Some of you are aware of the poster brazil84, and the fact that
[ul]
[li]he has his own set of debating rules[/li][li]he is often vague about, or evades specifying which propositions he’s arguing[/li][li]but he usually, by appearances, has an agenda[/li][li]he has a catch phrase: “Show me where I said that. Quote me.”; and [/li][li]that he at any time may decide that you haven’t abided by his rules and bid adieu (in the jollyest of ways).[/li][/ul]
He’s a huge dick.
A summary of our fallout:
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I have my own rules of debate. One rule is that you cannot strawman me, i.e. you cannot misrepresent my position.
So please show me where I claimed that “there is a clash coming.” Please quote me where I have done so. Failing that, please apologize and admit that I said no such thing.
Your choice.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=me]
Yes, your rules.
What you seem to have forgotten is that for us to claim straw-man we have to believe there’s premeditation or intent to misrepresent your position in order to easier knock it down.
In the absence of premeditation we have a misunderstanding.
Can you prove premeditation? Can you make a strong case, or any case at all for premeditation by pointing to what the both of us have written here? Or - if you can’t - do you still believe there was premeditation, IOW do you feel that you have reason to assume bad faith from me?
[snipped out boring shit]
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Sorry, but I’m the one who gets to interpret my own rules. That said, it’s true that sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between intentional misinterpretation and accidental misinterpretation. It’s also possible that I am in error and the person I am engaged with has characterized my position reasonably.
This is why I usually give people the opportunity to either quote me where I took the claimed position or admit that I did not take the position and apologize. If an honest debater accidentally misrepresented my position, he will promptly admit the mistake and apologize. You however, have done neither.
You claimed that I took the position that “there is a clash coming.” However, I took no such position. When I pointed this out to you, you did not retract your statement or apologize.
Thus, I will no longer engage with you.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t shake the feeling that this was a cop out from brazil…
(I admit to being a bit of a stickler here, but those who’ve encountered brazil in “quote me.” mode will understand)
Ah, don’t sweat it.
I got the same “I will no longer engage you” (translated: I will put you on ignore) from him when he showed what an ignoramus he was regarding global warming, as per his own blog, it is clear that even lukewarm supporters stopped replying to his tripe even there and it is mostly just a mothballed blog. He is just a nowhere man making plans for nobody.
Oh yeah, that’s why he sticks out. I couldn’t remember why I had such a low opinion of him, just that I’d formed it somewhere. He’s the douche who ‘bans’ people.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Ah, don’t sweat it.
I got the same “I will no longer engage you” (translated: I will put you on ignore) from him when he showed what an ignoramus he was regarding global warming, as per his own blog, it is clear that even lukewarm supporters stopped replying to his tripe even there and it is mostly just a mothballed blog.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a very frequent poster here but I did participate in one of his AGW threads a couple of years ago (something about a hockey stick and a small ice age). Fun times.
A little Ikeman, you say?
Wow, that little list of people he’s “banned” formally written up is pretty odd.
Heh, I didn’t notice that! Names witheld to protect the innocent, so I guess I wont get to see my handle on the wall of shame then. 
Badge of honor, it would have been.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
On November 9, 2008, on the Straight Dope Message Board, I banned the poster known as “******* *******” for strawmanning. In a debate over high speed rail in California, I expressed skepticism that the proposed high speed rail line in California would attract a lot of customers. ******* ******* insisted I had expressed certainty that the rail line would be unsuccesful. I pointed out that I had clearly indicated I was “skeptical,” and asked ******* ******* to back up his or her claim with a quote. Of course he or she could not, and instead made vague references to the “tone and timbre” of my arguments.
[/QUOTE]
That’s hilarious! I’m starting to get the feeling that brazil may a bit of a charming, excentric nutter IRL.
“NO MORE TEA for you, Polly Prissy Pants! Clyde Frog, would you like some more tea?”
Demand to be banned!
(You think somebody at Anonymous could build us a hack where you put yourself on somebody’s else ignore list without them finding out? Then, after a while, he logs on and its like that Twilight Zone where the city is empty and you don’t know why…)
All that said…it isn’t a bad rule! Reading the Straight Dope (I’ve lurked for a very long time, only recently dared stick my nose out) I have seen a LOT of straw man re-interpretation of other people’s posts, and I have to say, I don’t like it.
The poisonous phrases tend to be, “So, in other words…” “Taking that to its extreme…” “If everyone did that…” “What you’re really saying…” and so on. Sly re-phrasings, equating of secondary implications with direct intentions, etc.
I wish that kind of stuff would not happen, but, alas, it seems a stock in trade of many Great Debates threads…
Trinopus
("So, you’re saying, posts here should be censored . . . ")
“Taking that to its extreme” and “If everyone did that” aren’t strawmen.
It can be a fair cop, or it can be a rhetorical stink bomb. But just about any argmentative approach has those.
I don’t disagree. The problem with brazil’s approach though is that he considers any discrepancy between his position as understood by him and how someone else understands it, refers to it or summarizes it as an ipso facto straw-man.
But that assumes bad faith from his counterpart, and denies the possibility of misunderstandings without intent to willingly misrepresent his position.
If someone gets his position wrong he’s got the right to set the record straight, but it’s only if someone got his position wrong in order to knock it down more easy that’s it’s a straw-man proper.
To which brazil responds that he’ll make his own rules thank you very much, and good day to you sir.
He’s been a moronic douchebag for years; why would he change now? I mean, he thinks he’s winning.
And the wall of shame is his trophy cabinet, for sure.
Aw, and it was so nice without him.
I thought this was going to be a zombie thread.
The latter, certainly, isn’t, and was a poorly chosen example… The former sometimes is, when it’s taken as “If you support ABC, then you obviously must support DEF and, in fact, Z.” Sometimes seen as a “slippery slope” argument. “If you favor gay marriage, you can’t help but also support multiple marriage, since that must follow.”
When it’s used to attribute an opinion to someone who hasn’t actually stated it, it certain feels strawish…
Trinopus (supports PDQ)
For some reason I always assume it was a she.
At any rate, I was surprised to see him in the Oslo shooter thread. Assumed he had been banned awhile ago. Not surprised at the dumbassery of his posts.
Wow. That’s a little … obsessive … to meticulously document the details of people of have pissed you off in long-forgotten arguments that no one reading your blog could possibly care about. Even as examples of what not to do when arguing with said nutcase they fail because they’re too tedious to read. I mean, that’s time that would be better spent doing just about anything (except possibly watching “The Undefeated”.)