I praise Roadfood and pit Liberal

[Aeschines]

The thread was Math: Discovered or Invented? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321338&page=1&pp=40)

Roadfood, your posts in this thread were admirable in many ways: Succinct, sensible, and, above all, correct. You fought the good fight--bravo!

Liberal, your posts in thread were what they usually are: Faux-intellectual, self-involved, and disruptive. What a fucking crybaby you are in last line of this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6274298&postcount=79).

If you could just get your mental dick out of your hand for 10 minutes, you might actually be able to make something of what is universally acknowledged by the board to be a good bit of intelligence.

You are a clever disrupter. You play within the rules (or are given a mod "variance," or something) but manage to do far more damage than many of those who flagrantly break them. Your presence in a thread means it's going to fucking hell--you're an unstoppable force.

Please don't feed your ego the bullshit line that people here pit you on a weekly basis because you "challenge" them, and they can't handle it. If that were the case, then your challenges would pertain to the topic at hand. The would lead to a deeper exploration of the topic, not to the godawful hijacks that they actually, and almost invariably, do. They might frustrate your mental inferiors by their very sharpness, but they would not lend themselves to the pathetic pit fodder that they actually, and almost invariably, do.

Chapter 27 of the Chinese philosophical classic Daodejing (ooh, I'm reading this right now in the original!* Can you do that, Dopers?! Let's sprinkle this fact throughout the board--feed the ego! MY EGO!) says,

The best of leaders is unknown;
next best is one that is praised;
next best is one that is feared;
next best is one that is despised.

Let's put it this way: You're a leader in your own mind here**, but you're not best, next best, or next best. You're "next best." Time to get a clue: The real leaders here are the ones that don't stick out like a sore thumb. Barring your not getting a clue, please just shut the fuck up.

Final comment: I'm sure IRL you're a great person with many fine qualities. I have no bone to pick with the real you, just the character that you play on this site. But that character does bring down the quality of the site more than just a notch (especially the forum most important to me, GD), and I'm just really sick of it.

----------

*With a translation in hand and extremely limited knowledge of classical Chinese. The kind of caveats that Liberal doesn't offer when he drops a name or a concept to imply he knows everything about fucking everything.

**Oh, and please don't switch into the Lone Wolf for Truth act; that's as fucking tiresome as everything else you do here.

[elucidator]

You didn't get the memo. Speedy Gonzo, SDMB hamster, (successor to the late, lamented Ol' Lightnin') has requested no further Lib pittings until his supply of amphetamines is replenished. Speedy's supply, that is.

[Aeschines]

I'll juice him up for one last run.

[Starving Artist]

I like ol' Lib, and I usually enjoy and agree with what he has to say. I'll open threads I ordinarily wouldn't just from seeing his name as the last poster. Lib is da bomb!

[Aeschines]

I like ol' Lib, and I usually enjoy and agree with what he has to say. I'll open threads I ordinarily wouldn't just from seeing his name as the last poster. Lib is da bomb!Right, there are perhaps 5 people on the board who feel that way. In the terminology of statistics, you are "outliers."

[Starving Artist]

Yes, it's a lonely experience fighting the good fight, but I shall persevere.

[Smeghead]

If you could just get your mental dick out of your hand for 10 minutes, you might actually be able to make something of what is universally acknowledged by the board to be a good bit of intelligence.

Just checking in to invalidate the word "universally".

[Snooooopy]

Just checking in to invalidate the word "universally".

Produced in association with Universal Studios?

[Aeschines]

Yes, it's a lonely experience fighting the good fight, but I shall persevere.You and Liberal partake of the same "how fun to be righteous and persecuted" approach to life. It's a losers path.

The correct approach is to 1) Have a belief as to what is right, 2) Expect what is right to prevail, and 3) Experience surprise and regret when reality doesn't match the ideal. Losers expect trouble and relish it when it comes along.

[Starving Artist]

You and Liberal partake of the same "how fun to be righteous and persecuted" approach to life. It's a losers path.My, my, my...what an arrogant and presumptious path it is that you yourself have chosen. And a wrong one, at that.

I have never considered myself to be a particularly righteous person nor I have I ever considered myself to be persecuted. Of course, to those such as yourself, a mere acknowledgement of greater liberal numbers here at the SDMB, or of a perfectly obvious pile-on, is considered to be complaint of persecution. The truth, however, is simply the truth. You may have heard me make mention of these things, but you've not heard me complain about them nor bewail their existence.

The correct approach...Ah, enlightenment is at hand... ... is to 1) Have a belief as to what is right...Check. 2) Expect what is right to prevailBased upon what, exactly? Did right prevail in China under Mao? Did right prevail in Germany under Hitler? Did right prevail in the U.S. under Jim Crow laws? How many people here would feel that right prevailed in the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson cases? Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Sounds like a head-in-the-sand approach to me. and 3) Experience surprise and regret when reality doesn't match the ideal.Oh, I have, I have...believe me, I have. Losers expect trouble and relish it when it comes along.Well, given the fact that I hardly agree with your previous assessment of me as a loser, I suppose it isn't surprising that I fail to see the truth in this particular little nugget of wisdom. I can see how losers (or anyone, for that matter) could expect trouble, but what on Earth leads you to the conclusion that they "relish" it?

Sounds like a phony and ill-considered attempt at mental and attitudinal superiority in my book. But hey, if it makes you feel all high-minded, warm and fuzzy inside, don't let me rain on your little parade.

[Aeschines]

Sounds like a phony and ill-considered attempt at mental and attitudinal superiority in my book. But hey, if it makes you feel all high-minded, warm and fuzzy inside, don't let me rain on your little parade.All I'm basically saying is don't go around picking fights. Don't do the self-fulfilling-prophecy thing with oneself as the constant center of negative attention.

It's amazing how when you expect the best out of others you really start to get the best out of others.

[Starving Artist]

All I'm basically saying is don't go around picking fights. Don't do the self-fulfilling-prophecy thing with oneself as the constant center of negative attention.

It's amazing how when you expect the best out of others you really start to get the best out of others.I have no quarrel whatsoever with this post.

Perhaps I jumped the gun in taking offense at your previous post. We've had squabbles before and, to be honest, I figured you were baiting me with your talk of losers, etc. I can see now that perhaps I was in error. I apologize.

[Aeschines]

I have no quarrel whatsoever with this post.

Perhaps I jumped the gun in taking offense at your previous post. We've had squabbles before and, to be honest, I figured you were baiting me with your talk of losers, etc. I can see now that perhaps I was in error. I apologize.No prob. I can handle the conservatism--just get your tongue out of Lib's asshole and you'll be OK with me.:)

[Starving Artist]

No prob. I can handle the conservatism--just get your tongue out of Lib's asshole and you'll be OK with me.:) :eek:

Boy, ya take up for a guy in one measly thread . . .

[Harborwolf]

:eek:

Boy, ya take up for a guy in one measly thread . . .
Well, you could address the issue he is pitted for rather than just saying "Golly gee, that Liberal is sure swell."

Some times I like Liberal. He's a smart guy. Funny from time to time. Some times I respect him. He can be frustrating but has a point to his posts.

Then there's philosophical/religious Liberal, or as I like to call him, Captain Bringdown. He'll argue a philosophical construct until he is blue in the face (I don't think this takes long since I subscribe to the notion that Liberal is Papa Smurf, maybe Brainy). Once that happens, put on your oxgen masks and assume the position.

[Miller]

What the fuck is this? Liberal hasn't done anything genuinely pit-worthy this week, so now we're just pitting him for any damn thing he says, even if it's on-topic and following forum rules? Jesus Christ.

[elucidator]

Force of habit, I guess...

But, yeah, this seems a mite weak.

[Starving Artist]

Well, you could address the issue he is pitted for rather than just saying "Golly gee, that Liberal is sure swell."

There's a little bit of history here that you may not be aware of. The thread I spoke of is not this one. I took up for Lib in a previous pitting that Aeschines was part of, thus his "tongue" comment (or so I believe) and the reply of mine which you quoted.

