Fact:
Finn agin has repeatedly insisted that all Mexicans working illegally in the US are breaking US criminal code. He has backtracked repeatedly, using spin that would put Fox News to shame when confronted with the truth.
He also tries to use spin to deny the fact the the USA is the largest consumer of illegal drugs in the world with a weak excuse of per capita drug use.
Again, see what I mean Marley? What language is proper to describe this sort of argument?
I pointed out once that this claim has no resemblance to reality. CB is now making it again. With no quote. And no cite. The actual fact is that not only have I said no such thing, but he cannot find any such quote because no such quote exists anywhere, even once, let alone “repeatedly”.
Does that argument not misuse and misstate facts and accomplish the exact opposite of elucidation? If so, what are valid words that may be used to point out the nature of that argument?
FinnAgain, my instructions were clear and I don’t appreciate being used as part of your rhetorical strategy, so stop it. I said both of you need to make your argument without the derisive comments, and I gave a bunch of examples of what I’m tired of seeing. If you want to say CBEscapee is wrong, fine. That’s what the forum is for. If you want to say he’s whining and strongly imply he is lying and being dishonest (using words very close to lying, of course, but not coming out and saying he lies), that’s not acceptable.
I’ve had it with this tangent. It was originally related to the subject of the thread but it’s now turned into a pissing contest that interests nobody except FinnAgain and CBEscapee. If you have anything else to say to each other, do so in the Pit. If not, it’s time for this thread to get back on track.
I offered to take it to PM, you responded to me in this thread so I figured I could continue the discussion here.
There’s no rhetorical strategy. Attacking the argument and not the poster has long been allowed in GD, but as you’ve banned some language that is used to describe how an argument is constructed, I was asking what specific language I’m allowed to use to attack the argument and pointing out exactly what the flaws are in his argument while asking what verbiage is allowed. If I’m not allowed to point out the flaws in CB’s argument at all as seems to be the case now, that’s quite another matter.
I’ll be happy to take this to PM if you’d prefer.
Actually, Finn, your whole exchange has been a pointless tangent to allow the two of you bicker.
As Marley has noted, you are welcome to continue it in the BBQ Pit if it is that important to you.
As to what language you may employ when indicating a difference of opinion regarding a fact, “your statement is in error” or “you are mistaken,” followed by a specific correction should work just fine.
You have both engaged in talking past each other to make your points, which, I suspect, is why Marley has told both of you to back off. Just drop it.
[ /Moderating ]
Except as pointed out numerous times, it’s not about a statement’s truth value being “wrong” or “right”, (nor is it a matter of opinion, I’m can’t even hazard a guess as to why you think it’s about opinion.) but the substitution of what’s under discussion for something else.
If the discussion is about “aliens who enter the country improperly are criminals under US law” and someone responds “Ah hah, you are wrong, because aliens who do not enter the country improperly are not criminals!” neither is that statement mistaken, nor is it in error, it is instead something else entirely.
Nor were we “talking past” each other. I repeatedly clarified that I was talking about aliens who enter the country improperly, CB continually said I was talking about someone else and/or talked about aliens who do not enter the country improperly. I repeatedly corrected him. Two people are not ‘talking past’ each other if one continually misstates what the first is saying while the first continually directly addresses what the second is saying, elaborates on why it’s not what he is saying, and clarifies what he is saying.
“Tomatoes are a fruit because they have seeds.”
“No, watermelons’ flesh does not always have to be red, some are other colors, like yellow.”
“Yes, but that’s not what the discussion is. I’m talking about whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable.”
“Watermelons can too be yellow!”
“No, seriously, see, tomatoes? That’s what I’m talking about. Tomatoes have seeds and so they’re technically a fruit”
“Ah-hah! It is a fact that you have repeatedly said that no watermelon can be yellow!”
That’s many things, but “talking past”, no.
That’s one of the types of argumentation that I wanted a word for.
CB also claimed that since about 53% of all people who reside in the country illegally are Mexicans, and half a million to a million Mexicans are aliens who enter the country improperly each year, that a figure of stating that 40-50% of all people who are here illegally have done things like overstay visas meant that the we couldn’t state that Mexicans aliens who entered the country improperly had committed a crime.
Again, that’s not “wrong” or “right”. The 40-50% number may even be correct, the point is that it’s an irrelevancy that distracted from the actual point at issue. Just like if you said “X percent of rocks are igneous, which are formed by magma cooling” and someone else responds “Shows what you know, Y percent of rocks are sedimentary which are not formed by magma!” Y percent of rocks may even be sedimentary, it may not be a factually incorrect statement, but it is a misleading example that distorts the discussion and switches what’s at discussion, for something that aint. That is the type of argument which I wanted a word for, since “incorrect” does not describe it.
Just wanted to clarify because you brought it up again, but I’m happy to drop it if that’s what you’d like.
Well, then, you get the victory for being the first to race to that position. Your challenge to his claim that the U.S. has an insatiable desire for drugs, quibbling that it is not a majority of American who share that desire, (even though it is pretty clear that the minority who do share that need provides an enormous market for drugs entering from Mexico), was pretty much nitpicking. The comment was made in the context of the market and you changed it into a discussion of what percent of the U.S. was hooked on drugs. (CBEscapee too willingly fell into that trap, but you are the one who distorted his actual claim.)
