“Huffy”, eh? Everybody knows that Real Americans prefer Schwinn.
While I concur that objectivity is unattainable, aren’t we obligated in reasoned debate to come as close as we can to that ideal?
If we start from the position of an advocate we are much quicker to embrace concurring points though they be weak, and reject dissenting points though they be stronger.
It goes back to the criteria through which we evaluate information that Izzy and I discussed. If you place a higher standard on opposing points than you do on your own, it is unlikely you will recognize a “valid one.”
If what you say is true and we can reasonably expect valid points to be recognized, in order for this to happen one must not argue as an advocate but rather as Bricker described.
At the very least one must use the same standards for points raised, and not give preference to one view as advocacy does.
It seems to me that if one is to have any chance at all of fulfilling your above described reasonable expectations, one needs to do the exact opposite of advocacy and give unusual consideration to opposing views while maintaining skepticism towards one’s own arguments.
While true that it won’t create perfect objectivity, such a system seems to bring one much closer than an immovable stance before the fact, compensating to some degree (or at least recognizing) innate prejudices to a prior disposition.
Advocacy makes no such attempt but rather embraces the closed door approach.
Other approaches may not throw that door wide open, but at least their pushing on it, and occasionally there’s a crack wide enough for something to slip in.
But again, if you’re arguing from an advocate stance by what mechanism is there room for modification or change.
BTW: Xeno, it seems you’re debating me again. A surprise, yet a thoroughly welcome one. I must ask though what has changed from your previous stance that this is so, in order to know how to procede.
You mean, besides you being such a charming sumbitch? It’s just that I have a hard time leaving my position undefended and unexplicated. Whether I trust that you’re being earnest is most likely irrelevant.
Also, what else could possibly happen when a rhetorical scientist with a four year degree under his belt throws judo at a belted Kung Fu Master of rhetoric (nth degree)? 
[/quote]
On Advocacy:
I think we’re saying approximately the same thing just a little bit differently. So most likely we’re at a point where semantics (as erl asserts) must be clarified.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com
Main Entry: [sup]1[/sup]ad·vo·cate
1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
I think you’ve been using the term more in the sense of a lobbyist for an idea (close to definition 1), and I’ve been using it to describe someone who defends a position in an informed manner. I see nothing about informed advocacy in the second sense which closes any doors or requires immovability of the advocate.
In fact, shifting to a different metaphor, I think earnest advocacy of an idea is intended to shed light on that idea in order to aid in evaluation of it. Most of the time, quite a bit of heat is produced as well; that’s just something that must be managed (and frequently isn’t very well, as evidenced by both of us earlier in this thread). But the light must be as bright as we can make it, and that requires spirited advocacy. Ideally, opposing arguments, rather than obfuscating should shed light also, from different angles, revealing more aspects of the idea. If an idea is worthwhile it can stand the light of argument. But if opposition reveals flaws, then anyone holding the idea needs to deal with those flaws.
xenophon:
Yes, I’m using advocacy in the sense you suggest. As a lobbyist, a fanatic, or an attorney who is arguing for a point which he/she is immoveable upon before the fact.
You’ll note that does not contradict the 2nd definition, nor does your usage. I apologize if I wasn’t clear in defining it during my lengthy post on page 4.
For any of my previous postings, please consider it used in that fashion.
Going forward I’ll stick to the less ambiguous terms:
Closed viewpoint - meaning advocate as I have previously used it, signalling a viewpoint that is not open to significant change. A lawyer arguing a case, a fanatic, or a lobbyist argue from a closed viewpoint.
Open viewpoint - Meaning a viewpoint that is open to significant change. A scientific hypothesis is a good example of an open viewpoint.
With that out of the way, let’s move on to opinions. In either instance we may have an informed opinion, the value of which, differs drastically depending on the viewpoint attached.
Consider a fanatic arguing “creation science.” Such a person, though arguing a closed viewpoint may indeed be very well informed. They may keep current on the science and issues, but only to the purpose of furthering their viewpoint, and weakening any opposing ones. The opinion will be derived as a result of presenting the data to arrive at a predestined viewpoint. As such, when considering the value of an opinion from this part on this subject, it is probably best to assign it little or no merit due to its “loaded” quality. We are reasonably recquired to consider it suspect even before we can evaluate its substance.