[Aeschines]

Force of habit, I guess...

But, yeah, this seems a mite weak.
Compared to his previous depredations, maybe so. I wasn't even a participant in the thread. I was reading with interest when Liberal enters the thread, performs his usual shtick, and gets the usual results. And it really pissed me off.

He is a disruptive asshole in the thread, there's no question about that.

[Harborwolf]

There's a little bit of history here that you may not be aware of. The thread I spoke of is not this one. I took up for Lib in a previous pitting that Aeschines was part of, thus his "tongue" comment (or so I believe) and the reply of mine which you quoted.
I see. Sorry. I was never very good in history class.

[Measure for Measure]

The best of leaders is unknown;
next best is one that is praised;
next best is one that is feared;
next best is one that is despised.That may apply to leaders. But truth-value is not a mere popularity contest.I have no bone to pick with the real you, just the character that you play on this site. But that character does bring down the quality of the site more than just a notch (especially the forum most important to me, GD), and I'm just really sick of it.If you are venting, fine.

If you want to improve the quality of the board, I would recommend that you restate the OP with greater politeness and less rancor. (Feel free to elaborate or modify as appropriate, of course.)

If nothing else, it might be handy to delineate, "Practices that obfuscate", as well as, "Practices that tend to derail threads", in addition to, "Appropriate behavior for those seeking to push a particular world-view". (I suppose that you've described, "Alleged attention-seeking acts".)

[Tracy Lord]

Actually, I've really been enjoying Lib's posts of the last few weeks or so. Sometimes I think he's a real jerk, but not of late. An undeserved Pitting.

[Aeschines]

That may apply to leaders. But truth-value is not a mere popularity contest.If you are venting, fine.Where some people get the notion that Lib is a Knight for Truth on these boards is unknown to me. He seems to me to be an obfuscator, not a clarifier.

But even if we grant that he's always correct, the fact still remains that there is more to message board participation than correctness. There's kindness, clear writing, and persuasiveness so that people are actually able to make sense of what you write and use it.

Lib is a value-subtractor on the boards, not an -adder.

And I didn't write this OP to *try* him on his behavior in that thread. I wrote it to register my personal disgust and desire for him to stop detracting from the boards.

[Measure for Measure]

...the fact still remains that there is more to message board participation than correctness. There's kindness, clear writing, and persuasiveness so that people are actually able to make sense of what you write and use it.Well said. In a word: communication.

There is also, "Proper substantiation (my pet peeve, though I don't think Lib has a problem here), timely explication and elaboration".

I was just suggesting that if the OP was toned down a little it would advance your POV better (though admittedly it would be less diverting for some of the untargeted).

[Muffin]

If you could just get your mental dick out of your hand for 10 minutes, you might actually be able to make something of what is universally acknowledged by the board to be a good bit of intelligence.Minor quibble: I, for one, think Lib is a dum-dum.

[Starving Artist]

I see. Sorry. I was never very good in history class.No problem, neither was I. Thanks. :)

[Miller]

He is a disruptive asshole in the thread, there's no question about that.

I question that.

[Aeschines]

I was just suggesting that if the OP was toned down a little it would advance your POV better (though admittedly it would be less diverting for some of the untargeted).
I respect what you're saying, and in most cases I would agree. But Lib has been pitted so many times, and I'm not advancing any new material. Others have examined his behaviors and character flaws better than I can here.

The OP, rather, is my personal vote for him to clean up his act, or, alternatively, for the mods to call him on it (no, I'm not calling for a banning, just a recognition of the problem and telling the problem person to stop; I think he would if the mods slapped his wrist a few times).

And that may very well mean it's a futile or useless OP. In that case, just call it simple venting, as suggested in a post above.

[DrDeth]

Actually, I've really been enjoying Lib's posts of the last few weeks or so. Sometimes I think he's a real jerk, but not of late. An undeserved Pitting.

In general, I agree. Lib is a real + to this board- when and if he doesn't have his head up his ass. That seems to vary wildly.

[TVeblen]

In general, I agree. Lib is a real + to this board- when and if he doesn't have his head up his ass. That seems to vary wildly.

That's the catch, DrDeth. It's not like he doesn't offer some real insights to the board. It often comes from weirdly contradictory directions, rationally and interpersonally, but he stays within the rules. Bends the hell outta them frequently, but he seems to fight honestly, even his most bewildering shifts in opinion.

He just pinballs all over the landscape.

After years of Lib (in all the permutations of the username), I've finally settled on viewing his posts through a Lewis Carroll framework: everything's skewed off-kilter but there's Jungian fascination, sorting out the underlying symbolism.

Veb

[DrDeth]

That's the catch, DrDeth.

After years of Lib (in all the permutations of the username), I've finally settled on viewing his posts through a Lewis Carroll framework: everything's skewed off-kilter but there's Jungian fascination, sorting out the underlying symbolism.

Veb

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. Thank you, that will lead to my reading Lib's posts in a rather different light. Interesting.

[Aeschines]

...but he stays within the rules. Bends the hell outta them frequently, but he seems to fight honestly, even his most bewildering shifts in opinion.

Hello, my Mod.

Could it not be the case that Liberal's personal way of "bending the hell outta the rules" has come to be accepted by the Mods as "just what Liberal does" and thus not considered for adjustment? In other words, he's bent the rules over time, taking inch by inch with the occasional yard, so that he has his own personal bubble outside them? It certainly seems that way to me.

Here's another point. Which is worse? A poster who flagrantly breaks a rule once a month or a poster who strides right up to the line and pisses on it every day?

I admit the answer is complicated. If you don't slap down the flagrant rule breaker, then the explicitly stated rules, ipso facto, are not being enforced, and others will be more liable to break them, and disorder will ensue.

At the same time, the person pissing on the line daily will, as a single poster, have a much worse effect on the board than the monthly flagrant violator. And Liberal has just such a negative, disruptive effect. He is pitted regularly, not by people who just don't like him, but people who complain about his affect on the board. I think the totality of his behavior should be considered and action taken accordingly.

IMHO.

[TVeblen]

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. Thank you, that will lead to my reading Lib's posts in a rather different light. Interesting.

Sigh. Don't assign more weight than that it's worth, DrDeth. And it ain't worth much.

Another analogy that's occured to me is a Blackberry users' manual translated from Finno-Ugric. Immediate use is implied, but it may involve close familiarity with Norse sagas, torturous translational quibbles and probably discursions about reindeer herding.

[elucidator]

Myself, the image that comes to mind is the Escher print (so cheerfully parodied by The Simpsons) of the bewildering sets of staircases, each seperately rational and functional, but melded in an impossilbe affront to reason and perpsective.

[Dunderman]

I'd rather have fifty Libs than one Aeschines on these boards. In fact, fifty Libs would be rather interesting, don't you say? Imagine the discussions they'd have.

[elucidator]

No. No, I won't imagine them, and you can't make me!

[GIGObuster]

I'd rather have fifty Libs than one Aeschines on these boards. In fact, fifty Libs would be rather interesting, don't you say? Imagine the discussions they'd have.
Are you out of your mind? All the giant squids would commit suicide just for the endless nitpicking!

[Dunderman]

Are you out of your mind? All the giant squids would commit suicide just for the endless nitpicking!
So? What have the giant squids done for you lately?

[GIGObuster]

So? What have the giant squids done for you lately?
Well, I want to visit Japan someday and giant squids are food for some whales, without giant squids the whales would die and I would like to try a whale burger someday. :) ;)


I am really kidding on eating a whale burger, but the Japanese are really doing stuff like that!

[gum]

I like Lib. He's refreshing.

[Contrapuntal]

Here's another point. Which is worse? A poster who flagrantly breaks a rule once a month or a poster who strides right up to the line and pisses on it every day?


Can you show one example of rule bending or line pissing in the linked thread? I just read the whole thing and found it quite entertaining; not pitworthy at all. Roadfood got a little sloppy with his definitions and got called on it is all.

