Of course. I have never said otherwise, and was quite careful to state that I didn’t think there was any collusion or dishonesty on your part.
An extrapolation isn’t a fact. Past performance is no guarrantee of future behavior. Just because it’s happened before doesn’t mean it will happen again. And if you state it is or will, that’s not a fact. It’s an opinion based on extrapolation.
Duuuuuuuuudearhombus. If you’re making assumptions, you’re not stating facts.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:15 PM]
Right. Please note that no assumptions were made in the assertions. Are you saying that we cannot ever establish that Person A behaves (present tense) in a certain way based on documented exhibition by Person A of that behavior? That we can only establish the behavior as a “fact” while the person is exhibiting the behavior, and that immediately upon cessation of the latest incident it’s no longer a “fact”?
[Inigo]You keep using that word…[/Inigo]
Maybe we should just agree to disagree. I don’t think either of us is in imminent danger of changing our mind.
I will not accept that. Mangle, in this context, is a heavily loaded word. It certainly means far more than simply “makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax”. There is a value judgmement inherent in the word. Otherwise, why not just posit that “George W. Bush often makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax during his speeches”? “Mangling the English language” is a value judgement on just how severe and meaningfull Bush’s errors actually are.
What if I posited the following loaded opinion “George W. Bush sometimes slips up during his speeches”? What could you say back to refute that? That, no – Bush clearly and objectively “mangles the English language” and is not merely “slipping up”?
The verifiable fact that a book length collection of Bush’s malapropisms exists is meaningless in and of itself. Why? Because a sufficiently motivated individual could produce just such a book on ANY public figure. As all public figures are human (for the sake of argument), all are prone to making mistakes when speaking publicly. Therefore, a collection of flubs could be published for any public figure.
What’s common knowledge is that Bush has a REPUTATION for “verbal ineptitude”. But whether or not Bush’s public-speaking errors constitute prima facie “verbal ineptitude” IS a matter of unverifiable opinion (absent the findings of a speech therapist, a pathologist, or the like). Your “ineptitude” may be my “folksy talking” or “honest, harmless errors”. Common knowledge is not a standard of objective truth.
There’s something I’d like to see in Great Debates - and from the participants thereof… strong intellectual honesty. This goes beyond the “science” of rhetors that Scylla mentioned earlier. I’ve quoted Feynman in this context before, and I’ll do so again:
Some posters are more inclined than others towards this goal of integrity, and other posters, frankly, are seemingly so convinced of the overarching rightness of their position that they evidently feel it’s OK to shade the truth in defense of their higher goals.
It would be worthwhile, I think, that when called on an error, to admit it… not to dodge or ignore the issue. And when presenting a cite, acknowledge its weaknesses yourself. That kind of conduct would befit a board whose mission is the fight against ignorance.
That also means, of course, that we eschew meaningless attacks like “Coward-in-Chief,” referring to Clinton, or “Shrub” when referring to George Bush. They add nothing of substantive value, and distract from whatever the real point is.
Stoid’s OP is not, obviously, something with which I agree. While it’s true that, at some point, a rhetor must ask his audience to draw inferences from the data presented in order to reach a conclusion, the data should be, ideally, such that the inferences drawn are obviously reasonable.
It’s true also that there are many things debated here which defy rigor. That’s the nature of the beast - but it ought to sway us from preserving rigor when we can, and accepting its lack only when we must.
Scylla, are you saying past patterns of personal human behavior are as valueless for prediction of future personal human behavior as stock charts are for prediction of future stock prices? Because I thought you were a cannier student of human behavior than that (as evidenced by more than a few MPSIMS and BBQ Pit OP’s).
Because that’s what “mangles” means in this context. Of course it’s a loaded term! So what? Stoid wished to make the assertion using persuasive language. The term, however loaded, is strictly accurate. Scylla’s use of the term “dupe” to describe me is strictly accurate. You can object, as I did, to the connotations of the term, and to the implied slur, but not legitimately to it’s factuality. —Notice that when I objected to Scylla he quietly presented the meaning of the word to defend its accuracy, but denied any intended slur and offered to use a less loaded word. I doubt Stoid will back away from the insult to Bush, but she certainly has no call to retract her use of the word on the grounds that it’s somehow inaccurate.
Ding ding ding ding! And the assertion that those public figures make speaking mistakes with some regularity would be factual, would it not? What the speaking flubs mean for each public figure is quite debatable, but the fact that they have made those flubs is not.
It would be more meaningful - and more honest - to compare the frequency and seriousness of Bush’s errors to those of the average politician, or average President, than merely asserting that he mangles the language.
As in the Wesson oil example, it’s true, technically, to say it doesn’t soak through food. But that’s true of all oils. Wesson doesn’t tell you that.
