You should by all means subject them to rigorous examination on their merits. That’s pretty much the testing method I use, and I recommend it for its efficacy in rooting out specious commentary. —My motivations, however, you can only guess at, using whatever direct knowledge you have of my circumstances, whatever observations you’ve made of my posting m.o., or (depending on your trusting nature) taking into account what I assert my motivations to be.
If I say (as I have) that I find your line of argument unconvincing and singleminded, and that my observations regarding your perspicacity lead me to believe you find them unconvincing as well and therefore I believe you to be arguing insincerely, well maybe I speak the truth.
If you say (as you have) that you find closed viewpoints unworthy of straightforward debate, and that you don’t mind taking out the garbage as quickly as possible, therefore insincere positions are just fine, well perhaps you speak the truth.
I was using some of the exact same dishonest and hypocritical rhetorical devices that I was facing, and in some cases I was reflecting them immediately back as soon as they were used.
So, what we had was an occasional exchange that went something like this:
Poster A: (addressing) Blah blah blah, (falacious reasonin #1,) blah blah.
Me: No. That scenario is faulty because…
Poster A: No it’s not because…
Me: Consider this scenario that supports my viewpoint (including facscimile of fallacious reasoning scenario #1)
Poster A: No. That’s fallacious and dishonest to boot.
Me: Yes.
Poster A: There you admitted it, you’re bad.
Me: If you say so.
I did this several times. In several instances. I did it with you, elucidator, and Gadarene.
In each case (excepting two,) you (the generic “you”) upheld the usage, or device when you used it, but condemned it when I used it.
In other words, I attacked “you” with the exact same weapon that was used against me, and admitted it as an unworthy device.
This admission was in each instance met with a condemnation rather than a realization or acknowledgement that “you” had also done the same thing.
Now, I also did things on my own that had nothing to do with anything anybody else did and in some cases I overdid it when I did my return jibe. I was hoping to make some of the hypocrisy and faulty reasoning I was seeing blatantly obvious by emulation.
Scylla, I think it’s clear that one views one’s own actions through the lens of one’s sensibilities. Certainly, I find I’m unable to judge my arguments completely objectively. In my purely subjective view, the arguments I raise are supportable on logical bases, and where I’ve been solidly refuted (and this occurs with some regularity) I believe that I’ve acknowledged it. I’m sure you feel you’ve done the same.
I’m also quite sure that the devices you think you were returning in kind I perceived in a different way. Many of your posts that I found objectionable did not compare, in my subjective judgement, to the posts to which you were replying. I could very well be wrong. The thing that has colored my perception of your arguments for the past week has been your unabashed statement that your posts are sometimes deliberately mendacious for effect.
Really, I’m taking you at your word that you believe you merely return mendacity in kind, but IMO you perceive alot of dishonesty that isn’t very apparent to the rest of the world. I know you trust your own judgement, but it would certainly be more agreeable to those who fall prey to your occasional mistakes if you were to return disingenuity with ruthless honesty.
Turnabout may indeed be fair play for the most part, but for the IPU’s sake, Scylla, if you’re constantly turning around the same dirty tricks as people you think are jerks, how can we tell the difference? You know… Lie down with pigs, and all that. Right?
It didn’t work very well. I don’t even think it was as observable as I would have liked. The pit thread was to see if anybody else saw it, and the closest I came to that was the response that I seemed to be making rhetorical points at my own expense.
I was being pretty upfront, too, saying that I was taking my cues from the opposition on more than occasion.
Partly why it didn’t work was poor execution, and the other part was that I had muddied the waters with other things I had done by myself. Being outnumbered 3 to 1 didn’t make things any easier as you guys had a support network, and I didn’t. I was getting real tired of all the bullshit accusations and mudslinging. I figure if ever there was a place to try something like this, it’s in a debate about debating, and while it didn’t work as well as piracy, it was certainly educational.
But, I think it will work if executed properly. I think one needs to be ruthlessly honest in the debate (as you say,) with the simple exception of mirroring back one or two choice fallacies or devices being used habitually by the opposition.)
This will only work, I think, if it’s made abundantly clear that’s what you think you’re doing. I would also caution that you be really sure you’re mirroring an actual fallacy, insult, evasion, etc., and not an honest mistake.
If you earnestly correct a fallacy and the other party admits it, you look good. If you earnestly correct a fallacy and the other party denies it, you still look good.
If you mirror a fallacy and the other party sees their error, you look good. If you mirror a fallacy and the other party points the fallacy out to you, you then have to show how their post was fallacious in order to just come out even. If you mirror a fallacy with a different or worse fallacy, or if you turned out to be mistaken about the original fallacy, you look silly.
Just a suggestion. Now I propose we really do shake hands and back slowly away from each other…