Having said that, I think I may have blown this thread by my weedy choice of thread title and opening lines.
I should have just titled it “begbert2’s a jerk” and then maybe a one-line description of why, and leave it at that. Annoyance vented.
Well, you’re not the only person to complain about me (ivn1188 can be seen ranting incoherently in this thread - plus mswas has found me adversarial and lekatt doesn’t like me), but so far I don’t feel the evidence supports the fact that the problem is with me. (If I reach lekattian levels of complaints about my style, I may revise my opinion.)
As was VERY common in the thread in question, you have completely missed my point, which in this case was that your “in the correct context: no creative editing here” quoting was snipped all to hell and back, giving it an air of disjointed irrationality and non-sequiterism that was not present in the original exchanges. That point was, I feel, sufficently demonstrated with a single example how you made the discussion incomprehensible by leaving bits out.
As for this business about me evading your questions, my perspective on the matter was that you either were completely and persistently misunderstanding my position depsite it already having been endlessly repeated and clarified, or you understood it but were simply refusing to accept it or admit its comprehensibly becuase of a lekatt-like religious adherence to the idea that no, nothing that even sounds like the accusation that you might be selfish can possibly be true (even if that’s not what the agument actually is at all).
Charitably speaking, you might not have been engaging in dishonest argument to protect your preconceptions. Alternatively you might actually be that stupid. Or possibly some combination of the two - you might misunderstand enough of my point to fail to grok that it’s not calling you selfish by any reasonably understanding of the term, and so then choose to arbitrarily dismiss the rest despite knowing it’s not as dumb as you claim it is. Personally I don’t know where you fall on this, and objectively speaking I don’t much care.
Either way, though, the pretentious announcement that you were “well aware of your position,” while asking a question that would be obvious to anyone with the slightest idea of what my position acually was, was too priceless to leave alone. Charitably speaking when I asked “Then why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?”, it was a question deliberately constructed to show the flaws in your position - specifically the flaw that you clearly had no damn clue what my position was, but were pretentiously pretending otherwise out of some desire to seem like you actually had the upper hand in the discussion ('cause if you don’t even know what we’re talking about, then you don’t have the upper hand.)
Not so charitably speaking, I was pointing out that you in fact didn’t understand my position, and were so dumb you didn’t even realize you didn’t, despite that fact having been pointed out to you many, many times, in many different ways. Which is to say, I was pointing out that your rebuttals fell under the category of arguments from stupidity.
Ah. Well, suffice to say I didn’t get the memo explaining that code. To me it just seemed odd.
And I think it wasn’t relevent to any of them - hence my labeling it as a strawman (and an extremely dumb one), and delivering it back to you on a silver platter.
And I’m not a jerk - being one’s against board rules, so that’s clearly impossible or I would have been warned by a mod. (Like my logic? :D) I am annoying as hell, though - particularly when I’m right and pointing out that you’re not.
One solution for you might be to post in one of the ongoing minor rants threads. There’s almost always one open, and you post in there where few people ever respond — especially with the kind of pile-on treatment you’ve gotten here.
It is rare that a pitting of another poster in its own thread succeeds. Sometimes it does, but more often than not, the OP gets blasted. I don’t know why. It’s just the nature of the Pit, I think, to take adversarial positions.
Plus, by giving me my own thread, he gave others (and me!) a forum to rebut him in. If you want to get away with that around here, you probably need to make sure first that the majority of posters who wander into the thread with you will agree with you, either due to the pitee in question being known and unpopular, or a linked quote of them being an obvious dick or moron, that’s so egregious at it that everyone who wanders in will agree with you about it. I may be biased, but I don’t think either condition has been met here.
Let’s be frank - while he has little support in here, most of the blasting back at him has come from lil’ ole me, and I frankly admit I’m enjoying the opportunity to fire off with both cannons in such an unrestrained way. If he had vented at me in a minirants thread I would never have seen it, and even if it was pointed out to me I would never would have rebutted to the degree I have here (which would have meant I wouldn’t have replied at all - a brief “I do so debate like an adult!” response doesn’t strike me as a good self-defense. :)) So yeah, making this its own thread was like slapping a target on his own forehead for me (and others) to shoot at. (Which is why I never start pit threads myself.)
You’re certainly the wiser for that, begbert. I’ve certainly had no problems with you. And if I have, they were so minor that I can’t recall them.
Nonsense. Why was the line about “if you understand my position, then you know the answer to the question” significant?
I couldn’t put every line of the thread in here, and that line does nothing to justify you dodging the question.
Well, your position kept changing. When I put this to you, and gave multiple quotes in support of this, you could come up with no response at all, other than basically “shut up!”, pretty much as you’d done from the very beginning.
I still don’t understand why you brought all that attitude to the thread. I wanted a serious debate, as I do with other posters almost daily.