I totally agree with you. But the contention is not that Stoid’s assertion is not meaningful. The contention of Scylla (and others) is that her contention is not factual.
Since Stoid offered up her assertion re: Bush & public speaking as an example of a fact which can spark debate, it is not even necessary to defend the statement’s relevance. Frankly, I’m quite sure I would strongly disagree with her opinions regarding that relevance. But the assertion that Bush has noticeable problems with public speaking is valid.
The fact that you used a quote from me to introduce your essay suggests that you were disagreeing with something I said. I don’t see anything in your posts that I disagree with (or have contradicted), nor do I see how you have contradicted the OP (other than the Bush example).
But if it’s a persuasive term–if it has some kind of connotation–then something is most definitely being implied by its use. Isn’t that how connotation works, with certain words carrying certain implications?
I agree the word “mangle” means what it means, though, and I don’t doubt Stoid knows what she meant. The assertion that it is a absolutely neutral way of describing the situation is false, however.
Or rather, I disagree with it.
But it’s all so much nit-picking, anyway. As somebody who once wrote, “everybody in Washington gets attacked by the press” and who was then immediately challenged to produce absolutely reliable statistical evidence that everybody in Washington gets attacked by the press, I’d go along with the spirit of Bricker’s post.
In the quote I pulled from Stoid above, she implicitly states that “mangled” is not a loaded word. I think she is wrong about that.
And actually, no, xenophon, Stoid’s definition is NOT what “mangled” means in this context – viz. applying the verb to oral use of the English language by a public figure). Stoid’s use of “mangled” means TO ME something more like “very seriously erred, and thus displayed indisputable stupidity and incompetence”.
I disagree. It can be easily be argued that “mangled” is not factually accurate. Suppose I posit that Bush “slips up” in his speeches, but he does not so severely enough to qualify as “mangling the English language”. As far as that counter-argument goes, “slipping up” would be factually accurate, “mangling” would not be.
Whether “mangled” is factually accurate is therefore a matter of opinion. What is the objective criteria for establishing a “mangling”, as opposed to a “flub” or “slip-up”? Without such criteria, no fact can be established.
Not “those” public figures … ALL public figures.
The fact that anyone has made those flubs (i.e. Bush) was never in doubt (is that where you thought I was going?) – the relevancy and meaning of the existance of a book of Bush flubs is what’s in doubt.
Stoid pointed out the existance of the book as though the mere existance of the book proved out something objective about George W. Bush. What does the existance of that book truly establish about George W. Bush beyond the fact that he misspeaks on occasion? I say “nothing at all”. YMMV.
bordelond, please see my post to Brickerhere. Please don’t confuse the implications, relevance or severity of Bush’s speaking disability with the factuality of its existence.
But to me, that’s not what Stoid asserted – she went further. She asserted that he “mangled the English language,” which I consider a more serious and separate charge. Do Bush’s “noticeable problems with public speaking” constitute “mangling the English language”? That’s a matter of opinion.
Muhammad Ali has a Parkinson’s-induced “speaking disability.” Bush’s errors do not constitute a disability (again, absent the findings of a learned authority on speech and/or cognition). An inability to orate perfectly is not a disability. It is a trait all people share at varying levels.
Bush makes speaking errors – I will grant that. Please quote me where I wrote that Bush does not make errors while speaking publicly.
I agree that the severity of Bush’s gaffes is a matter of opinion. The relevance of those gaffes to his performance as Chief Executive of the nation is also a matter of opinion. Were we to actually debate the meaning and relevance of the topic, I would contend that merely because Bush seems to be “hard of speaking” (so to speak) doesn’t mean he’s “hard of thinking” or that his effectiveness is necessarily impaired.
Of course it’s silly! That was kinda the point. It was a topic I pulled outta my bush-hasslin’ hat simply to illustrate. It was never, ever supposed to be the debate itself. I figured a few people would roll their eyes at me and move past it into what I was using it to illustrate.
I’ll agree with you there, absolutely. But my OP was not really “What’s the ** best ** way to debate?” It was actually much simpler *“Is opinion appropriate in a debate forum?” * It was prompted by several instances of people accusing others of inappropriately dragging opinion into a debate. One of the instances that springs immediately to mind was Monster104 chastising themoon. That was the first occasion on which I put forth a version of my OP, and Monster104 agreed with my basic premise, which is: “What the hell is the point of a debate forum without opinion?” I decided form there to expand the topic into a thread of its very own.
Well, I don’t know that I’d agree with that. I think people skim the cites and posted links because they’re lazy. But yes, they are looking for something to respond to because it’s hard to respond to a link.
On the other hand,
Is too true, and it happens constantly. Which gets back to my OP, plainly stated: “we ** debate ** our ** opinion ** of what the facts** mean **”
Yep.
Stoid
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 08:18 PM]