[andros]

In other words, he's bent the rules over time, taking inch by inch with the occasional yard, so that he has his own personal bubble outside them? It certainly seems that way to me.
Then you're sadly lacking in the ol' clue department.

Or perhaps I should say: Cite, please.

Demonstrate how your new favorite pal is outside the rules.

I don't mind an indictment of Lib; however I like the man, he can handle the personal attacks. However, in indicting the entire moderation and administrative staff here at the SDMB, you seem to have taken a long step in to "put up or shut up" territiry.

[FinnAgain]

I'm wary of jumping into this Andros, as this Pitting is totally undeserved... but IIRC Lib has, in the past, admitted to playing Devil's Advocate without letting people know that's what he was doing. Now, IANAM... but that sure seems to cross the line. What would the practical difference be between a troll posting to stir shit up, and me taking up a position I didn't believe in simply to rile people up and get into an argument?

[andros]

I'm wary of jumping into this Andros, as this Pitting is totally undeserved... but IIRC Lib has, in the past, admitted to playing Devil's Advocate without letting people know that's what he was doing. Now, IANAM... but that sure seems to cross the line. What would the practical difference be between a troll posting to stir shit up, and me taking up a position I didn't believe in simply to rile people up and get into an argument?
Well, I think you've begged a question here, Finn. You're assuming that his motivations in playing Devil's Advocate were to stir shit. I'm not convinced that's a safe assumption. Merely asserting a position one does not hold is not trollery, even without making it clear at the outset. Poor form perhaps, depending on the circumstances, but not trollery.

I think my questions about Aeschines' assertions stand.

[FinnAgain]

Well, I think you've begged a question here, Finn. You're assuming that his motivations in playing Devil's Advocate were to stir shit.

Well... what other possible motive was there besides to start a debate? I'm willing to accept any other plausible scenarios, but I can't think of any. Isn't that pretty much the definition of playing Devil's Advocate anyways? Taking up a position in order to debate from that stance? And, even if the motive wasn't to stir up shit, that's the practical ramification. I was somewhat careful to make my point that, regardless of intent, the result is the same as trolling.


I'm not convinced that's a safe assumption.

Well... can you give me another assumption? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I honestly don't understand how taking a position in order to debate isn't intented to lead to a debate.


Merely asserting a position one does not hold is not trollery, even without making it clear at the outset. Poor form perhaps, depending on the circumstances, but not trollery.

Willful trolling? Naw. Having the same effect? Sometimes...


I think my questions about Aeschines' assertions stand.

Well, Veb did say he bends the rules sometimes... although I can see your point too.

[Liberal]

Here's what I said back then (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5804659&postcount=3):

"I do not argue a position unless I believe it has merit. And I believe in every position that does. I don't think it's necessary to hold only one point of view at the expense of all others. Throughout my long history here, I've consistently maintained that I hold other points of view that are different from my own — atheism, for example — to be valid, even if I disagree with them."

Merriam-Webster defines devil's advocate as "a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument". I don't take that to mean argument in the sense of pointless contention, but argument in the sense of debate. If, for example, there are twenty people on one side of an issue and only two on the other, and if I believe that the minority view has merit, I will almost always argue the minority view because the opposing view is already well represented.

I do not see how that constitutes stirring up shit. To me, stirring up shit is taking a position, not because you believe it to be valid, but for the purpose of pissing people off. Sometimes, people get pissed off simply because you argue for a certain view — damn you for agreeing with Sam Stone about this point. [...shrug...]

[yoyodyne]

I like Lib. He's refreshing.As is a douche.

[FinnAgain]

Because I know there are sometimes problems of communication between us Lib, I just want to make it perfectly clear that I don't think you mean to cause problems. I think you honestly mean to do good, but that often your posting style and/or ideas can cause shit to get stirred up.

If, for example, you were to vociferously not just defend, but champion Atheism, other posters might very well become quite confused as to "what Liberal thinks." Dopers have our statements recorded so that, partially, we can be held to them. It would cause needless friction for you to champion a view which was in direct contradiction to your real view, and have other Dopers off hunting down contradictory statements of yours. Like it or not, the poster is bound up with the posts.

Now, as to your point of taking a minority view because the opposition is well represented... even if you mean well, the practical ramifications are that shit gets stirred up. I don't think it's too much to expect that the only debates which will happen here are between those who honestly hold points of view, rather than those simply wanting a good fight. Or at least, if they want a good fight, that they have the courtesy to tell their fellow posters not to take them seriously and tha they're just expressing a position which has the possibility of being defended as an intellectual exercise.

There's also the fact that you have views which you actually hold, yes? Hopefully you'd care more about having the truth recognized than a rip snortin' good Pit grudge match. To take the example we've been using in these posts, let's take Theism Vs. Atheism. You honestly believe in a God. Good for you, n' all that. Wouldn't you then want, as per the SDMB's mission, to share the truth with others and/or convince them that your position is right? If one position is right, why champion its alternate just because it's logically possible to do so?

[gum]

As is a douche.What's better than a douche after reading dozens of dusty messages? (http://laurevoyance.free.fr/images/fee%20douche.jpg)
:)

[FinnAgain]

You have wings!?!:eek:

[andros]

Alls I'm saying is that there's a difference between "stirring up shit" and "trolling." And that difference lies entirely in intent. I can't see it as a violation of board rules if the shit-stirring is not intentional. And I can't even really see it as a violation if the shit-stirring is intentional in many circumstances--sometimes shit-stirring has a valid rhetorical or philosophical purpose. Is Howard Dean a troll for his "the Republican party is a party of rich white people?" I don't think so, as his words had an intent beyond merely trying piss off the Republicans.

:shrug: Hell, I dunno. But if you're honestly saying that Lib (or anyone), in taking up a position just for the sake of debate, is not deliberately causing trouble, then I can't see an accusation of breaking board rules having merit.

[Liberal]

Because I know there are sometimes problems of communication between us Lib, I just want to make it perfectly clear that I don't think you mean to cause problems.I appreciate that, Finn. I'm glad you and I can recognize our differences and maintain our respect for one another. I wouldn't ever (and haven't ever) championed atheism, but I always have (and always will) championed the fact that atheism is as valid a viewpoint as theism. When I was at the Pizza Parlor, I often argued on behalf of atheists when twenty people were saying that atheists were "missing something", or were somehow "incomplete". I do not have to hold atheism as my own philosophy in order to point out that atheists are not missing anything, nor in any way incomplete.

If one position is right, why champion its alternate just because it's logically possible to do so?If only one position is right, then it cannot be logically possible to defend its alternate. That's not what I do. As I said both then and now, I defend a position if it is just as valid as its opposing position, but arguments in favor of it are weak or few and far between. I think it adds balance to a discussion. It isn't that I don't believe in what I'm saying. Not at all.

[Measure for Measure]

---- If one position is right, why champion its alternate just because it's logically possible to do so?

One might do that if one believed that neither side had the monopoly on the truth.
------

I'd say that there are both destructive and constructive forms of Devil's Advocacy. Constructive forms can tighten the arguments of the truth-favored side, for example.

Myself, I like to argue both sides of the issue in the same post, while indicating which side I fall on. This usually takes the form of "Pre-empting".

------
Hey! It just occurred to me that I've been playing Devil's Advocate in this thread. Personally, I think Lib is an ok guy, though we disagree on most topics. None of that implies that a particular criticism of Lib will be on target or constructive though.

On preview: I see that Lib has outlined another valid form of Devil's advocacy.

[FinnAgain]

I appreciate that, Finn. I'm glad you and I can recognize our differences and maintain our respect for one another.

No problem. Namaste.


I do not have to hold atheism as my own philosophy in order to point out that atheists are not missing anything, nor in any way incomplete.

Agreed. But in my mind, that's not playing devil's advocate, that's advancing an honestly held belief of yours (e.g. that atheists are not mentally deficient even if they're wrong.) It's pointing out holes in your opponent's argument. That's more than kosher, especially one the Dope. Nor do I think that's playing Devil's Advocate. We'd get into that terrain if we started to, say, not just argue that Atheism was logically coherent, but that it was correct.

