Now there may even be some Republicans who knows?)
I know what Kil is trying to say about opinion vs conclusion. They really are the same. I think the issue Kil means to get at is stating a fact which someone knows to be false vs drawing a conclusion based on an observation but including the information what the conclusion/opinion is based on.
Generally when we use the term opinion, we are acknowledging the fact the opinion is not based on solid evidence. Using the word conclusion one can add a modifier stating how strong or tenuous the conclusion is. I stated from the beginning what my conclusion/opinion was based on.
Just what is it about that observation that pisses you off? Do you expect me to say I didn't see what I saw? Do you expect to convince me I should feel badly about the conclusion I drew from what I saw? And have you really convinced anyone here that you have better evidence or that I have such little evidence an opinion could not be formed?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/18/2007 00:43:15 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 22:23:31 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigl said:
quote:
In this case, Dude is actually claiming I am not entitled to my opinion,
Claims stated with a non-subjective modifier are not opinions.
"The majority of 'X' are 'A'" cannot be considerend an opinion.
"To many of 'X' are 'A'" is an opinion.
Your protestations aside, what you are doing is not stating an opinion.
And, if you can find one place where I have said you are not entitled to an opinion, please provide the permalink. Otherwise you should retract your lie.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 22:32:12 [Permalink]
|
ricky said:
quote:
Also, do you have any evidence that the majority of people disagree with a party platform, as you have stated? Because that sounds like a claim to me.
You are misstating what I am saying, and failing to understand how political platforms are created.
The only conclusion you can draw from nonsense in a political platform is that some people in that party hold that particular plank as a value.
It does not follow that because a thing is in a platform that the majority agree with it.
Any such conclusion is the result of faulty induction.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 22:44:59 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Debate the issue, Dude. That is the problem here. You don't agree with my opinion/conclusion but rather than discuss the validity of my observations now backed up by the revelation the actual platform is filled with woo rather than just one or two things as you first claimed you can't let go of your personal offense. What is so bad about drawing a conclusion about the Green Party membership you don't agree with?
I never claimed there was only "one or two" dumb things in their platform. I have already addressed your exaggeration that their platform is "filled with woo". The fact is there are several things in there that would set off most skeptics. But it is minority content.
The 10 values they identify as their key values are notably free of "woo".
Political platforms, for the nth time, are decided by committee. You get your stuff in, you do not object to other stuff as long as it doesn't contradict your stuff, and in the end you have something that reflects (hopefully) values that the various factions of your party embrace.
The idea of a political party is to be as inclusive as possible around certain central tenets. But everyone has a pet issue, and as long as your pet issue doesn't contradict the central tenets, you have a shot at getting it through the platform committee.
Seriously, the democrat political platform also has a ton of nonsense crap in it. Should I be able to conclude that the majority of democrats are dumb asses because of that? I can easily run through their platform and pick out a handfull of idiotic statements and draw just such a conclusion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 00:03:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude responded: quote:
ricky said:
quote:
The majority of people who believe in homeopathy are magical thinkers. I guess I'm a bigot now.
No, because you can provide evidence that shows homeopathy is fake.
You earlier dismissed and ignored my requests for qualifiers that make someone a "magical thinker", but by responding to Ricky in this manner, you have implied that anyone who holds even one belief which requires magical thinking (such as homeopathy), they are a magical thinker.
By this definition, most people are magical thinkers, and we definitely then know that most Dems and Republicans are magical thinkers since most of them have belief in some kind of God.
Now I looked and looked and looked on the Internet for any stats regarding Green party polls on all sorts of issues that would reveal magical thinking. Unfortunately, I could find nothing. Not surprising considering that according to the U.S. Green party's website there are only just over 300,000 registered Green voters in the USA.
Anyway, in the absence of any scientific evidence, people can still come to tentative conclusions about reality. And given that we know from stats that the overwhelming majority of people in America hold at least one belief based on magical thinking, it is rational to assume that most Green Party members do as well.
See, Dude, this is why I complained repeatedly that your jumping all over bgal over this claim was over-reacting because the term "magical thinker" by itself is too vague. In this context, the term is almost meaningless and loses a lot of its insulting punch since now almost everyone is some kind of magical thinker. You are jumping all over a technicality, taking skepticism to an absurd extreme, as Kil pointed out when he says you now are required to criticize and question Filthy just as harshly in order to be consistent.