Consider a professional investor arguing the merits of one of his stock holdings. He too may be informed, and he may even be partial to one degree or another to that stock. However, it is in his best interests to maintain as open a viewpoint as he is able, as his decisions will make or cost him money. We are more or less free to analyze and consider this opinion based solely on its merits or lack thereof.
Now you have previously stated that within the context of this message board we can reasonably expect:
Yet, the opinions and arguments of a closed viewpoint are not open to that process.
Since they are not capable of fulfulling these prior reasonable expectations of a message board devoted to “fighting ignorance” they have no value and do not belong in reasoned debate here. Note that I say “reasoned debate.”
They may have other values, such as humor, or as a foil to hone one’s skills, but not within actual reasoned debate.
An excellent example of this comes to mind. Have you ever been in a debate where somebody was arguing on your side, which you felt was objectively provable, yet they were doing so from such a blatantly closed and prejudiced viewpoint that their efforts actually hurt your argument?
I feel much this way about Rosie O’donnell’s recent endorsement of Bush.
So, while opinions in general have value and uses within debates and specifically this message board, the opinions of closed viewpoints do not.
Let me know if you agree so far.
And this is horse should be shortly dead:
I’ll confess I find this stance troubling. Based on the conviction, force, and finality of your previous stance I’m surprised to see it overturned so quickly merely as a matter of convenience. I would have thought a substantive reconsideration would have been necessary.
Pursuit along those lines seems unconstructive, so I’ll choose to interpret your words and actions along the most mutually favorable lines and consider it a closed issue unless you suggest otherwise.
I think they have the illustrative value of representing a closed viewpoint of which opponents or readers may gain understanding. But I agree fully that a proposition delivered from such a viewpoint cannot be effectively debated by opponents; it is witnessing. But of course, that’s allowable also in this forum (quite rightly, I believe for its value in presenting a particular worldview).
I’d much rather see an honest polemic presented straight on than have to deal with sophistry. In the former case, legitimate objections can be presented whether the OP wants to deal with them or not, and a genuine debate can ensue on the borders of the soapbox, regardless of the inflexibility of the OP.
Simply because it was done rather quickly does not mean the decision to reengage you in debate was made lightly or without considerable internal argument. After many years as a decision maker in a rather dynamic work environment, it’s my habit to turn decisions with due speed and proceed thereafter on the balls of my feet (so to speak).
It was, however, not convenience which dictated my rapprochement. Despite having some real fears about further rhetorical blind alleys, I have to bow to a personal philosophy of fair conflict resolution and a seemingly congenital inability to give up on people. In short, my initial reaction to what I perceived as dishonesty on your part (and which I see a bit differently now, although still find disturbing) was abrupt and impossible for me to maintain. After some time to more dispassionately consider my petulant decision to “cold shoulder” my way out of the room, I decided to behave more in keeping with my normal practice.
And if all that seems priggish, stilted and self-involved, so be it. I’m eager to let this particular equine rest in peace. If you want a less public and more detailed discussion, my email address is listed. (I’m actually cordial via email. Go figure.)
Xeno:
Agreed, in theory. In practice there’s a few caveats. Witnessing generally refers to religious beliefs, and is generally easily identifiable as witnessing. You know going into the thread that you’re dealing with a closed viewpoint, and as you say, interesting tangential debates can occur.
I would agree (if I read your implication correctly, that witnessing is not debate.)
On the other hand, you can get 3 pages or more into a debate with, say, a political OP before you realize that you are dealing with an intractable closed viewpoint that merely wishes to attract attention to it’s viewpoint.
Consider the following hypothesis and let me know if you agree.
Nonreligious witnessing is not sincere debate. Because it is commonly mistaken as a wish for earnest debate an honest OP who wishes to present a closed viewpoint can be reasonably expected to identify it as such at the outset as a courtesty.
Re: the dead horse.
Yeah, it’s dead.