Perhaps we're simply working under different understandings of the term "Devil's Advocate." Maybe we shouldn't go off on this tangent, lest you be accused of hijacking your own Pit thread. ;)

If only one position is right, then it cannot be logically possible to defend its alternate.

Here you and I part ways philosophicaly. Reason is a whore. Give me free reign to craft my own axioms, and I can "prove" that murder, rape, whatever, is perfectly justified. Our big ol' brains end up bringing us a paradox. Reason it the best way to interface with the world (IMNSHO), but it also has pitfalls and box canyons.

Think human rights are more important than national security? You can take up a "liberal" position. Think national security is more important than human rights? You can take up a "conservative" position.

Allow me to control the axioms, and I can argue for or against whatever you wish.

That's not what I do. As I said both then and now, I defend a position if it is just as valid as its opposing position, but arguments in favor of it are weak or few and far between.

I don't grok in fullness. To me, it seems eminently superior to point out flaws in both positions and thereby attempt to get at the truth, rather than arguing a position which might be defended, but isn't the whole truth-as-you-see-it. Or, at the very least, to make it plain as day that while you're arguing against someone's denunciations of a position, that you don't embrace that position as your own. Again, perhaps we're getting hung up on the semantics here.

I think it adds balance to a discussion.

Perhaps. But let's be frank here. It's not your job, nor mine, nor anybody else's, to impart balance to the SDMB. We're supposed to be sharing our honest opinions and/or getting at the truth. Wouldn't you do the boards a far greater service if instead of seeking balance, you tried to always argue for the one position which you felt most strongly was correct?
--------------------------

Andros:
As a caveat, I just want to reiterate that since IANAM, my opinions on board policy are just that. Nothing I say should be taken as gospel, and to be honest this entire topic is beginning to make me a bit nervous. Although rules and rulings have been posted, it is not up to me to interpret them. Now, with that standard disclaimer out of the way:

Alls I'm saying is that there's a difference between "stirring up shit" and "trolling." And that difference lies entirely in intent.

I would agree entirely. But I think they're both detrimental for the board. My understanding is that stirring up shit is against the rules not because someone gets their jollies off of it, but because it's stirring up shit. In other words, we have enough real conflict and debate without adding unnecessary disagreement and rancor just so that certian people can get a debating fix.


I can't see it as a violation of board rules if the shit-stirring is not intentional.

Well, let me put it to you this way.
Let's say we have Poster X, who is an as-of-yet-not-unmasked-troll, and Poster Y who is not a troll.

Let's say Poster X takes up the position "Democrats are all janus faced jackasses who are ruining this country!" Poster X takes up this position because he'd like to see a good shit flinging match and piss some people off.

Let's say Poster Y takes up the position "Democrats are all janus faced jackasses who are ruining this country!" Poster Y takes up this position because although it's not what he believes, he believes that a case can be made for it. Poster Y takes up this position, especially, because he notices that there are a lot of people who care enough about the topic to post opposing oppinions to his. Poster Y takes up this position because he'd like to see a "good debate" and get some of his "opponents" deeper into discussion.

How are Poster X and Poster Y's actions actually different in their results?

Yes, in order to be a troll one must have the intent to troll... but how different, in reality, is the attempt to post something one does not believe in to stir up shit different from posting something one does not believe in in order to cause/escalate a discussion?


And I can't even really see it as a violation if the shit-stirring is intentional in many circumstances--sometimes shit-stirring has a valid rhetorical or philosophical purpose.

Agreed. Sometimes one can, essentially, be stating "look at the holes in your argument." But I'd also say that in such circumstances, one should make clear that they're arguing against one position, and not for it's opposite. A small distinction, but I feel it's somewhat essential for good message board conduct.


Is Howard Dean a troll for his "the Republican party is a party of rich white people?" I don't think so, as his words had an intent beyond merely trying piss off the Republicans.

You and I would disagree on that analysis then.


:shrug: Hell, I dunno. But if you're honestly saying that Lib (or anyone), in taking up a position just for the sake of debate, is not deliberately causing trouble, then I can't see an accusation of breaking board rules having merit.

One does not deliberately have to cause trouble for trouble to be caused, and I'd think that in general we should keep the SDMB free of all trouble that is not honestly found. We have enough rancor and squabbling without someone adding some more.

[FinnAgain]

One might do that if one believed that neither side had the monopoly on the truth.


Would it not be better, then, to argue for one position which one did believe in, while pointing out why both 'sides' had it wrong? The excluded middle is a fallacy, after all.

To put it another way, I do not believe that the organizations reporting on Gitmo are sharing the Gospel Truth, but I do believe they're mostly correct. With that being true, I feel it would be wrong for me to argue for the side saying "No abuses ever happened." The middle ground seems most fertile in that case.


I'd say that there are both destructive and constructive forms of Devil's Advocacy. Constructive forms can tighten the arguments of the truth-favored side, for example.

As long as you let people know you're playing DA, yes. But there's also a difference between arguing against a position, and arguing for its opposite. In a recent thread, for example, I argued against certain exagerations made upon a public figure's conduct. I did not, however, take up the position that nothing untoward ever happened.


Myself, I like to argue both sides of the issue in the same post, while indicating which side I fall on. This usually takes the form of "Pre-empting".

And that's kosher.

[andros]

I understand what you're saying, Finn. I don't entirely agree with you, but I understand.

[VarlosZ]

I like Lib. What he occasionally lacks in tact he more than makes up for in originality of thought.

Roadfood, your posts in this thread were admirable in many ways: Succinct, sensible, and, above all, correct.
I disagree; he was failing to think about what others (Lib and David Simmons, in particular) were saying, instead constantly repeating his assertions and claiming them to be self-evident.

[Measure for Measure]

FinnAgain: I share your view that we may be viewing into semantics. Some of the pitfalls of Devil's Advocacy you noted are real.

Aside: here's one (not the only) def. of Devil's Advocacy: "One who argues against a popular cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply to make people discuss and consider it in more detail."

Let me give an example of what I've done in the past. I'm largely pro-Israel and was deeply skeptical of the position taken by Arafat's PLO. Nonetheless, on this board I read a number of characterizations of the origins of the Israeli state (many during our Winter of Missed Content), that were borderline fanciful. That offends my sensibilities and prompted me to argue against defenders of Israel.

If I saw dubious Jihadist sentiments that were not being adequately responded to on this board (fat chance), I would do the same.

---- It's not your job, nor mine, nor anybody else's, to impart balance to the SDMB. We're supposed to be sharing our honest opinions and/or getting at the truth. Wouldn't you do the boards a far greater service if instead of seeking balance, you tried to always argue for the one position which you felt most strongly was correct?

Quibble, perhaps, but no. We're supposed to be fighting ignorance not sharing our honest opinions (IMHO :) ). I have lots of opinions that don't warrent mention on this board. It's the substantiated argument that dispels ignorance. Building in the opposing POV into one’s framework helps as well.

------- To put it another way, I do not believe that the organizations reporting on Gitmo are sharing the Gospel Truth, but I do believe they're mostly correct. With that being true, I feel it would be wrong for me to argue for the side saying "No abuses ever happened." The middle ground seems most fertile in that case.

Mostly agreed. It's just that, in practice, the middle ground will look a lot like the opposing view in many contexts.

---- As long as you let people know you're playing DA, yes. But there's also a difference between arguing against a position, and arguing for its opposite.

Tricky. I agree with the 2nd sentence, but I'll note that those who do not read carefully may not pick up on that distinction. That is, they may not pick up on my hints, or heck, my outright declarations.

I confess that I may not always bother to thwack them with a cluestick: I may or may not want to reconsider this position.

[Aeschines]

However, in indicting the entire moderation and administrative staff here at the SDMB, you seem to have taken a long step in to "put up or shut up" territiry.Hey dumbfuck, it was a Mod himself who said a few posts back that Liberal bends the hell out of the rules.