If you are going to reply that CBEscapee was the first to change the subject, I would say that you are in error. The OP began with a claim that Mexico is a “narco” state and numerous posters then made unsupportable claims about Mexico and Mexican society. His remarks, (which were actually in line with quite a few posters’ positions), demonstrated an exasperation regarding posters making comments about other peoples’ countries without first getting their facts straight–a point with which I would have thought you were in complete accord. Getting huffy over your misreading of his “insatiable” comment was the first serious change of topic.
You initially equated illegality and criminality. In this case, he has provided evidence for the fact that there is a difference between illegality and criminality. If you would like to provide citations that actually rebut that point, you are welcome to do so, but you are making no points by using inflammatory rhetoric simply to indicate that you disagree and have a different opinion. You provided estimates for the number of Mexicans who were in the U.S. illegally, but you failed to address his distinction between illegality and criminality for several exchanges. Note that while it is possible that you can establish that some extremely large percentage of immigrants from Mexico have entered in ways that are, indeed, criminal, if you actually read through the thread, your posts simply assume that position for several exchanges and only later actually make the point explicit–and without providing any specific citations.
All of those claims could have been handled with far less excitement–and without any subtle hints of dishonesty–by treating the issue as one of facts and actually searching for the supporting data or reasonably looking for common ground.
It’s not a quibble to point out that the extreme minority do not define an entire nation’s character. Hell, Catholic priests sure raped a lot of children, does that mean that priests have an insatiable hunger for rape? Or maybe since priests are a subset of Catholics in general, Catholics have an insatiable hunger for rape? How about blacks, a percent of them are violent criminals, would you say that blacks have an insatiable desire to harm innocent people? Sounds silly and hyperbolic, designed to tar an entire group for the actions of a small minority, right?
What does that even mean? In the context of? So if we discuss crime in America it’s suddenly okay to not state “there are X number of black men in jail for violent crimes.” but “black mean have an insatiable need for hurting people?” If we’re discussing the number of people in America who buy drugs, how much they spend and how often they buy drugs, it’s okay to say “America has an insatiable hunger for drugs?”
No, that was his actual claim, that “America has an insatiable blah blah blah.” Nil distortion. Nor was it a trap. And nor did I point out the double standard at work until CB was fine with “America as a nation is [pejorative], and they’re really bad because lots of Americans thinks that Mexico is [other pejorative]!” That because 8+% of Americans use drugs once or more a month America can be said to be [pejorative] but if 6+% of Mexicans are criminals then it’s horrible, just horrible to say that Mexico can be said to be [pejorative].
But you’re right, in my dastardly manner I trapped CB into writing his original comment and then trapped him into getting upset when the exact same logic was applied to Mexico. For my next trick, I will engage in more time traveling mind-control. But this time I’ll do it blindfolded.
And I was right. Illegal immigrants are criminals. We don’t use the word in common parlance to refer to students who happened to overstay their visas by a few months. And when we’re talking about Mexican illegal immigrants, millions of whom sneak over the border, we’re really not talking about people who happened to overstay visas.
What are you talking about? His own cite showed that yes, entering America without permission is a crime. I provided cites showing that not only is it a crime to enter America illegally, but that once you enter illegally it’s another crime to not register. This is not a matter of opinion any more than the value of the Planck Constant is a matter of opinion, certain things are crimes under US law, and certain things aren’t, and I clarified numerous times that the point was about the “aliens who entered America improperly”, not people who overstayed visas.
To say nothing of the fact that CB’s claim on that point is an absurdity. Roughly 53% of all people in America illegally are Mexicans. CB responded with the irrelevancy that out of the total pool of people here illegally, 40-50% are here because they overstayed visas an whatnot. And since that’s the fact, that we can’t say that although there are between half a million and a million Mexicans who are aliens who enter America improperly each and every single year, that the 40% figure means that they’re really just overstaying their visas and the roughly 40% who aren’t Mexicans are the ones who are really sneaking over the border. :rolleyes:
Simply false. I pointed out numerous times that the group I was discussing was the people who were “aliens who entered improperly”, who are criminals under US law. I addressed his “distinction” numerous times, despite your claim.
You’re honestly challenging the fact that we aren’t giving out millions of visas for Mexicans and they’re all just overstaying, and it’s all the other folks who run to Mexico and Canada and then sneak over the borders?
Nope, none of those on my part although CB did explicitly claim I was lying.
I did point out that although I’d repeated that I was talking about “aliens who enter improperly” that he inaccurately claiming that my argument was really about all Mexicans here without permission, both those who are “aliens who entered improperly” and those who are not “aliens who entered improperly.” And I pointed out that he couldn’t prove his claims because no such quotes of mine existed, anywhere.
That’s the whole point Tom. I was trying to point out that the common ground was that if he was annoyed by “Mexico is [pejorative]” that he shouldn’t then use language like “America is [pejorative].”
Could’ve sworn I hinted at that, obliquely, once.