Nobody here is denying that claims of fact require evidence, and certain types of evidence are better than others. Nobody is questioning the integrity of your logic. But ample antedoctal evidence in the absence of (not ignorance of, but absence of) any other kind is perfectly reasonable in the context of what bgal has said. In no way does it resemble the types of claims made by Bill Scott and verlch that we on this forum have jumped all over.
I think most of the people on this forum are very open minded to recognizing their own mistakes and biases, and very reasonable. To claim that we are all wrong on this due to political bias is to claim something very out of the ordinary for SFN. And, no, I can't back that up with statistics or scientific studies. It is a conclusion based merely my 2 years of experience on this forum.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/18/2007 00:07:37 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 00:40:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...I don't follow you. Italics don't necessarily indicate sarcasm, but they always indicate a stressed word. If you're always reading it with that whiny stressing often used when someone is being purposefully sarcastic, then please stop doing so.
Further on in this post you have 3 or 4 paragraphs about my rhetorical use of "everyone" and "all" as if it was said in a literal context. And here you use the claim, "If you're always reading it with that whiny stressing", when you have no evidence that is what led me to the interpretation I made. In fact, I spelled out for you why I gave the meaning I did to your italics in the statement in question. In that statement, 'whiny stress' was the logical interpretation. I read it that way, you say you didn't mean it that way, I'll take your word for it, end of story. All this other nonsense is absurd.
quote:
...and you did, indeed, know that you had provided me with reasons to not assume that you'd be talking about "only" the SFN when you said that you were "attacked from all sides" and that "everyone had a cow." You'd spoken freely of your activities on other forums. So, taking all of your Web discussions into account (in other words, not assuming you were talking about "only" this forum), I can say that your claim that "everyone had a cow" was factual incorrect at worst, and a simple exagerration at best, since not everyone did.
How the he11 do you know what my thoughts were at any time? You do not. Your post only made sense if you weren't considering other forum exchanges. In fact, half your post I'm replying to here harps on why "everyone" and "all" were not factual BECAUSE they didn't fit the exchanges from SFN.
But just what isn't factual? A literal interpretation of 'all' and 'everyone' in a rhetorical usage? Of course not. Who would interpret "everyone had a cow" literally? Gee, did you interpret that to mean they all owned those cows or birthed them?
quote:
If, when you said that everyone had a cow, you intended for us to exclude the SFN from our considerations of your statement, you should have said so.
Give me a break! How about asking a few other people how absurd this is so you don't have to take my word for it? Oh wait, you said so yourself:quote:
Now obviously, most of the above is an exercise in absurdity, and I hope that someone will find the humor in it besides me. But let me note, beskeptigal, that the humor isn't at your expense.
Too bad you went on from there to harp on it again. Not quite sure how something can be a joke in one paragraph and some transgression you have a "duty" to correct in the next.
quote:
...The only claim I made there was that I wondered about the veracity of your non-specific, generalized claims and in light of the evidence we have of you making hyperbolic statements ("Everyone had a cow," for example), it was a rational and reasonable question. You missed the point of the statement when I made it (because you responded with a bunch of links), and because you're asking me to apologize for it, I believe you're still missing the point.
Let's just look at the context of that statement you are referring to here because there was no point being missed. The following exchange is from the media forum and the statement in question I bolded.
Dave: "She's so far left she sees the moderates of her own party as radical Republicans."
H Humbert: "I don't think that's a fair assumption. Beskep may have jumped to conclusions about your's or Mycroft's positions, but that could be a result of exasperation, not ideology....You've seen how on the evolution blogs anyone who exhibits the slightest bit of skepticism on evolution is immediately labeled a creationist troll. Sometimes those accusations are premature, but they occur because most of the people posting there have seen so many creationists play the "innocent skeptic" routine that it sets off alarm bells. Same with beskep and politics. She's just probably had to deal with so many conservative trolls here and elsewhere that she has a knee-jerk reaction to people using standard conservative arguments."
Dave: "I was actually wondering how many of the right-wing trolls she says have appeared on the JREF forums are actually right-wing trolls, but don't have the time to go try to form an independent opinion on the subject."
In that context, it hardly fits your current claim you, "wondered about the veracity of [my] non-specific, generalized claims and in light of the evidence we have of [me] making hyperbolic statements".