Who says I am indicting the whole mod/admin staff? That's bullshit. I'm saying that one particular posters behavior isn't being handled right.

Now go fuck off.

[FinnAgain]

[Robert's rules of disorder] Point of order: Veb is a woman. [/Robert's rules of disorder]

andros: No problem. We've at least achieved a rough form of communion, albeit not total agreement.

Measure: I knewwwwwww I should've been more careful when talking about opinions. That's actually one of my major pet peeves, when someone acts as if just because they've called something an opinion it no longer needs factual confirmation and is immune to factual refutation. "I already said that it's just my opinion that Bush is corrupt, why are you asking for a cite?" That being said, I'd wager that MPSIMS, IMHO, and CS all have a rather large ammount of perfectly valid subjective opinions being bandied about.

[andros]

Hey dumbfuck, it was a Mod himself who said a few posts back that Liberal bends the hell out of the rules.
Except that's not what you accused him of.
Who says I am indicting the whole mod/admin staff?
You do, genius. Here, you're about to do it again:
I'm saying that one particular posters behavior isn't being handled right.
By whom, Wile E.? By one mod? Nope, by the entire staff. You're saying, quite clearly, that the entire staff lets Lib break the rules.
Now go fuck off.
I take it that means you will not address my request for actual evidence of your claims? Something beyond "Liberal's a poopyhead" by preference.

[What Is Schwa]

All I'm basically saying is don't go around picking fights. Don't do the self-fulfilling-prophecy thing with oneself as the constant center of negative attention.

It's amazing how when you expect the best out of others you really start to get the best out of others.


Agreed, picking a fight (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322706) is bad.

[Liberal]

Perhaps. But let's be frank here. It's not your job, nor mine, nor anybody else's, to impart balance to the SDMB. We're supposed to be sharing our honest opinions and/or getting at the truth. Wouldn't you do the boards a far greater service if instead of seeking balance, you tried to always argue for the one position which you felt most strongly was correct?Finn, for the sake of our mutual respect, I'll attempt one last time to explain this to you. This explanation is no different in substance from the ones I've already given, but for some reason, it isn't getting through.

Let me emphasize: I DO NOT ARGUE POSITIONS I DON'T FEEL ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT, at least not intentionally.

Let me put it another way (again). These two statements are EQUALLY correct:

1. Atheism is a valid worldview

2. Theism is a valid worldview

Do you understand? Can we get this out of the way before discussing anything else, please? I don't want to see this meme repeated months from now. Thanks.

[FinnAgain]

Like I said, it seems that our disageement may come down to a question of semantics; no need for huge bold text as I'm doin' my best here. I'd also hope that your respect isn't contingent upon me grokking this in fullness, but if so, ah well.

So, just to make the tacit explicit, it seems to me that in most factual debates there is only one correct position. Or at least, only one correct position to be drawn from whatever axioms you are using. So while you might argue in a debate, for instance, that atheism is a valid worldview, you would not argue that it is correct because you believe theism to be correct. Are we in agreement on this point at least?

To put a finer point on it, as I suggested before, I think we're working under different denotations of DA. To use an analogy I've trotted out before, it would be like a person who honestly believes that civil liberties always trump national security, arguing that national security was more important simply because a logical case could be constructed around that premise.

I believe that you, on the other hand, are using DA to talk about a situation in which you saw one viewpoint, and were merely pointing out problems with it. Have I got that pretty much correct? If so, then I would not view that as DA, but simply getting at the truth.

And yes, I am confused about your notions of balance. Balance, to me, suggests two opposing entities, roughly equal. But pointing out holes in one argument is not a balancing position. Taking up a diametric opposite position would be balancing.

Hope that clears things up, if not I'll take another stab at it. But I'd also ask that you try not to get too frustrated here. I'm acting in good faith, and communication between humans is so difficult that it's amazing that we get anything done at all. You're trying to relate your mental-map of concepts to me while I'm doing the same to you, and we're trying to meet in the middle. Have patience, waiting is.

[Liberal]

Yeah, it seems like you pretty well have it now. There's nothing really complicated about it, and maybe your confusion came from not realizing that. I won't argue that pi is a rational number, because it is not. But I might well argue that pi is synthetic, and not analytic if everyone is taking the other side. Either stance is justifiable.

[Aeschines]

Except that's not what you accused him of.

You do, genius. Here, you're about to do it again:

By whom, Wile E.? By one mod? Nope, by the entire staff. You're saying, quite clearly, that the entire staff lets Lib break the rules.Yeah, I'm saying the staff and/or their policy ends up with Lib hurting the boards. I don't call that "indicting" the staff; I call it disagreeing with them on one point. Get real.

[FinnAgain]

Yeah, it seems like you pretty well have it now. There's nothing really complicated about it, and maybe your confusion came from not realizing that.

Quite possibly. Like I said, we all carry around mental-maps; concepts involved in eternal interpenetration. One of the first things almost any philosopher does is define (or re-define) the terms they're using. In this case, we had different cluster concepts associated with the term "Devil's Advocate". Not exactly earth shattering, nor unlikely.

I won't argue that pi is a rational number, because it is not. But I might well argue that pi is synthetic, and not analytic if everyone is taking the other side. Either stance is justifiable.

This, I do not grok. It seems that you're saying that both are equally valid views, yes? Why, then, would you not argue that they're both valid, instead of taking up one 'side'? I mean... if a bunch of people are saying "Pi is analytic" is it really necessary to respond by saying "Pi is synthetic and not analytic" instead of "Pi can be modeled both ways and there is evidence to support both positions?"

Especially since you say that either stance is justifiable... why get into a debate and argue, specificaly, that one stance is not? (As arguing that "pi is synthetic, and not analytic..." is doing) If your point is that both are valid, why argue that one is not?

Or are we again getting hung up in semantics?

[DrDeth]

. If, for example, there are twenty people on one side of an issue and only two on the other, and if I believe that the minority view has merit, I will almost always argue the minority view because the opposing view is already well represented.

I do not see how that constitutes stirring up shit. To me, stirring up shit is taking a position, not because you believe it to be valid, but for the purpose of pissing people off. Sometimes, people get pissed off simply because you argue for a certain view — damn you for agreeing with Sam Stone about this point. [...shrug...]

Here not only do I agree with Liberal; but to some extent, we hold identical views on this subject. To a lesser extent, I do the same thing. When a thread is full of 'dittoheads", pileons and "me toos" then I feel a strong urge to find a point of merit in the other side, and argue it.

For example- I despise those who make real kiddie porn- they are sick child molestors, who need be be locked up forever. But- I have argued that simple possession of Child porn shouldn't nessesarily be a serious felony, and I have also argued that some prosecutors definition of "kiddie porn" is ridiculous. This is a perfect example of being a "Devil's Advocate". (This has been interpreted by some idiots as me defending child molestors BTW.)

[gum]

You have wings!?!:eek:
Ofcourse I have wings. I'm a little angel. 0:}
Though I see no wings on the lady in the pic. But did you see the name of the URL? ;)

This is a hijack, but I need to explain:
Some time ago I asked what a 'douchebag' was and someone [can't remember who[m], sorry] send me a link to a pic of a douchebag.
See: I never understood the insult.
Nor did I after seeing the pic.!
I merely thought it was an awfully tiny bag of water to get yourself washed with.
Then I thought: Well, maybe a douchebag is a thing you take with you when you go camping or something. You know: Better a small amount of water than nothing....

Because....


A 'douche' = a 'shower' in Dutch [and in French] :)

So, that's why Liberal is refreshing. As a shower.

[FinnAgain]

Though I see no wings on the lady in the pic. But did you see the name of the URL? ;)

Didn't see the name until you pointed it out just now, so I went back and checked. On the matter of wings, look at it again. She's got pixie wings, kinda translucent thingies.

[gum]

Didn't see the name until you pointed it out just now, so I went back and checked. On the matter of wings, look at it again. She's got pixie wings, kinda translucent thingies.
You are absolutely correct, sir. I was looking at the wrong place for her wings. heh. A bit like dragonfly wings, right?