I thought we’d already agreed that witnessing of any stripe is not sincere debate, but that productive debate can be prompted between third parties by such an OP. I think we’ve also both made the point that an intractable position shouldn’t be presented as an earnest debate, but rather as a statement of one’s core beliefs; if not, then consider this my concurrence. (I may have neglected to condemn this type of dishonesty while expressing my distaste for disingenuousness and specious deception.)
I’m not sure what relevance our seeming agreement regarding honest representation has on either the OP (“opinions are appropriate for GD” - remember?) or on my assertion that opinionated != close-minded.
Allright, we agree so far. I wanted to establish that much pretty firmly.
Now it gets tough.
If a closed viewpoint is insincere as we both agree, can it reasonably expect to be debated sincerely?
OK, since you indicated that we’re in store for some difficulty here, I want to be careful how I interpret your question. I’m a bit confused by the arbitrary characterization of closed viewpoints as being “insincere.” Do you mean to say that any offer to debate a closed viewpoint is insincere?
I think you’re asking whether a viewpoint which is proposed by someone whose position will not be swayed by opposition can be sincerely debated with that person. If so, then my answer is that debate requires only the presentation of opposing arguments and so can take place regardless of the tractability of either opponent. Of course, the debate then can only sharpen or embrittle the arguments of such a person, rather than reshape that person’s position (which is typically the premise offered at the outset of a debate: “convince me I’m wrong”), so in that sense, the debate is certainly not a sincere effort at understanding. It is, however, by definition a sincere attempt by the person to represent a position and is therefore valid advocacy even if it’s disguised as intellectual curiosity. In addition, the presentation and opposition of such a position can certainly shape the opinions of interested third parties.
I don’t mean to imply my approval for this type of debating (not that my approval means anything), nor do I mean to suggest that blind support of a cause is as effective as open acceptance of valid criticisms. But within the narrow constraints of your question I’d have to say that a sincere skeptical approach is only necessary from one party in order for a debate to be productive, regardless of the sincerity of the other party. Hardly ideal conditions, but we see such debates frequently in this forum, and the honest skeptic, as well as any attentive nonparticipant, can walk away with a greater understanding of the topic than they had at the beginning. (See DDG’s RV thread for a great example.)
Allow me to restate:
What reasonable expectations are there for one who is arguing against an insincere or closed viewpoint.
For example, I once participated in a hunting thread. The premise was that all hunters hunt because they like to kill things.
Now the Op admitted never having hunted, nor knowing anything about hunting.
I, on the other hand am an avid hunter and have been so since I was a child.
For about 4 pages I went on and on with the OP and I explained that “killing” was not the be all end all of the hunting experience, that it had lots of other things going for it, in that IMO, the actual kill is probably the least important part of it.
The response I get was “hunters like to kill, if they didn’t they could choose another sport.”
And on and on.
After 4 pages or so, it became readily apparent that the viewpoint I was debating with was closed. The ignorance on this subject was willful and deliberate.
Later I regretted having wasted so much time.
I resolved that a closed viewpoint didn’t really deserve straightforward debate and consideration as it did not return it in like coin.
The Op of this thread basically states “Opinions are ok in debate. Let’s not beat each other up for posting them.”
I disagree with such blanket statement.
Not all opinions are created equal.
If one posts an unfounded, uninformed opinion from a closed viewpoint, they deserve to get beaten up for it.
Whether or not they provide a cite is moot, as not all cites are created equal either. Simply find a concurring opinion on the vastness of the World Wide Web, isn’t exactly an impressive achievement in my eyes.
I consider the Ops call for total endorsement of all standards as long as they’re cited as an actual lowering of standards.
I generally feel free to attack on several different levels an opinionated, uninformed and closed viewpoint that I take issue with, and I generally don’t feel compelled to offer such viewpoints and those making them the same courtesy and consideration I do more honest debaters.
Similararly, the arguments from a closed viewpoint, especially if they are strongly opinionated and uninformed, don’t garner the same respect as arguments from an open viewpoint,in my eyes. I’m not obligated to waste my time in long, drawn out, and reasonable rebuttals. I can refute them on their face as representations of prejudicial views and ignorance, or ridicule them.
Occasionally within a debate reasonable views do come out from unreasanable viewpoints. Usually I try to treat these differently and show them some courtesy.