The non-specific claim was HH's, not mine and he was referring to at least one time when I assume he actually read the posts in question. If I recall, I asked for some assistance when being called a skeptic bimbo among a few other things by an ass on JREF. And are you claiming clairvoyant knowledge of the rhetorical use of 'everyone' and 'all' in this thread as your rationale for the insult in that one? Right. 
quote:
As someone who tries to promote critical thought, I think I have a duty to point out when people - not just you, but anyone - makes a generalization from a very small data set.
Your duty?
You already commented that. And I already replied. You assumed my data set was small without much data of your own, now didn't you? And as it turned out from the platform, I'd say my observations and conclusion were hardly inappropriately stated.
quote:
When people continue to make such mistakes, as you have done in this thread and elsewhere, it destroys some of my trust in them as reliable sources of information.
A rhetorical comment is a "mistake" that "destroys your trust"? And you even admit that such an interpretation is absurd.
Let me clue you in here, Dave. I do not need you to give me lectures on how I might win your trust. That has to be one of the most ridiculous assumptions you have made yet.
News flash! I actually have confidence in myself. I know full well that while anyone can get things wrong, I am extremely well informed about the topics I post on, I support my posts with more than sufficient citations, I make an effort to continually track down original sources and to expand my knowledge base whenever I can. And I don't give a rat's ass if you trust what I post.
quote:
....I never said you were doing any of those things. Why do you continue to refuse to accept my statement about why I felt insulted? Why is it that you continue to ascribe to me ridiculous motivations, even going so far as to imply that I'm a complete moron?
That you think that I would even entertain the idea that you are "conspiring to send evil coded messages" or that you are "getting off" on insulting me tells me quite a lot about just how stupid you think I am, beskeptigal. If that wasn't intended to be an insult, then what was your meaning?
Please, beskeptigal, help me to find a reasonable way to interpret your post in a way that doesn't result in the plain meaning of "I'm sorry I misread your posts, you idiot." Because that's not much of an apology, is it?
What statement are you referring to about why you felt insulted? If you have made such a statement either it wasn't clear or it was in one of your posts I refused to read because they were diatribes. In fact, I think I asked several times what you were insulted about because it was a mystery to me.
I don't think you are an idiot. Immature, yes, idiot no. Which statement did I make you think implies that? I did try to describe the motivations you ascribed to my statements. It's hard to describe statements you've made implying I said things intentionally. You have made a number of statements claiming I had some motivation you knew and I was lying about. Like the one here where you claim I "did, indeed, know that [ I ] had provided [you] with reasons to not assume". Maybe you're unaware that statement claims I knew something when I already said twice I didn't know. That's specifically saying I'm a liar. I'd be surprised if you can make a case I've implied anywhere you were an idiot in anything I said since I don't think that. You are making poor assumptions about what I've said.
Intelligence has nothing to do with this. You may not like my assessment but I think you are angry I don't care to meet some expectation you have. I wish you would get off all this personal stuff like claiming I made this error or that error or whatever. I am not here for lessons from you how to debate, what standards I need to meet, how I can earn your trust, or how to behave in whatever way it is you have determined I should behave.
The way this dispute comes across to me, and it began several threads back is that you have been using manipulative statements like the ones here implying I should want to earn your trust. You then get upset I'm not responding to them. The problem with manipulative statements like "you or your behavior disappoints me" and "as you have done in this thread and elsewhere, .. destroys some of my trust.. as reliable sources of information," in this case is I simply don't buy it. I'm trustworthy both in the factual nature of what I post and as a person. Whether it disappoints you or you don't trust what I say is not something that affects whether I have confidence in myself.
Forget the apology. It seems that's out of the question for the moment for several people here. Let me ask something easier. Quit attacking me personally. If you think I drew a conclusion on too little data, that can be said with out a single other word about me personally.
What trust? Who gives a crap about whether you trust me. Either you have something to say about the facts, conclusions, opinions, or issues I post or you don't. If you want to say something nice or supportive in a personal conversation, fine. If I ask for personal advice then the door is open. Otherwise, cut the crap. My behavior is none of your concern, my debating and logic skills are not your responsibility.
If I misinterpret something you said, say so. I've never been one to call someone a liar when they clarify themselves unless there is specific BS rationalizing going on and I can post past quotes to show it. If I insult you, then say so without all the hyperbole. It clouds the issue and regardless of how clear you think you are being, sometimes you are not.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 02:03:39 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
See, Dude, this is why I complained repeatedly that your jumping all over bgal over this claim was over-reacting because the term "magical thinker" by itself is too vague. In this context, the term is almost meaningless and loses a lot of its insulting punch since now almost everyone is some kind of magical thinker. You are jumping all over a technicality, taking skepticism to an absurd extreme, as Kil pointed out when he says you now are required to criticize and question Filthy just as harshly in order to be consistent.