Now I understand the insult. :D
:: muttering how strange some words are in translation:: ]

[FinnAgain]

Yep, very much like dragonfly wings.

Also, even though I speak english and know what women use it for, I still don't get why it's used as an insult. For my money I'd much rather call someone a used suppository or some such than a douche bag.

[gum]

Yep, very much like dragonfly wings.

Also, even though I speak english and know what women use it for, I still don't get why it's used as an insult. For my money I'd much rather call someone a used suppository or some such than a douche bag.
hehehehe :)

Well... Wouldn't a 'used suppository' mean the same a 'absolutely nothing'?
At least a douche bag has been to fun places.

[FinnAgain]

Well... Wouldn't a 'used suppository' mean the same a 'absolutely nothing'?

Could indeed. I must remedy this insult so that it is in greater accord with santorum.


At least a douche bag has been to fun places.

Well, at least one fun place. I'm not sure I wanna know about it if you were sharing one of those things... :p

[Liberal]

if a bunch of people are saying "Pi is analytic" is it really necessary to respond by saying "Pi is synthetic and not analytic" instead of "Pi can be modeled both ways and there is evidence to support both positions?" I wouldn't say that it's synthetic and not analytic. I would merely argue the point that it is synthetic. (Or analytic). If the point is pertinent, then I'll say that it could be either. But I'm not going to make someone's argument for them while I'm debating them.

[Contrapuntal]

Aeschines,

I'm going to ask you again to show me where in the linked thread Liberal was bending rules or pissing on lines.

[FinnAgain]

I wouldn't say that it's synthetic and not analytic. I would merely argue the point that it is synthetic. (Or analytic). If the point is pertinent, then I'll say that it could be either. But I'm not going to make someone's argument for them while I'm debating them.

But, if it can honestly be modeled either way, why not take upthat position as your own? I'm just not understanding this. It's not proprietary... if someone has a bit of the truth, and you think you have a bigger bit, then it's fighting ignorance and not helping to make their argument. No?

[Liberal]

But, if it can honestly be modeled either way, why not take upthat position as your own?Gah. I've explained this forty ways from Sunday. I don't mean to sound impatient, but you pretty much refuse to drop it. If my position is that it can be modeled either way, then that is what I will argue. If I believe it is appropriate in the manner I've described, then I will then take the opposing position and offer the best argument for it that I can. It is often the case that I personally favor one position over another, but the underlying logic is maleable.

In fact, I have offered the opposing position to my own for consideration when I felt that the argument was going the wrong way. For example, take the famous modal ontological proof. After people assailed the definition, tried to attack the logic, and otherwise got off on tangents, I offered that the proper way to counter the proof is to reject one of the premises. I then explained that you could reject "it is possible that God exists" by offering "it is possible that God does not exist". I explained how that gives the opposite conclusion. But once that position was taken up, I returned to defending the premise because I believe that the alternative is weaker. Valid and viable, but weaker. And I explained why I thought it was weak.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what I am doing or the way I am doing it. I am not trying to bend the rules, Veb's bizarre declaration notwithstanding. I am not trying to see how far I can get my toe to the line. That is of no interest to me whatsoever. My interest is in the argument. The debate. Nothing else. And I honestly don't care to discuss this anymore. I shouldn't have to be defending myself for being an honest debator and seeing all sides of an issue.

That's all I have to say about that.

[FinnAgain]

Gah. I've explained this forty ways from Sunday. I don't mean to sound impatient, but you pretty much refuse to drop it. If my position is that it can be modeled either way, then that is what I will argue.

Then with all due respect, I'd ask you to look at your post, where you say that both are valid but you'd only argue for one. Perhaps you are not communicating as efficently as you might like. But I'm happy to drop it at this point, as you've made your thoughts clear and evidently misspoke.

But I might well argue that pi is synthetic, and not analytic...
I wouldn't say that it's synthetic and not analytic.

Again, with all due respect, look at whether or not some of the things you've said might give a different impression than you intend. Happens to even the best of us.

[Liberal]

Finn, you can't cut off people's quotes and lift them out of context and expect to understand what they're saying. The rest of the first sentence was "...if everyone is taking the other side". The second sentence had a parenthetical following it: "(Or analytic.)" The reason you're misunderstanding me might well be that you aren't listening. I've put all the words in there, but you have to read them.

==========

For the record, here are the entire quotes with context:

I might well argue that pi is synthetic, and not analytic if everyone is taking the other side. Either stance is justifiable.

I wouldn't say that it's synthetic and not analytic. I would merely argue the point that it is synthetic. (Or analytic).

[Contrapuntal]

FinnAgain,

I think in the second Liberal quote what he is saying is that he would only argue one position, and only by asserting it, not by denying a different assertion. So if he were to argue that pi is analytic, that would be the thrust of his argument. if he were to argue that pi is synthetic, that would be the thrust of his argument. It would not be in his nature to argue both postions in the same debate, even if an such argument could be advanced. Hence his remark about not making his oponent's point for him.


DrDeth,

Just can't let it go, can you. Possession of child pornography should necessarily be a serious felony, unless you dilute the pertinent definitions beyond meaningful use.

[FinnAgain]

Look, I'm not playing gotcha here. I'm simply pointing out that the language you use can cause confusion.

Saying "either stance is justifiable" merely reinforces the idea that it's an either/or discussion.
And again, saying you'd argue that it is synthetic, (Or analytic) does not say "I'd argue that it's both synthetic and analytic."

Perhaps you're using the logical definition of 'or', but that's not the colloqual definiton. I'm not playing games here, I'm trying to point out that anatomy of miscommunication. Do with that whatever you will.

[Contrapuntal]

And again, saying you'd argue that it is synthetic, (Or analytic) does not say "I'd argue that it's both synthetic and analytic." That's what he's saying. He would not argue it both ways, even if it were possible. The form that most arguments take around here is debate. And frankly, the goal of debate is to win. The purpose of debate, I suppose, is to sharpen your reasoning skills. If the topic at hand is Resolved: Pi is synthetic, or Resolved: Pi is analyticlal, it really does not fall into the form of the debate to argue that it is both. I suppose if the question at hand were "What is the nature of pi?" you could advance both arguments, but it would not be dishonest to hold one position or the other, even if you felt that an argument could be made for both. In theory, good arguments drive out bad ones.

[FinnAgain]

FinnAgain,

I think in the second Liberal quote what he is saying is that he would only argue one position, and only by asserting it, not by denying a different assertion. So if he were to argue that pi is analytic, that would be the thrust of his argument.

I understand that much. But at the same time, he also stated that he thought both were equally valid. I didn't grok why, then, he'd give as an example defending only one position if both are valid. I honestly think that what's going on here is a matter of miscommunication. As I see it, there is usually only one correct position in a factual debate. If that position is that both 'sides' are equally valid, then I can't understand arguing for only one. Lib has now explained this via his example of the modal ontological proof, but I trust that you could see how it might be seen differently?

Perhaps Lib was using formal logical speech when he was talking about both positions being valid? (Instead of sound?) If so, I'd again suggest that this can lead to miscommunication, as if you're using jargon it's best to inform people that you're not using the standard denotation.


if he were to argue that pi is synthetic, that would be the thrust of his argument. It would not be in his nature to argue both postions in the same debate, even if an such argument could be advanced.

This is, I think, the heart of the matter of miscommunication. If both positions can be advanced, to me, that means they both should be, as the truth is that both are equally valid. As such, I simply cannot understand advancing only one.

Unless of course Lib is using a strictly logical mode of thought, and is implying that both 'sides' are logically coherent but that he believes in one more than the other. Again, can't this easily cause miscommunication for someone who doesn't use the rigidly logical definition of some words? I would wager a bunch of people would not think in the same terms, and while they might realize that positions can be defended via sophistry, they'd consider only one being correct.