So, I disagree witht the OP as a blanket statement. Some opinions and the people making them deserve to get beaten up, and really aren’t valuable.
Remember JDT? Were we obligated to waste our time being reasonable with him?
I don’t thinks so. I think he deservedly got beaten up for his asinine views and closed viewpoints.
Are we still in agreement?
Well, let me respond in pieces, following the structure of your post, except that I’m going to save the main point of contention I see between us for the last.
I remember reading the thread. I also remember thinking that the OP was phrased in such absolute terms that the author seemed to brook no argument against the thesis presented. It was readily apparent from the first exchange, IMO, that the viewpoint was closed. However, the discussion offered by the legitimate hunters and the less pertinacious hunting opponents made the thread informative regarding hunting, its economic and ecological benefits, and the emotional responses it engenders. The OP, of course, remained unconvinced, but enough reasonable argument was offered that an undecided reader could have a sufficient basis on which to construct an informed opinion.
So then, was your entire purpose to obtain movement on the part of the OP? IOW, is the purpose of straightforward debate invariably and inalterably the concession of one opponent or the other? (This of course is a rhetorical question, to which I’ll provide my own answer at the end of this post.)
I find no disagreement between your last sentence and the OP:
I’m not sure where you perceived a call for total endorsement of all standards. I don’t think that was the point of the OP. I think you’re inferring that because the cite provided in the sample given by the OP was a particularly weak citation (even though the “fact” given as example is pretty easy to substantiate). But I see nowhere in the original post or in subsequent posts by the OP in this thread where she asks for uncritical acceptance of all citations.
As IzzyR said on the first page, “[t]he point of the OP, as I understand it, is that most debates (and practically all meaningful ones) will turn on an interpretation of facts, or a conclusion drawn from facts.” Citations are as often used to buttress such interpretations or conclusions as they are to establish facts. As such, they are subject to the same standards of review as any other arguments. And of course one may use such a citation to establish a fact without endorsing the conclusions drawn by the cited source.
Again, I don’t see where this disagrees with the OP.
Here, at last, is the crux of our disagreement. While direct ridicule of outrageously illogical conclusions, or flat condemnation of bigotry and blind ideology are supportable actions, I submit that the only remaining ethical option is to attack the bigoted/unsupported/outrageous position with the same degree of rigor and fairness one would attack an honestly proferred position with which one disagreed. It is not as a courtesy to your opponent that you must do so, but as a courtesy to your own position and to the potential unconvinced lurker who may be following your argument. (And I think this would hold true in principle for any hypothetical unpublished “debate in a box”, although then it may indeed be moot.)
We also have the matter of effectiveness: If representation of a closed viewpoint does not merit straightforward debate, then what does? In the remote viewing thread I offered as an example, it is quite easy to contrast the value of the arguments pro and con. Were DDG et al to employ the same tactics as their opposition, then the debate could quite validly be viewed by an onlooker as a matter of differing preferences, leading to the conclusion that “I would/wouldn’t like remote viewing to be a real skill so I will/won’t believe that these people have acquired it.” Because DDG and others have maintained a strictly fair approach, it is no contest where the evidence leads a dispassionate reader.
Does any of that make sense to you, or am I being unpersuasive? I think it is both sensible and respectful of self to maintain the same standards of argument regardless of the reasonableness of the opposing position.
xeno:
I see we need to rehash mangles as fact again.
I would contend that what makes a fact factual it is that is unambiguous, defined, objective, and true from all implied or stated perspectives.
“The earth has gravitational force” is a fact.
“The earth sucks” is not.
The latter is a non objective statement, and not true from all perspectives.
Let’s look at two more statements:
-
“Bush has frequently made speaking errors.”
-
“Bush mangles the English language.”
While these statements are similar, there are several problems with #2.
- It is not literally true as stated. If we consider mangles to mean “ruins through incompetance,” than the statement does not stand. The English language has not been ruined or isn’t ruined as a result of Bush’s errors.
To fix this error one would need to say “Bush mangles his English.” or “Bush mangles his speech.”