You are deliberately shifting context, which invalidates your argument.
And no, I do not have to "criticize and question filthy" in order to remain consistent. His rant was an obvious example of rhetorical hyperbole.
quote:
Nobody here is denying that claims of fact require evidence, and certain types of evidence are better than others. Nobody is questioning the integrity of your logic. But ample antedoctal evidence in the absence of (not ignorance of, but absence of) any other kind is perfectly reasonable in the context of what bgal has said. In no way does it resemble the types of claims made by Bill Scott and verlch that we on this forum have jumped all over.
Conclusions stated with non-subjective modifiers based on unacceptable standards of evidence are exactly why people roast bill and verlch here. You are deluding yourself if you think that isn't the case.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2007 : 06:07:43 [Permalink]
|
Better. Much better. The thread is again becoming an argument rather than a faeces-fling at the monkey house. I can again enjoy following it.
I'm sure that some (many?) have taken offense at some part of my vicious, little rant, and to them I say: suck it up and take it as it was intended. And B'gal, in with the names mentioned was included: et al. That covers everybody, so please, don't feel singled out. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 08:20:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
His rant was an obvious example of rhetorical hyperbole.
Although I guessed the meaning in context, I went and looked up "rhetorical hyperbole" to make sure exactly what it means. Bgal expressed a tentative conclusion that she admits is based on insufficient evidence (because there are no studies on this so she must go with her ample experiences with Greens and the party's platform in order to make a judgment). And while she did initially state it with a non-subjective modifier, she also used a vague term in the statement - "magical thinker". I ask what would qualify anyone as a magical thinker, and you say that I'm deliberately shifting context and invalidating my own argument. But that's bullshit. I think the fact that bgal made her statement using such a vaguely defined term (magical thinker) and then two even more vaguely defined terms (woo woo and idiots) means that she, like filthy was engaging in a type of rhetorical hyperbole. I don't see why you grant filthy nuance, but with bgal you are devoted to robotic literalism (even after she herself softened and backed-up on her statement from page 2!)
Whether or not her statement can be called an "opinion" or not (Kil and I and other have said yes, you say no) is an argument of semantics. The bottom line is that there are several very meaningful differences between the type of claim that bgal made (which I will not go over again since they've been repeated to death!) and the claims that Bill Scott and verlch have made. That is why many people here have defended her statement, not because we are biased by our political opinions.
Can't you concede that there is enough nuance and shades of grey here for both you and the people disagreeing with you on this matter to be equal in our applications of critical thinking?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/18/2007 08:20:52 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 10:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Here is where I'm at now. And unless something changes or for some reason I feel compelled to jump in again, here is where I will remain.
I think we are at an impasse over the opinion question. We have all stated in every possible way we can why we have arrived at where we have arrived at on this question.
I'm tempted to invent the new logical fallacy of “argumentation from skeptus dogmaticum” which would be defined as an adherence to the rules of logic so absolute and with such certitude that even the tiniest possibility of ambiguity can not be considered. It can be recognized when an argument consists of black and white thinking ostensibly supported by the tools of logic. (A certain amount of miss direction and slight of hand may be necessary to produce the desired result. Also, paradoxically, the user may not be aware that this fallacy is being used because the user may be referring back to the rules of logic for guidance. In other words, his conviction that he is not engaged in a fallacy is genuine.) 
But oh well…
I'm confident that as a critical thinker, I used all the information that was available to me and evaluated it honestly. Since I really have no idea of how many magical thinkers there are in the Green Party, and I have said so more than once, I think any accusation that I am biased on the question of Beskeptigal's opinion is not justified. But you can think what you want to Dude. I remain confident in my skills as a critical thinker.
I am tired of this argument. We will have to agree to disagree…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 12:51:08 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
I'm tempted to invent the new logical fallacy of “argumentation from skeptus dogmaticum” which would be defined as an adherence to the rules of logic so absolute and with such certitude that even the tiniest possibility of ambiguity can not be considered. It can be recognized when an argument consists of black and white thinking ostensibly supported by the tools of logic. (A certain amount of miss direction and slight of hand may be necessary to produce the desired result. Also, paradoxically, the user may not be aware that this fallacy is being used because the user may be referring back to the rules of logic for guidance. In other words, his conviction that he is not engaged in a fallacy is genuine.)
