#1  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:47 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550

Conclusions..


One can reach the same conclusions as others by using different reasoning. Arguing against the rationale others use to reach the the same conclusion is not the same as arguing against the conclusion. Pointing out the flaws of other arguments can be done in good faith.

Your admonishment was misguided. I don't care if you don't like my arguments. They were not game playing no matter what you claim. I was not being a jerk and responded to every question and point raised to me. The people I discussed with would not offer the same courtesy. Just because you misinterpreted my arguments doesn't mean I was wrong.

I'm not claiming I was right. I'm claiming your accusation is wrong.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4&postcount=98

Last edited by cmosdes; 07-18-2019 at 05:48 PM.
  #2  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:47 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,174
cmosdes posted (Post #96):

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I really cannot make this any clearer. Creating women's only leagues is a good idea and I'm 100% in favor of it.
Chronos responded (Post#98):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]


Then why have you spent the entire thread arguing against it? Given that you've apparently been arguing in bad faith all this time, I'm officially directing you to not post any more in this thread. And in case it's not clear, this is not a conditional directive.
But in post #37, cmosdes posted that

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Yes, you are exactly right which is why it is great we have leagues dedicated to only women. It is important we recognize that having opportunities to compete like that are good for the participants, even if they aren't the best of the best.
Bolding mine, of course.

I think there's a miscommunication between the OP and the mod. Given that the thread is little more than the cmosdes-show, though, I'm not sure I disagree with the directive.

Last edited by GreysonCarlisle; 07-18-2019 at 07:47 PM.
  #3  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:48 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,834
Chronos' moderation may or may not have been wrong, but it illustrates that your positions are as clear as mud. I still don't know what you were arguing in that thread. You were all over the place. I can't make much sense of this post, either, but I think I got the gist, at least. If you want to be understood, you need to work on presenting your positions clearly and in far fewer posts. They're word soup. IOW, get to the point faster.

Last edited by Helena330; 07-18-2019 at 07:49 PM.
  #4  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:49 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
Chronos' moderation may or may not have been wrong, but it illustrates that your positions are as clear as mud. I still don't know what you were arguing in that thread. You were all over the place. I can't make much sense of this post, either, but I think I got the gist, at least. If you want to be understood, you need to work on presenting your positions clearly. Your posts are word soup.
Yup.
  #5  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:01 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,573
His point seems clear but perhaps I’m misreading his posts. I take his posts to mean that women shouldn’t get special accommodations that lesser men don’t. In other words, if in truly open competition you aren’t top tier you can join rec or other types of leagues instead of having a protected sports space solely based on gender.
  #6  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:04 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Yup.
Okay, fair enough. I tried to be clear, but wasn't. My argument seems simple to me, but this is not the place to hash that. This was just to register disagreement with the moding and not rehash anything. I've noted it.

Not sure it is fair to admonish me when I was responding to other people who were raising questions about my position and my responses were (mostly) respectful (certainly not a jerk).

But I've said what I need to say.
  #7  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:05 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
His point seems clear but perhaps I’m misreading his posts. I take his posts to mean that women shouldn’t get special accommodations that lesser men don’t. In other words, if in truly open competition you aren’t top tier you can join rec or other types of leagues instead of having a protected sports space solely based on gender.
Obviously I wasn't clear if that is what you are getting from it!

Sorry.
  #8  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:40 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
It appears to me that Chronos did not officially warn cmosdes, nor did Chronos even issue a mod note.

What Chronos did was the message board equivalent of a teacher catching a student smoking in the restroom and saying, "I'm not going to report you this time, but stop smoking in the restroom."
  #9  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:31 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Obviously I wasn't clear if that is what you are getting from it!

Sorry.
Drat! I thought I had it parsed correctly.
  #10  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:00 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,770
Then you need to cut out the word salad, and just state things plainly from the beginning. Your arguments may seem clear to YOU, but to the rest of us, it was just a bunch of rambling.

Becaue if EVERYONE keeps misinterpreting you, the problem generally isn't on their end.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 07-19-2019 at 12:02 AM.
  #11  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:26 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Then you need to cut out the word salad, and just state things plainly from the beginning. Your arguments may seem clear to YOU, but to the rest of us, it was just a bunch of rambling.