-
It is not objective. If we take the statement as it was most likely meant as “Bush mangles his speeches,” we are still called upon to make a value judgement. Are his speeches ruined by his errors, or might they actually be enhanced? Bush tends to smile after making an error which might signal to some that he’s willing to poke fun at himself and recognize the humor of an error. This might lead some to consider that he is witty and self-assured and able to recognize a mistake which could be construed as a positive and actually make his speeches more effective.
-
It is not defined. Exactly what constitutes a mangling is strictly up for interpretation by the reader.
-
It is not true from all implied perspectives. “Bush mangles the english language” is only true if we interpret it outside of it’s literal meaning, and only then if we make a concurring value judgement with the speaker.
It is only true if we consider Bush’s speaking errors to be an ongoing thing. One can make the argument that the statement is untrue even if one believes that Bush has mangled the english language frequently in the past.
If one considers the incidences of errors in his recent speeches to have significantly diminished (as I do, he’s been getting better,) then the statement no longer holds true. We would say “Bush has mangled the English language. He no longer does so.”
In which case, “mangles” is no longer an accurate descriptor.
- If it was a freaking fact we wouldn’t be debating it for 5 pages!
What it is is an opinion and a value judgement derived from fact. The fact associated with the opinion and value judgement is implied within the statement, but does not constitute it’s whole meaning.
If it’s whole meaning cannot said to be objectively true, than it’s not a fact.
::sigh::
Xeno:
No, that is persuasive, and I largely agree with it. However, I don’t think it’s the only remaining ethical option.
Debate can take on several forms, and I think if you have two people who are debating to refine positions (as we seem to be currently doing,) that is the way to go about it. Additionally, I think if if you are debating a position that is also the way to go about it.
But one can do other things.
Consider the statement “Science tells us that God created the earth.”
Now assume that this is backed up by a bunch of intelligent design hooey, the missing link, the lack of observable macroevolution garbage, and a bunch of cites as well.
If one wishes to debate this, they can do so in two ways.
- Show why an alternate stance (i.e. evolution) is better.
If one wishes tot ake this route, than I agree with you when you say:
You’re not so much dispelling a viewpoint as you are showing a better one.
Or, you may simply refute the evidence as presented and show why it is fallacious without revealing your own position.
YOu can even do a combination of refutation/superior viewpoint if you wish.
However, it is not necessary to actually have an alternate position in order to refute one.
For example one can debate the above statement succesfully even if one does in fact believe that God created the earth.
One can refute it without having a position on how the earth was created.
If I don’t have a position other than the OP is false, how can I do it a courtesy?
If one can simply show that a viewpoint is closed, prejudiced, or inherently fallacious than isn’t the ultimate courtesy to myself and lurkers to do so quickly, and resoundingly and mercilessly?
Consider this whole “mangles” thing. I agree with it in substance. Bush has tended to make a lot of speaking errors. I think he’s even mangled some speeches as the errors have become more memorable than their substance.
I am of a concurring opinion that this has largely been so, and that mangles is a reasonable description.
However, for the reasons as stated above, I don’t think we can reasonably consider it a fact, and I take issue with it being portrayed as such, particularly as a concrete example of what constitutes a fact.
While arguing this, my personal feelings towards’ Bush’s capacity for public speech are moot.
I need not have any other postion other than that proposition as stated does not constitute a fact.
In this case, I have no position to defend or “respect” as you say, and I feel quite strongly that an unpartisan observer reading this thread, a lurker, will quickly conclude that it’s not a fact at all, rather an opinion.
But, there are other ways to argue rather than relying on fact, or logical support.
Some lurkers aren’t going to delve to deeply into the fact/unfact dilemma and simply take their cue from the debaters themselves.
They may consider that because the argument is still ongoing, the resolution is unclear. They may consider that becasue valid points haven’t been recognized, that they are moot.
In fact, one can argue a fallacious viewpoint, be demonstrated logically wrong, and factually innacurate, and still win the debate.
You do this by simple denial, by obfuscation, by confusion, and by ignoring or belittling valid opposing points. In other words, you argue not to fight ignorance, or show a viewpoint, but simply to win the debate.
It is my belief that most people who argue a closed viewpoint, habitually engage in this behavior. It is their stock and trade.
