It’s a disingenuous trick designed to prompt a specific disagreement for its own sake (trolling), and to solicit dutiful applause when the point is conceded (with the added benefit that, if no one catches the error you can say “Look, you fools! This is incorrect, too!”). It’s the rhetorical equivalent of pool hustling, and it is not part of honest debate.
Nor do you appear to be worth my further effort.
Scylla: Who are you, Serlin? Get outta here with your “I intentionally made a mistake in order to gracefully concede and teach everyone a valuable lesson about debating.” Kee-rist. (Yes, I know the Aristotle thing was an honest mistake. That makes your stated tactics both bizarrely disingenuous and sloppy.)
Anyway, I read something today which reminded me of this thread:
–Douglas Hofstadter
You are reading too much Hofstadter.
Someone pass this man some Ayn Rand or some John Stuart Mill
Unfortunately this rarely happens here.
More commonly what happens is what’s happening with Elucidator. They pretend they just didn’t happen. I think I’ve got him pretty much dead to rights three ways.
Hypocrisy (although I was nice when I asked him why he demands an apology for “Diarrhea,” but doesn’t feel compelled to give one for "Silly Ass.) I didn’t say hypocrisy as I thought that might make him defensive, but he didn’t take the opportunity there to make an honest asessment.
His unwillingness to back up his claim of dishonesty in my part.
His dishonesty in denying he questioned my honesty.
Rather than address these losing propositions, he seems to have decided to ignore them and move on, pretending they didn’t happen. This is the kind of behavior that made me take up piracy. I’m reconsidering the life of a freebooter, as it takes a lot of energy to debate this kind of shit, and I don’t seem to be making any headway.
On the other hand I’ve been considering Xenophon’s charge of "intellectual dishonesty. It is possible that the tactic I am admittedly guilty-by-intent of using is not fundamentally honest.
I’m waiting to see if Xenophon can come up with some reasonable objections to it’s use, or reasons why it is “intellectually dishonest,” to decide whether he’s just taking gratuitous potshots or has a point.
Gadarene:
I just thought it was ironic, myself. Sloppy? Well yeah, that’s what makes it so funny.
Can you explain to me why I should be so ashamed at having attempted (and comically failed,) to make a small error, and then use that error as an illustration?
xenophon already has:
'Kay? With the added, added benefit that increases your cachet as someone who humbly concedes an argument if he is found to be wrong, providing–in my opinion–less incentive for you to be intellectually meticulous the first time around in debates, 'cause you know you can just apologize if anyone catches any mistakes.
It is dishonest, and you’ve sacrificed some of your ethos to finally drive home a point that was always, always, doomed to fall on deaf ears.
Truly Shakespearean.
Don’t lose any sleep over it.
Shakespeare?
I was going for Oedipal.
The sheep are bad enough. Must you continue sleeping with your mother?
But as I said, I’m not going to continue debating this thing with you. Maybe I won’t argue with you at all anymore; I really can’t say if I’ll feel like it again. I just think it’s going to be counterproductive and piss both of us off needlessly.
You’ll work out the ethical considerations without my assistance, I’m sure. I wish you well. Whether you change your debating m.o. or not is not my concern. I’ll continue to exchange posts with you, but just not in the manner of a debate, and certainly not to give or receive advice or correction.
I’ll be silly with you anytime you want, Scylla, but I won’t be serious with you.
Well, geez, thought you said it was time to move on, act like grownups and stuff. Change your mind?
I have a post at the top of the page, pretty much expressed things up to that point. You want my honest opinion. OK dokey.
I think you’re getting the living snot kicked out of you. I think you heartily deserve it. Further, I think you would love to make me the topic of discussion, rather than yourself, and nobody’s having it.
I think you are a man of considerable intellect and abilities who is hag-ridden by an ego that simply cannot admit defeat. Toss that vampire overboard and be free!
Alas! 'tis as thou sayest.
Ah me! ah me! all brought to pass, all true!
O light, may I behold thee nevermore!