You were being an ass though trying to argue the point as though I was saying the opposite, provoking yet another pointless exchange.
And it isn’t a straw man because some Egoists really reason that because people say “I enjoy X”, then that is sufficient proof that X is not selfless.
I’m not accusing any individual of saying that.
The reason I persevered through that thread for so long is because you are sooo wrong. And at some level you must know it. You must be aware of how much your position shifted over the course of the thread; it’s there in black and white (and blue).
I’d already answered it a dozen times - at that point you were either deliberately trying to muddle the issue, or were terminally stupid. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and responding as if you weren’t lying about understanding my position, at least a little, which would mean that you could not possibly not know the answer to that question.
Also, I was getting tired of the dumbass juvenile games you were playing.
No, I’m afraid it didn’t. I just kept using different words to explain it in the vain hopes you’d understand it. It didn’t work.
Is that why you started qouting that bit you STILL fail to comprehend over and over like some kind of sixth grader?
You brought the attitude first.
You will now deny that. I will not give a shit that you do, because I know better. I’m sure ivn1188 will believe you though - assuming he’s still following this thread, anyway.
Are you getting confused by your own slashed-up paraphrases? The strawman in question was:
Of course, NO Egoists think that people decide that losing a war was their idea to make themselves happy. That’s retarded. It’s retarded to even suggest it. And it is definitely a strawman.
And either you were being an ass by floating that stupid strawman, or you’re so dumb you don’t even understand the simplistic hedonistic Egoist position. (Which would kind of explain why you were completely unable to grasp my argument - it’s actually a tiny bit tricky! If you turn your head sideways and squint just right, anyway.)
You’re projecting again.
Naw. You started out suggesting that we consciously choose actions to increase our happiness or reduce our misery.
Then, when this was shown to be false, it moved on to become that we choose the option “we feel most good about”. Not the same thing.
Also, “happiness” was initially defined to be an emotion. But later, it became so vaguely defined that even a chess computer “seeks happiness”.
Well, the Straight Dope knows better. Look again at the thread. Look at who starts out with the personal attacks.
Several times in the thread I suspected that you may have simply been trolling and that this is just a long, elaborate, whoosh.
And now, I can’t help thinking the same again.
I mean, you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
Obviously I was accusing nobody of saying someone would switch sides in a war. It was an example intended to support my viewpoint.
That’s why it’s phrased “If you were losing a war, you wouldn’t think…” – I’m assuming the reader would agree that no-one would think like that.
It may not be worth replying at all - I mean, who is reading this? Who cares? But whichever.
I don’t recall saying that this was conscious. (Certainly not that it was all conscious - though clearly, we do occasionally make a similar sort of decision consciously.) And there was of course no movement of my position, though again I will conceded that I did use different words to describe it from post to post.
And define “emotion”, please.
I am happy to let the Straight Dope decide this for themselves. (By which I mean the forum database itself, of course - I suspect no human will ever look at that thread again.)
So it was either a strawman, or a nonsensical nonsequiter that had no relation to Egoists at all.
‘Babies are made of meat. But that is never a reason to eat them. If you had a baby in your hands, you wouldn’t think “Hey, this little guy would make a nice snack!”’
‘But, Egoists don’t eat babies.’
‘I never said that they did. How can you accuse you of making a strawman? I think you must be trolling.’
Nice choice of analogy.
Except of course that some Egoists do cite the pleasure we get from, say, working in a soup kitchen, as proof that that is what motivates us to do such things.
So it’s not a straw man, unlike ‘It’s wrong to eat your BABIES!!!’
It’s not a strawman to say that some Egoists do cite the pleasure we get from, say, working in a soup kitchen, as proof that that is what motivates us to do such things.
But that’s not what you said, now is it. You proposed that:
See, now this is as stupid as the claim that Egoists eat babies. And it is just as much a strawman as that would be.
I can understand how you would be ashamed that you posted this - it’s a damned stupid strawman. And I can understand that you’re not man enough to admit that, yes, you really did post this moronic strawman. And I can understand that you’re so intellectually dishonest that you would feel justified in trying to pretend you didn’t post something so incredibly stupid, leading you to try to shift the goalpost to a less stupid argument.
The thing I can’t believe is that you would be so unbelievably stupid as to think that you’re going to convince anybody that you didn’t say what you said. I mean, your prior post is still around. I keep quoting it at you. You can’t possibly convince anyone you didn’t make that retarded strawman.
Yet, you seem to believe you can. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, but MAN, is that some industrial-grade stupid there, to think you can convince us that reality isn’t what it is, right here, quoted for all to see. Man.
You are something else.
“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me”
-Author unknown
No u.
I recognize the extremely mature and adult* nature of your rebuttal and am utterly incapable of defending myself against its brilliance - therefore I must utterly concede.