I don’t think it direpects either lurkers or my own viewpoints simply to take out the garbage.
Regarding Facts
Ok, Scylla, let’s separate the discussion of facts into two separate discussions, because what we have here is one objection hiding within a smaller one.
Part 1: the real objection
We’ve spent a large portion of these 5 pages arguing over the veracity of Stoid’s throwaway reference to Bush’s speaking inanities. Our President’s habits of speech, and the amusement so many members of the press and the viewing public have been afforded by those habits of speech as displayed whenever he speaks extemporaneously, are not really disputable. I find it utterly risible that you and others have expended so much time and obvious effort arguing about the factuality of the basic claim, a claim by the way which I’m getting tired of reminding everyone was offered by Stoid as an example of a typical Stoid-like debate starter. It could, as elucidator pointed out, have been about Leo Durocher instead. I’m convinced that had a newbie offered up, in a different thread, the question “I wonder what it means that Bush fucks up his speech so often?” we would’ve seen defenses of Bush’s intelligence but very little denial that Bush fucks up the spoken word.
Fuck the implied value judgements of various definitions of the word “mangles”, Scylla. If you want to argue that Bush talks like an idiot for folksy effect, go ahead, but don’t weasel out of the OP’s own damned explanation of what she meant.
Now let’s address your claim that a pattern of behavior doesn’t indicate an “ongoing thing” in a person.
Yes, I’ve noticed that one can make the argument. One can refute the argument as well, which I’ve done fairly thoroughly at least once in this thread already. Let’s make a similar argument questioning the truth of this assertion: Osama bin Laden kills people. According to you, this is a bald faced lie. I think it’s an essentially factual statement.
Part 2: the ostensible disagreement
If we apply such a standard, Scylla then we cannot consider any subjective statement to be factual; the sky is not blue, gold is not heavy and Red Delicious apples are neither red nor delicious.
No thanks.
[/quote]
Regarding Ethics and Debate
Gads! A revelation! Why this “Rhetoric” invention of yours is marvelously facile!
Seriously, Scylla, if that was the sort of thing you’ve been advocating, we wouldn’t be having this disagreement. It was my understanding that you’ve been advocating non-straightforward debate tactics. Now, I think by any definition of “straightforward”, the tactics you’ve outlined above would be included. When you said you owed no courtesy to a closed-viewpoint opponent, I assumed you meant that you would employ such tactics as misrepresenting and changing your position for convenience, laying rhetorical traps to gain an advantage, playing semantic games, etc. You know, those little judo tricks that are such fair play when the opponent has a closed viewpoint.
Is equivocation fair play, Scylla?
I suspect you know more than one definition of fact. Unfortunately, most of them do not support the only position you haven’t revised during this debate.
How’s that for rhetorical science?
Pissy and sarcastic I’d say. Maybe it’ll bring back the knee-jerk crowd that seemed to desert once an actual discussion started.
I’ll ignore it for now.
I don’t dispense these things liberally, but Scylla, you’ve earned it. Here ya go:
:rolleyes:
OOoooo, rolleyes. How impressive.
I’m sorry; you want substance? Read xeno’s post again. You gave it obscenely short shrift the first time around.
Gad:
I’m working on it as we speak. It’s the sarcasm I’m ignoring for now.
Stictly speaking that is not factual. They don’t occur “whenever” he speaks extemporaneously. They occur occasionally. Seeing as we’ve spent this much time on this subject, I’d expect accuracy.
Well, if you would just be reasonable and concede you’re grossly in error and stop trying to cover up that error this would be long done with, wouldn’t it?
(a little return sarcasm.)
Well quite frankly I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about Stoid’s definition. I don’t have a fucking Stoidian dictionary, and I don’t plan on buying one.
I’m assuming she’s speaking English.
I think it’s laughably disingenuous to try to pawn off your own special personal definition after the fact, to avoid an embarassing error. In fact, this is not the first time this particular dodge has showed up, so forgive me if I don’t take it at face value.
Regardless, Stoid’s personal definitions don’t have anything to do with the standalone factuality of her statement. We don’t live in Stoid’s world. Had she qualified the statement before the fact I might think differently, but just tossing out a loaded term with specific connotations and meanings and pretending they don’t exist afterwards, is revisionism.