Becaue if EVERYONE keeps misinterpreting you, the problem generally isn't on their end.
And trying to explain so they will understand could just make things worse.
  #12  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:40 AM
Roland Orzabal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 2,904
I disagree that his argument was unclear. He wasn't arguing for any particular conclusion regarding women's sports leagues. He was saying, and outright stated multiple times, that his arguments were against one particular argument that is often given for the creation of women's sports leagues — that being that allowing a particular subclass of genetically disadvantaged people to be excluded from organized sports is significantly harmful to the people of that subclass. If offered as the sole justification for creating women's leagues, that argument would also necessarily mean that genetically disadvantaged *men* are suffering the same harm, as they face the same exclusion. So, he'd like people to quit offering up that argument, as it doesn't actually lead to the conclusion they ultimately support.

Ironically, RickJay's statements regarding the slew of societal injustices that have affected women throughout human history does more to support cmosdes' point than refute it. That's exactly the sort of argument that would lead one to conclude that women as a group are significantly different from other genetically disadvantaged groups, and therefore deserving of different treatment; thus, it's preferable to the genetics argument for that reason.

cmosdes, if your experience is anything like mine, you'll find that that style of debate always goes this way. By and large I don't think people are being disingenuous; I think the vast majority are just result-focused as all hell, and so even if you're arguing not against the conclusion but against the process, they assume the fact of your arguing at all must mean you support a different conclusion. They then either demand to know what that conclusion is, or conveniently make one up and assign it to you, as happened to you multiple times in that thread. Chronos took this to an extreme by deciding that if you agree with most of the thread's participants regarding the conclusion, but are arguing anyway, you must be arguing in bad faith — and again, that's because your objection was to a particular line of reasoning (the process) rather than the result. For whatever reason, I've found that most people are not only disinclined to think that way, but seem to genuinely not understand it.

As a process-focused person myself, I'm much more interested in attacking poor reasoning used by those whose conclusions I agree with — to ensure that that same reasoning can be used consistently to reach future correct conclusions — than being the x-millionth voice to point out that (e.g.) racism is bad. That approach, however, regularly gets one labeled a concern troll and/or strawmanned to death. This is why I don't argue on the internet much anymore. But at any rate, assuming I'm right about what you were arguing, know that at least someone got where you were coming from.
  #13  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:20 PM
SmellMyWort is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,060
Seems like pretty lazy modding to just kick a poster out of the thread rather than give them an opportunity to clarify their position.

And at least to me, cmosdes wasn't arguing against the very existence of women's teams, but more against what he may see as government overreach by legally requiring a platform for one "genetically disadvantaged" group to play while excluding others. The problem I see with that argument is that by not creating a separate league for women you're effectively excluding like 99% of women who want to play, whereas by excluding the "not quite good enough" men you're only excluding the small % that actually want to play at that level but aren't quite good enough.

I would also add that as a spectator I think there is public interest in seeing both the best women and the best men play. Probably not so much interest in seeing the 3rd and 4th tier guys play.
  #14  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:27 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellMyWort View Post
Seems like pretty lazy modding to just kick a poster out of the thread rather than give them an opportunity to clarify their position.

And at least to me, cmosdes wasn't arguing against the very existence of women's teams, but more against what he may see as government overreach by legally requiring a platform for one "genetically disadvantaged" group to play while excluding others. The problem I see with that argument is that by not creating a separate league for women you're effectively excluding like 99% of women who want to play, whereas by excluding the "not quite good enough" men you're only excluding the small % that actually want to play at that level but aren't quite good enough.

I would also add that as a spectator I think there is public interest in seeing both the best women and the best men play. Probably not so much interest in seeing the 3rd and 4th tier guys play.
Silencing is easier than understanding.
  #15  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:53 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
OK, I'll admit it: I missed the statement in post #37. With as much as cmosdes was saying in that thread, it's easy to miss one specific statement... but he did say it. Which changes it from arguing in bad faith, to arguing in good faith but unclearly. But we don't have any rules against arguing ineffectively, so the directive is revoked:

cmosdes is hereby now allowed to post in that thread again.
  #16  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:45 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Okay, fair enough. I tried to be clear, but wasn't. My argument seems simple to me, but this is not the place to hash that. This was just to register disagreement with the moding and not rehash anything. I've noted it.