[Liberal]

That's what he's saying. He would not argue it both ways, even if it were possible. The form that most arguments take around here is debate. And frankly, the goal of debate is to win. The purpose of debate, I suppose, is to sharpen your reasoning skills. If the topic at hand is Resolved: Pi is synthetic, or Resolved: Pi is analyticlal, it really does not fall into the form of the debate to argue that it is both. I suppose if the question at hand were "What is the nature of pi?" you could advance both arguments, but it would not be dishonest to hold one position or the other, even if you felt that an argument could be made for both. In theory, good arguments drive out bad ones.Exactly.

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." — Daniel Dennett

[Contrapuntal]

As I see it, there is usually only one correct position in a factual debate. If that position is that both 'sides' are equally valid, then I can't understand arguing for only one. Lib has now explained this via his example of the modal ontological proof, but I trust that you could see how it might be seen differently?Oh, yes I do. It really is all in how you look at it. And I think Liberal is adhering to a strict form of debate.


This is, I think, the heart of the matter of miscommunication. If both positions can be advanced, to me, that means they both should be, as the truth is that both are equally valid. As such, I simply cannot understand advancing only one. I agree that it is the heart of it. I think you are confusing advancing only one position with refusing to advance the other. If everyone just agreed that both A and B were true, what would we know about the reasons for A and B being true? It is argung A, and arguing B, that establish the validity of the claim. The more narrow the focus, the more tight the reasoning. To use a poor analogy--I am both a carpenter and an artist. Arguing that I am one has nothing to do with arguing that I am the other, even if both are true.

Liberal seems to me to be very good at arguing. It is also pretty clear that he knows it. I suspect how he responds is often a result of how he is approached. If he is challenged he responds in kind. If his logic is questioned he doesn't hold back.

I agree that looking at the big picture, it is more helpful to attempt to enlighten people with information than to attack their arguments. Such a thing is often easier said than done.

[FinnAgain]

He would not argue it both ways, even if it were possible.

If we are fighting ignorance, then it behoves us to elaborate on the truth. If the truth happens to be both are correct, then it behoves us to elaborate on that.


The form that most arguments take around here is debate. And frankly, the goal of debate is to win.

No offense to you, but fuck that noise. I refuse to be used as a foil for someone trying to 'win' a debate, especially without my explicit consent. I view the goal of debate as getting at the truth, unless it's an exercise in pure rhetoric.


The purpose of debate, I suppose, is to sharpen your reasoning skills.

Again, I believe that the purpose of debate is to reach the truth. Sometimes it can be simple training exercises, like a Great Debates club in high school... but I expect most people on the Dope to be arguing for a position, not arguing for the sake of argument.


If the topic at hand is Resolved: Pi is synthetic, or Resolved: Pi is analyticlal, it really does not fall into the form of the debate to argue that it is both.

If you've made it clear that it's a formalized debate for no purpose other than honing skills, then sure. But, personally, if someone doesn't make that disclaimer I'll assume that they're serious, even passionate about the topic. I'll aproach the topic as if they actually hold a view, and perhaps are even open to being persuaded by a good argument. If I knew that they were just using me as a catspaw and training aid, I'd probably spend my time in another thread.


I suppose if the question at hand were "What is the nature of pi?" you could advance both arguments, but it would not be dishonest to hold one position or the other, even if you felt that an argument could be made for both.

True enough. Not dishonest, but not honorable in my book (but not dishonorable, just... mediocre.). If, in your heart of hearts, you know that the correct position is that both sides have some truth to them, then it seems that a fight against ignorance would demand that you state exactly that. Debating for the sake of debate seems, in many cases, to be mere mental masturbation with the money shot being a position which you might agree with being 'defeated' and you 'winning'.


In theory, good arguments drive out bad ones.

In practice, I can construct a great argument for the affirmative or negative position in any lincoln-douglas style debate, especially if I get to set the axioms.

But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Or, if we're using some logical (and other) terms: your position is valid, but I grok wrongness.

On preview, (I'm in class and typing this in fits and spurts) I think that the 'big picture' goal should be our only goal except for special circumstances where we engage in rhetorical play. It's worth our time to explain why both A and B are true, even if it's a bit harder. Our lives, after all, depend on nothing but truth. But again, we're coming at this from different directions. As for being good at arguing, I see that as having about as much use as being good at streetfighting, and in almost the same character much of the time for some people.

[andros]

As to the purpose of debate, I disagree with both of you. I'm not out to "win," nor am I out to reach the "truth." I only want to learn. (And I can sometimes do that by formulating an argument that I might not believe to be right.)

[Hoodoo Ulove]

These two statements are EQUALLY correct:

1. Atheism is a valid worldview

2. Theism is a valid worldview
Depending, would you say, on the axioms accepted?

Is the choice of axioms purely aesthetic?

[FinnAgain]

Andros, I'd argue that anything which you can learn (instead of being mistaken in believing) is truth, and that through a debate you can get at truth via sometimes serpentine routes.

/$.02

[Contrapuntal]

No offense to you, but fuck that noise. I refuse to be used as a foil for someone trying to 'win' a debate, especially without my explicit consent. I view the goal of debate as getting at the truth, unless it's an exercise in pure rhetoric.None taken. I was incomplete in trying to get my meaning across. I'll try again--

I did not mean to imply that Liberal, or anyone else for that matter, uses an opponent as a foil for the sole purpose of winning a debate. What I meant to say is that in this particular medium (internet message board) in a forum called Great Debates, that debate is the form that fighting ignorance takes, and therefore strictly following the rules of debate is the best way to go. It isn't like a conversation between two agreeable people, where ideas can be tossed about and retained or discarded as it seems fit. It is a highly linear form, where sidetracks actually slow down the process, and where anyone can jump in at any time. For the sake of the argument, let's say I am monitoring an argument in GD, and I feel that I have The Answer to the Question. I pop in and say "Actually all you folks have it wrong, while I have the goods. It's neither here nor there, but somewhere in between." Would that be allowed to stand, or would I not have to support my argument through debate? We would be back where we started, only now there would be another topic on the table.



Again, I believe that the purpose of debate is to reach the truth. Sometimes it can be simple training exercises, like a Great Debates club in high school... but I expect most people on the Dope to be arguing for a position, not arguing for the sake of argument.Once again I was unclear. The purpose of a debate is to arrive at an agreed upon conclusion. The form it takes is of a contest. The winner( ostensibly) is the one who convinces his opponent to accept his position. I did not mean to suggeat that debate wes merely a content-free exercise, or that anyone present is engaging in it simply for the sake of the argument.



If you've made it clear that it's a formalized debate for no purpose other than honing skills, then sure. But, personally, if someone doesn't make that disclaimer I'll assume that they're serious, even passionate about the topic. I'll aproach the topic as if they actually hold a view, and perhaps are even open to being persuaded by a good argument. If I knew that they were just using me as a catspaw and training aid, I'd probably spend my time in another thread.So would I.



True enough. Not dishonest, but not honorable in my book (but not dishonorable, just... mediocre.). If, in your heart of hearts, you know that the correct position is that both sides have some truth to them, then it seems that a fight against ignorance would demand that you state exactly that. Debating for the sake of debate seems, in many cases, to be mere mental masturbation with the money shot being a position which you might agree with being 'defeated' and you 'winning'.This is where I think we really see things differently, if I read you right. Why is it you think that my claim of knowing "the correct position" wil be met with smiles and handshakes all around? I have simply made another assertion, the value of which will be discovered through debate. In the example we have been using, it isn't as if Liberal has been withholding some crucial piece of information. He holds a position (pi is analytical and synthetic.) Someone comes along and states "Pi is analytical." Lib says "Yup." Someone states "Pi is synthetic." lib says "Yup." Someone says "pi is both. Lib says "Yup." Now if someone says that pi is neither, or is not one but the other, then he has his choice of rersponses. I find it neither dishonorable nor mediocre of someone in a debate to refrain from attacking a position that has not been asserted.

My guess is you believe that it would be his duty to tell the first person that not only is it not neither, but it in fact is both, when all he has to do to refute that assertion is prove it is one or the other. I disagree, but respectfully.