When a person makes a conclusion based on faulty induction, with the intent to marginalize a group of people, then refuses to recognize the error of logic and devolves into additional fallacious argumentation (prove me wrong!, several times), the whole time insisting that its just an opinion, why should I not insist that this person be capable of unabigiously stating their position without use of logical fallacy?
If you think that makes me dogmatic, you're wrong.
marfknox said:
quote:
Although I guessed the meaning in context, I went and looked up "rhetorical hyperbole" to make sure exactly what it means. Bgal expressed a tentative conclusion that she admits is based on insufficient evidence (because there are no studies on this so she must go with her ample experiences with Greens and the party's platform in order to make a judgment). And while she did initially state it with a non-subjective modifier, she also used a vague term in the statement - "magical thinker". I ask what would qualify anyone as a magical thinker, and you say that I'm deliberately shifting context and invalidating my own argument. But that's bullshit. I think the fact that bgal made her statement using such a vaguely defined term (magical thinker) and then two even more vaguely defined terms (woo woo and idiots) means that she, like filthy was engaging in a type of rhetorical hyperbole. I don't see why you grant filthy nuance, but with bgal you are devoted to robotic literalism (even after she herself softened and backed-up on her statement from page 2!)
On the off chance that you honestly don't understand what you are doing here:
Context 1- (beskeptigal's) Making derogatory remarks about a group of people with the intent to marginalize them.
Context 2-(marfknox's shifted context) You can say that most people are "X", because of a belief in a deity, so calling greens "X" is nothing more then rhetorical hyperbole.
So yes, your shifted context invalidates your argument.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/18/2007 12:53:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 13:59:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
to marginalize a group of people
quote:
Making derogatory remarks about a group of people with the intent to marginalize them
mar·gin·al·ize /#712;m#593;rd#658;#601;nl#716;a#618;z/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahr-juh-nl-ahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
to place in a position of marginal importance, influence, or power: the government's attempts to marginalize criticism and restore public confidence. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marginalize
You are not giving bgal much credit at all if you think she intended to marginalize Greens with her remark. She made a single harshly worded remark on a forum for skepticism and then immediately softened that wording by admitting that she was making a generalization and simplifying things. She would be a total idiot if she thought that such an action could actually marginalize the Green party. Of course she is not such an idiot. Much like the accusation of bigotry, you are blowing her one comment way out of proportion. Nobody here has engaged in either bigotry or an attempt to marginalize any political group. People have expressed their various general criticisms of various aspects of certain political parties and that is all.
Hey beskeptigal, maybe you should just write that you officially change your comment to something like "I strongly suspect based on my own personal but ample experiences with Green Party members and certain sections of their party platform that most of them engage in magical thinking." Maybe then Dude will finally see what almost everybody else here understood from the get go using their common sense. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/18/2007 14:01:13 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 15:07:21 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
You are not giving bgal much credit at all if you think she intended to marginalize Greens with her remark. She made a single harshly worded remark on a forum for skepticism and then immediately softened that wording by admitting that she was making a generalization and simplifying things. She would be a total idiot if she thought that such an action could actually marginalize the Green party.
There you go, yet again, shifting context.
There really is no point in even trying to speak to you if you are incapable of refraining from this kind of logical fallacy.
Context 1- beskeptigal makes derogatory remarks about a group so she can marginalize them, in order to dismiss them as having nothing worthwhile to contribute, so she can personally rationalize ignoring them. This is a personal context.
Context 2- (marfknox's shifted context) where you claim I am saying that beskeptigal is attempting to broadly marginalize greens so that no one need consider they may have anything worthwhile to contribute.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 17:08:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Context 1- beskeptigal makes derogatory remarks about a group so she can marginalize them, in order to dismiss them as having nothing worthwhile to contribute, so she can personally rationalize ignoring them. This is a personal context.
That's not marginalizing. Also, she definitely did not imply that Greens have "nothing worthwhile to contribute", nor did she imply that she ignores them. What she said was that while they have some ideas she agrees with, they also have ideas which require magical thinking, and other groups (such as the progressive wing of the Dems) offer the same or similar ideas to the ideas she likes about the Greens. You are again mischaracterizing what she said. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Party, Party, Party!