Not sure it is fair to admonish me when I was responding to other people who were raising questions about my position and my responses were (mostly) respectful (certainly not a jerk).

But I've said what I need to say.
My problem was not with what you said but with what you didn't say (at least in the posts that I read, I didn't get through all of them, I have my limits) which was the conclusion you were driving at. Some sentence that starts with "Therefore," would have been extremely helpful to anyone trying to understand you.

In fact, I recommend that to everyone who is arguing about fine points in a relatively complex topic (i.e. most GD threads) -- please state your conclusion early and often. If someone reading your post ends up saying "I understand your point, but so what?" then you haven't succeeded.
  #17  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:21 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellMyWort View Post
Seems like pretty lazy modding to just kick a poster out of the thread rather than give them an opportunity to clarify their position.
He WAS given opportunities to clarify his position. Over and over and over again. All he managed to do was hijacking the thread further.

People were getting sick of it, and just wanted to discuss the original topic.
  #18  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:15 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Shouldn't make too many conclusions of you'll end up with CTE.

what?
  #19  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:44 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
My problem was not with what you said but with what you didn't say (at least in the posts that I read, I didn't get through all of them, I have my limits) which was the conclusion you were driving at. Some sentence that starts with "Therefore," would have been extremely helpful to anyone trying to understand you.
I think he did, very clearly, over and over and over again, but the rest of the thread couldn't get past their own preconceived notions about what his conclusion was.

Specifically, they read every post of his to be saying "Women shouldn't get their own leagues" because of course he's saying that. Not because of the words he actually wrote.

His conclusion is simple, obvious, and correct. Approaching self-evident, even:

Don't cite "exclusion from sports is harmful" as a justification for the existence of women's sports. Why? Because once you get to the teen and above level of sports, 90%* of ALL people are excluded from sports simply because they didn't win the "good at sports" genetic lottery. Further, there is nothing wrong or discriminatory about that fact, and no action needs to (or should) be taken to "fix" it because it's not a problem. Women's sports should (continue to) exist, but not because it's "harmful" to be excluded, because it's not.

(*Google says there are 8 million high school athletes in the US out of 56 million total students, so more like 85%.)
  #20  
Old 07-20-2019, 05:35 PM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Orzabal View Post
cmosdes, if your experience is anything like mine, you'll find that that style of debate always goes this way. By and large I don't think people are being disingenuous; I think the vast majority are just result-focused as all hell, and so even if you're arguing not against the conclusion but against the process, they assume the fact of your arguing at all must mean you support a different conclusion. They then either demand to know what that conclusion is, or conveniently make one up and assign it to you, as happened to you multiple times in that thread. Chronos took this to an extreme by deciding that if you agree with most of the thread's participants regarding the conclusion, but are arguing anyway, you must be arguing in bad faith — and again, that's because your objection was to a particular line of reasoning (the process) rather than the result. For whatever reason, I've found that most people are not only disinclined to think that way, but seem to genuinely not understand it.

As a process-focused person myself, I'm much more interested in attacking poor reasoning used by those whose conclusions I agree with — to ensure that that same reasoning can be used consistently to reach future correct conclusions — than being the x-millionth voice to point out that (e.g.) racism is bad. That approach, however, regularly gets one labeled a concern troll and/or strawmanned to death. This is why I don't argue on the internet much anymore. But at any rate, assuming I'm right about what you were arguing, know that at least someone got where you were coming from.
And I've noticed something I think is related but not the same: People seem convinced that if you describe something, you support it.

For example, see if you can follow this:

Company A decides to offer a discount for women.

I note that this puts Company A in the position of deciding who qualifies as a "woman" assuming it won't hand out discounts to people it sees as not being women.

Person B attacks me, saying people shouldn't have to prove their woman-ness and where the fuck do I get off saying they should, anyway! Fucking TERF!