You’ll note that I didn’t go back and pretend that I meant Aristotle considered rhetoric a science not in the Greek sense, but in the modern sense.
Since it’s your example, let’s take a look. “kills” is pretty unambiguous. It’s a specific term (We’ll just assume you have personal indisputable knowledge of Osama murdering habitually for purposes of this argument.)
It’s still not a fact. It’s an inductive supposition. In the absense of info to the contrary we can reasonably assume that this behavior is ongoing and will continue. We can’t guarrantee it, though, nor can we prove it true.
It’s a reasonably safe bet, but it ain’t a fact.
Foul, false, untrue, reactionary, gratuitous, and flaky!!
I never said nor implied any such thing, and I challenge you to produce evidence to the contrary or withdraw your statement as oveblown hyperbole immediately.
I realize that. But, you’re wrong. Rather than simply assert it, you need to show why.
A ridiculous assertion. Blue is not subjective. It is radiant energy between 420-490 nanometers, and lies in the visible spectrum between green and indigo.
Blue is a fact, Jack and not subjective at all.
Gold being heavy is not strictly factual as it’s a term with implied relativity. Without that relativity defined, it’s somewhoat ambiguous and subjective, but generally a fairly safe statement, as Gold has a higher specific gravity than a majority of the elements.
Red is of course between 630 and 750 nanometers and quite factual. Delicious is of course highly subjective and implies a taster, usually oneself. So, when you bite into an apple and find it highly pleasing, you can rest assured that you are being absolutely factual when you say "Gee Scylla, this apple really truly factually is both red and delicious
Oh, sarcasm.
I dunno, maybe. Devil’s advocate isn’t straightforward, is it? I’ll also ask loaded questions. That’s not straightforward. Sometimes I’ll make a big deal about something that isn’t, for one purpose or another. You know, misdirection.
I usually don’t do these things if somebody’s playing straight with me, though. And, if I get too subtle sometimes things I put a lot of effort in go completely unnoticed, like the whole Oedipus thing, or the fact that Ewe’s Sluts is actually The Oddyssey. Also if I try to get tricky it usually backfires (I trust I don’t need to provide evidence.)
I’ll take those one at a time.
Misrepresenting or changing position for convenience. Hmmm. Purposefully misrepresenting your opinion for advantage is pretty childish. I would however change my position for convenience if I was simply arguing against something and there were a variety of ways to handle it. I might decide another route might be more advantageous. If I’m arguing for something, I change my opinion when it actually changes, and I usually give the other person the courtesy and satisfaction of letting them know that their arguments did so. They have, after all, deserved it.
Rhetorical traps. I dunno, depends on what you mean. Sophistry isn’t much of a victory, simply a trick. You’d have to give me an example of what you mean by a rhetorical trap, before I could tell you if and under what circumstances I would use it. Semantics and Judo are ok, if
it’s clever, and not too serious, or you’re using it as turnabout, However using semantics to elude error is dishonest honest. A good example of this would be pretending “mangles” has a special definition when you use it.
No.
Before I get really insulted, why don’t you look up equivocate and tell me if that’s what you really meant.
If “equivocate” is in fact what you mean, then you had better go back and read the whole thread over, as I’ve expressed similar sentiments more than once before, and have overtly greeted with the proposition that Bush fucks up speeches at least six times, and I have no idea how you consider that equivocation.
Now your really starting to piss me off. I spent a good portion of this post clarifying and correcting your vagaries and innacuracies, and I’m not going to bother wasting my time on that one.
It is false. I am beginning to see why you think “mangles” is a fact. You are not prone to accurate or succinct communication.
And as far as the dictionary definition goes, mangles in only a fact in the sense of “beleived to be true. i.e a mistaken fact.” which I don’t think was how it was meant.
Very piss poor upon reanalysis. Smart ass and sarcasm don’t work very well unless your ruthlessly accurate, and you were rather sloppy in that last post.
Personally, I prefer the polite and reasoned dialogue, but I’m in the habit of taking my cues from my opponent, and I didn’t do a very good job of ignoring your sarcasm.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:36 PM]