I stand a wretch,
Ah me! ah woe is me!
Ah whither am I borne!
How like a ghost forlorn
My voice flits from me on the air!
On, on the demon goads. The end, ah where?
Of course. But my original question had to do with people who insisted that opinion is not acceptable in debate, only provable facts are.
** Boris ** … you are alvays a topik vit me, darlink. Ve discuss nussink else! (PAG is wildly jealous)
"An end too dread to tell, too dark to see… "
And so the question becomes “Is a quote from Oedipus an adequate performance of the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement?” As it is a a ritual of the Unitarian/Bokononist Church, which is entirely unhindered by any othrodox liturgy, we cannot conclude that it is not. We must therefore conclude that it is.
Egotist Te Absolvo
Go forth and sin no more.
While I appreciate the sentiment of goodwill, that wasn’t at all what I was going for with that quote.
No thanks. At least not not until you give up the sanctimonious airs.
Hey. That’s just what the priest said to the Bishop! (Whereupon the Bishop put the niblick back in the bag and chose a mashie, but that’s a different story.)
Have fun being so unsanctimoniously holier-than-me.
:rolleyes:
Do you honestly not get it?
Seriously?
Look at the facts.
You wish not to debate with me, because you consider a tactic which I didn’t actually use to be unworthy.
You only know that I attempted the tactic because I mentioned it.
I mentioned it in passing because I thought it was humorous and ironic the way I blundered it.
If I read your attitude correctly (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) because of this tactic I am not worthy of debate in your eyes, but your willing to accept limited other contact.
If that is accurate so far, consider my reaction.
While considering the tactic, I thought of it like sacrificing a pawn in chess, or a judo move, or faking down the line in tennis, or hitting cross-court, or feinting in fencing.
Such a move, making a deliberate error to expose a weakness is a valid one in most endeavors, and part of the game.
Part of the reason why I’m in this thread is that I find the tactics being used to openly and blatantly dishonest (though not by you, admittedly. I think you’ve debated well even though you’re dead wrong about what constitutes a fact.)
The extreme umbrage being taken at this admission of mine seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Nevertheless, seeing as I’m arguing about honest debating technique, using a deceptive tactic to do so is probably not the best way to go about it, in hindsight. Cosmically stupid, actually, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Later, it seems ironic but not particularly harmful, so I point it out, and get shellacked for it.
Which is all fine.
The thing though, is that there’s really only one person here who’s admitting errors or coming clean when they make them, and that’s sad and frustrating, because there’s more than one person making factual errors and using dishonest tactics, and outright lying.
And I should know better. Those people aren’t going to change because of anything I do or say.
However, when I read from you that apparently so disgusted by my rhetorical judo move which I brought forth and admitted to poke fun at myself, that you no longer wish to debate with me and deign only to have nonsubstantive contact, I ask myself if this is an appropriate gesture within the context of the action.
What I come up with is the belief that no, it really isn’t.
It seems sanctimonious and holier than thou. More, it seems like a rhetorical trick.
If you really felt that way, and you really wished me well, as you say, why would seek to insult and injure me by stating it?
Isn’t more effective if you just do it?
I know if I no longer wished to debate somebody but wished to exchange posts of other natures and maintain goodwill, I wouldn’t tell them that I thought they were a piece of shit. I would just be friendly, but not debate. That way I don’t hurt feelings or make an issue of it.
Seeing though as your reaction doesn’t seem fitting, and you’re making a point of making it, it looks to me like you’re making a rhetorical gesture, and not a true honest reaction.
In fact, it’s rhetorical judo, and as such hypocritical.
So, I said I would prefer you stay away all together if you wish to put on such sanctimonious airs.
If you wish to debate or converse, I’m happy to do so. If you wish to make grand gestures and only deign to converse in certain prescribed circumstances, I’d prefer you spare me your charity, and the reek of your own hypocrisy.
I’m familiar enough with my own reek to recognize it on another, and frankly I think you smell worse.