I've even phrased this a bit differently, calling it the "Is" From "Ought" Fallacy ("You can't derive how things are from how you think they ought to be, no matter how loudly you yell.") and, when I'm grumpy, Arguing With Reality, for which you should picture someone screaming at the sky to stop raining. If those things aren't the same, they at least spring from the same impulse.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #21  
Old 07-21-2019, 09:58 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Orzabal View Post
As a process-focused person myself, I'm much more interested in attacking poor reasoning used by those whose conclusions I agree with — to ensure that that same reasoning can be used consistently to reach future correct conclusions — than being the x-millionth voice to point out that (e.g.) racism is bad.
But a thread titled, What about a boy playing on a girls' sports team? invites discussion about boys and girls playing sports on the same team. Arguing that a poster is using poor reasoning is, given the subject of the thread, a digression at the very least.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE pointing out faulty reasoning. I'll happily argue that someone I disagree with can't post a logical argument. But after a round or two of that, even I'm ready to just state my case and walk away.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 07-21-2019 at 09:59 PM.
  #22  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:37 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
But a thread titled, What about a boy playing on a girls' sports team? invites discussion about boys and girls playing sports on the same team. Arguing that a poster is using poor reasoning is, given the subject of the thread, a digression at the very least.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE pointing out faulty reasoning. I'll happily argue that someone I disagree with can't post a logical argument. But after a round or two of that, even I'm ready to just state my case and walk away.
Does it make any difference or less of a hijack in your mind that the thread was started almost 5 years ago and long since abandoned by the OP? Further, at the time I posted the first time, no one had posted for 6 days. So clearly the main topic of the OP was discussed as much as anyone had intended. It was only then that I brought up the related (not a hijack) question of rationale for keeping sports separated along gender lines.
The rest of the thread was because, as others have pointed out, my points were completely misconstrued as very eloquently explained by Roland Orzabal and Ellis Dee.
  #23  
Old 07-22-2019, 09:31 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Does it make any difference or less of a hijack in your mind that the thread was started almost 5 years ago and long since abandoned by the OP? Further, at the time I posted the first time, no one had posted for 6 days. So clearly the main topic of the OP was discussed as much as anyone had intended. It was only then that I brought up the related (not a hijack) question of rationale for keeping sports separated along gender lines.
The rest of the thread was because, as others have pointed out, my points were completely misconstrued as very eloquently explained by Roland Orzabal and Ellis Dee.
Not to be a junior mod here, but reviving a thread after six days that had "discussed as much as any had intended" a topic, only to suggest a "related" question, MIGHT have been better accomplished by opening an entirely new thread.
  #24  
Old 07-22-2019, 09:38 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Not to be a junior mod here, but reviving a thread after six days that had "discussed as much as any had intended" a topic, only to suggest a "related" question, MIGHT have been better accomplished by opening an entirely new thread.
Point taken. I thought it was related enough, but I see your point.
I asked your opinion, so no junior modding was inferred.

Last edited by cmosdes; 07-22-2019 at 09:39 AM.
  #25  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:06 PM
Roland Orzabal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 2,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
But a thread titled, What about a boy playing on a girls' sports team? invites discussion about boys and girls playing sports on the same team. Arguing that a poster is using poor reasoning is, given the subject of the thread, a digression at the very least.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE pointing out faulty reasoning. I'll happily argue that someone I disagree with can't post a logical argument. But after a round or two of that, even I'm ready to just state my case and walk away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Point taken. I thought it was related enough, but I see your point.
I asked your opinion, so no junior modding was inferred.
Ehhh. cmosdes, I get that you're gracefully bowing out, and kudos for the restraint, but I'm gonna go ahead and stand up for the point that arguing against flawed reasoning is relevant in the context of ANY debate. This remains true no matter how obvious the correct conclusion is. In a thread titled "Should we stab toddlers in the face?", I'd say the consensus is probably going to be that no, we should not. But if someone makes the argument that we shouldn't do this because knives are scary and no one should ever use them, it'd be perfectly relevant and appropriate to argue against that, and to pursue that argument to whatever lengths necessary...if not for the sake of rationality, then for no reason other than to do otherwise would be to allow your opponents to to call you a hypocrite for admitting to buttering bread. And this in turn is true even if, as I've found is likely, doing so earns you a steady stream of "WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING TODDLER STABBING?!" in response.

Bad reasoning is bad, and debating by using bad reasoning should make one feel bad. The only way it could ever be in poor form to point this out would be in the context of a conversation that didn't start as a debate, in which case it could be considered rude. In this particular context and on this forum, though? Pointing out poor reasoning is always relevant; otherwise, we're not actually engaged in intellectually honest debate.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017