On preview, (I'm in class and typing this in fits and spurts) I think that the 'big picture' goal should be our only goal except for special circumstances where we engage in rhetorical play. It's worth our time to explain why both A and B are true, even if it's a bit harder. Our lives, after all, depend on nothing but truth. But again, we're coming at this from different directions.I just don't hink it works that way in GD. If I started an IMHO thread and specifically asked Lib to explain some tricky stuff to me and chose to play me for a fool, well, yeah, he would be a jerk.As for being good at arguing, I see that as having about as much use as being good at streetfighting, and in almost the same character much of the time for some people.We disagree on this as well, at least as far as the character reference goes. Being good at streetfighting and starting a bunch of fights, or using those skills to hurt a weaker opponent is bad. Being good at streetfighting is a survival skill.

[FinnAgain]

Would that be allowed to stand, or would I not have to support my argument through debate? We would be back where we started, only now there would be another topic on the table.

Of course you'd have to support it through debate, but at least it'd be the truth.


This is where I think we really see things differently, if I read you right. Why is it you think that my claim of knowing "the correct position" wil be met with smiles and handshakes all around?

Naw, it'll most likely be met by debate and disagreement. And that's fine. But as I see it, it's still one's responsibility to argue for the-most-correct-position that they can find. Perhaps you and I were talking past each other? (that seems to be a theme in this thread). All I'm opposed to is debate for the sake of debate. To the degree that someone's trying to get at the truth, I think they're living up to the mission statement of the Dope.


I have simply made another assertion, the value of which will be discovered through debate. In the example we have been using, it isn't as if Liberal has been withholding some crucial piece of information. He holds a position (pi is analytical and synthetic.) Someone comes along and states "Pi is analytical." Lib says "Yup." Someone states "Pi is synthetic." lib says "Yup." Someone says "pi is both. Lib says "Yup."

In that case, great. Even better to post, without having to answer 'Yup":
"Pi can be viewed as either analytic or synthetic, and here are the reasons why..." I got the impression that instead of that, only one position would be argued. I've already given the textual clues I used to come to that conclusion, and, to be honest, I do think that not all of the problems in my communication lay on my end. But that's neither here nor there. (Dare I say... it's a bit of both? ;))


Now if someone says that pi is neither, or is not one but the other, then he has his choice of rersponses. I find it neither dishonorable nor mediocre of someone in a debate to refrain from attacking a position that has not been asserted.

Well, I was quite careful to avoid using the term dishonorable, because I don't think it is. But I do think it's mediocre to give a grain of the truth without giving the whole thing. It is exceptional to, as it were, bring the truth to bay. It is mediocre to take potshots at it.

"What is it?"
"It's not a turtle."
"Yes, but what is it?"
"It certainly isn't an orangutan."

In response to both of your hypotheticals, I'd hope the answers would be "It's not neither, it's both." and "It's not one or the other, it's both." respectively.


My guess is you believe that it would be his duty to tell the first person that not only is it not neither, but it in fact is both, when all he has to do to refute that assertion is prove it is one or the other. I disagree, but respectfully.

Spot on.
And no problem, disagreement is to be expected, but we've at least come to a rough level of communion so we can understand where we're coming from.


I just don't hink it works that way in GD.

Perhaps... I tend to stay out of GD both because in order to post there, I'd want to have an absolutely airtight understanding of a subject and a truckload of cites at my disposal. I also really find the practice of coming a hair's breadth away from flaming while still making your insults perfectly clear to be... distasteful.

Still, I can't help but feel that it'd sure be nice if GD worked that way :D


We disagree on this as well, at least as far as the character reference goes. Being good at streetfighting and starting a bunch of fights, or using those skills to hurt a weaker opponent is bad. Being good at streetfighting is a survival skill.

True enough, every analogy is suspect and that was a bad one on my part. Replace streetfighting with bar brawling, to get a bit closer to my meaning. I think someone who argues just to argue is, if not a jerk, at the very least a schmuck and/or an asshole. I've got better things to do with my time, ya know? :cool:

[Contrapuntal]

Spot on.
And no problem, disagreement is to be expected, but we've at least come to a rough level of communion so we can understand where we're coming from.


<snip>

I've got better things to do with my time, ya know? :cool:
Oh I certainly do. And I am jealous of your ability to do more than one at a time well (post here while at school.) It's all I can do to wrestle any sense at all out of these damn computers. (Old guy, two finger typist, touch of ADD.)

[FinnAgain]

And I am jealous of your ability to do more than one at a time well (post here while at school.)

Awwww shucks sir, tweren't nothin'
~kicks dirt~

[Liberal]

Depending, would you say, on the axioms accepted?

Is the choice of axioms purely aesthetic?Yes!

[Liberal]

It's worth our time to explain why both A and B are true, even if it's a bit harder.It isn't hard at all, and it's exactly what I would do in GQ. I would also do it in GD if few others had argued the position, or arguments for it were weak. Sorry to be so succinct, but I'm reading your posts and typing this while I'm engaged in a kickboxing match, an origami contest, and delivering an oral essay on the behavioral psychology of medieval Japanese eunuchs.

[Contrapuntal]

Sorry to be so succinct, but I'm reading your posts and typing this while I'm engaged in a kickboxing match, an origami contest, and delivering an oral essay on the behavioral psychology of medieval Japanese eunuchs.
Hey Finn? Is that a shot at A) You, B) Me, C) Bofus? Attack or defend as is appropriate. This will be 205 of your final grade. :)

[Contrapuntal]

Shoot. That should read 20% of your final grade.

[FinnAgain]

Your guess is as good as mine Contra. I'm guessing that Lib has decided to get annoyed because I post from class, or maybe because you think that's neat? Or maybe he's just decided to post as if he's annoyed and then take us to task for viewing his remarks as most people would read them? Who knows. But I'll work on being very upset later. After a nap maybe.

[Liberal]

Or maybe he just cracked a friendly joke. Finn, I've figured out the problem between you and me. You take everything too seriously. You don't always listen attentively. You parse meaning too deeply. And you project your own biases onto nearly every discussion. In short, we're a lot alike.

[Contrapuntal]

Or maybe he just cracked a friendly joke. Finn, I've figured out the problem between you and me. You take everything too seriously. You don't always listen attentively. You parse meaning too deeply. And you project your own biases onto nearly every discussion. In short, we're a lot alike.I say this in all seriousness--you have a great sense of humor. By which I mean, of course, that you make me laugh. Sometimes quite a lot. At the risk of sounding dramatic, laughs are often few and far between, and are all the more precious for it.

[FinnAgain]

Or maybe he just cracked a friendly joke.

A third possibility, certainly. Sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks, but I'd also suggest that communication might not be occuring as clearly as wished. Contra and I seem to have read the text in a similar way. Text based communication does not have the benefit of body language, and at least from where I sat it seemed like you were calling bullshit.

To offer an olive branch, here are zombie dogs. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html)


Finn, I've figured out the problem between you and me. You take everything too seriously.

Been accused of that more than once.


You don't always listen attentively.

When talking to someone at a party? Sure. While enaged in a debate? Not so much.


You parse meaning too deeply.

I think I parse it just deeply enough. But that's what a background in linguistics, philosophy, English, etc... will do to ya.


And you project your own biases onto nearly every discussion.

Objective observation is, of course, impossible. We all approach issues from our current perspective, and cast the debate in terms which we are most 'comfortable' with. I see the world the way I do, you do the same, and our arguments come from those perspectives.


In short, we're a lot alike.

I've been toying with that view for a while now, actually. Maybe the same pulled through a mirror, or some such.

[Liberal]

I say this in all seriousness--you have a great sense of humor. By which I mean, of course, that you make me laugh. Sometimes quite a lot. At the risk of sounding dramatic, laughs are often few and far between, and are all the more precious for it.I like the contrasts — seriousness - humor, dramatic - laughs — the satisfying sort of rhetoric one would expect from someone called "Contrapuntal". :)

[Liberal]

To offer an olive branch, here are zombie dogs. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html)I'll just skip all the rest of it, and take that. Thanks.