- per this thread’s apparent definition of “adult” argument
Thanks begbert2.
As I mentioned earlier, I thought I’d royally botched this thread by not putting my point succinctly in my opening post. Fortunately, you’ve rescued it for me.
It’s clear to anyone that reads the quote you posted that I did not set up a straw man argument
(I’m defending my position using an analogy, explicitly not suggesting anyone would behave as in the analogy. Look up the terms “Reductio ad absurdum” and “straw man” if you have any interest in dispelling your ignorance.)
And, it’s clear to anyone that read your previous post that you’re being a dick, or a troll, or whatever. Certainly not someone who wants to engage in honest debate.
Like I said, it was either a strawman, or a nonsensical nonsequiter that had no relation to Egoists at all.
I should inform you that Reducto Ad Absurdum only works you can actually reduce the argument in question to something absurd - not if you have to make shit up and reduce that. But then, you’re not interested in fighting your ignorance, so there’s little point in trying.
Dude, I haven’t been debating you in days - I explicitly stopped a couple posts from the end of that last thread, when I told you to just shut up and read the prior posts rather than continuing to try to hammer explanations through your thick skull. At this point we are in the pit, a place you brought us so I could freely perforate your pathetically shitty arguments without worry or restraint. There is no debate here. You’ll note I haven’t even stated what my premise in the original thread was! All that’s going on here is you’re flagellating wildly in an effort to bullshit youself out of your prior bullshit arguments, and I’m kicking the legs out from under your crap repeatedly, mostly for giggles (since I’m of the considered opinion that neither of us can possibly defend an argument for maturity in this thread). This will probably continue until you realize that you’re not going to ever make yourself look better messing around in here, or until I find something shiny to distract my attention away.
This is what I mean about your ignorance. I can’t believe you’d try to “correct” my understanding of a term without even bothering to look it up and check whether your opinion matched reality. But once again this is the case.
Reductio ad Absurdum has basically two meanings. In formal logic, it is an argument showing that a proposition leads necessarily to a self-contradiction. Clearly none of our discussion has been in formal logic terms.
The other meaning, the common and legal meaning, is of an argument showing that a proposition leads to an absurd consequence.
Not that the proposition itself is absurd.
An absurd consequence does not make a proposition false. Many Reductio ad Absurdum arguments have been formulated against Quantum Mechanics for example, but every time QM is vindicated and we find that the universe is stranger than we thought. Thinking up absurd consequences of a proposition is good science, and good debating technique.
I think you might be wrong here.
In a non-rigorous setting it generally means that you are showing a proposition is incorrect or undesirable , by showing that if the proposition is correct or desirable that an absurd consequence will exist. (It may however be used in fallacy, if the debating parties do not agree that the consequence is absurd, or if the reduction from undesirable proposition to absurd consequence is untenable).
Furthermore, using analogies in debate is dangerous, since the analogies you construct must adequately represent all key points of the argument in question or risk being straw men.
Lastly, if such arguments against Quantum Mechanics exist (I cannot say either way), and QM vindicates itself. It makes those arguments invalid as Reduction Ad Absurdum since the consequences are not absurd, by any real meaning of the word, only that they are suprising, disappointing, unfortunate, mind-boggling but not absurd.
…says one of the two butthurt little kids squabbling over some kind of undefined “victory” in GD.
Bolding mine. This is the situation here. He floated the absurd idea that, er, somebody might decide that they like that they’re losing a war because they’d be happier if they liked what was happening. Now, this is obviously an absurd position, and any position that implied it would indeed also be absurd.
The thing is, though, he utterly failed to draw any connection between this and any Egoist’s actual position. Heck, he didn’t even try. And failing that, of course, it’s not a Reductio ad Absurdum argument; it’s (as I said) either a strawman, or a nonsensical nonsequiter.
Mijin argues that it’s not a strawman because he didn’t explicitly say that any Egoist actually believed this nonsense - and in a way he’s right; he only strongly implied that Egoists believe this. Had he made an argument showing that the absurd position followed from the Egoist position, he would have instead have been making a Reducto Ad Absurdum argument - but he didn’t make any such argument. So the only way to read his post as making sense was to assume it was supposed to be a statement about the beliefs of Egoists themselves, which would make it an Ad Hominem.
The error I made here was, of course, trying to interpret his post as if it made sense. In actual fact it was just a nonsensical nonsequiter after all.
I’m sure in his own mind it made perfect sense, though. Probably still does.
You seem to be under the impression that I care about this. I’m only* blowing holes in Mijin arguments** because it’s fun - not because I’m worried I might lose a debate** that is already over.
- Okay, that and I have this compulsion to correct blatant errors where I find them. But in this case, it’s mostly for fun; we’re now in the pit, where accuracy is largely irrelevent.
** to use the term very loosely