Except that’s not what you accused him of.
You do, genius. Here, you’re about to do it again:
By whom, Wile E.? By one mod? Nope, by the entire staff. You’re saying, quite clearly, that the entire staff lets Lib break the rules.
I take it that means you will not address my request for actual evidence of your claims? Something beyond “Liberal’s a poopyhead” by preference.
Agreed, picking a fight is bad.
Finn, for the sake of our mutual respect, I’ll attempt one last time to explain this to you. This explanation is no different in substance from the ones I’ve already given, but for some reason, it isn’t getting through.
Let me emphasize: I DO NOT ARGUE POSITIONS I DON’T FEEL ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT, at least not intentionally.
Let me put it another way (again). These two statements are EQUALLY correct:
Atheism is a valid worldview
Theism is a valid worldview
Do you understand? Can we get this out of the way before discussing anything else, please? I don’t want to see this meme repeated months from now. Thanks.
Like I said, it seems that our disageement may come down to a question of semantics; no need for huge bold text as I’m doin’ my best here. I’d also hope that your respect isn’t contingent upon me grokking this in fullness, but if so, ah well.
So, just to make the tacit explicit, it seems to me that in most factual debates there is only one correct position. Or at least, only one correct position to be drawn from whatever axioms you are using. So while you might argue in a debate, for instance, that atheism is a valid worldview, you would not argue that it is correct because you believe theism to be correct. Are we in agreement on this point at least?
To put a finer point on it, as I suggested before, I think we’re working under different denotations of DA. To use an analogy I’ve trotted out before, it would be like a person who honestly believes that civil liberties always trump national security, arguing that national security was more important simply because a logical case could be constructed around that premise.
I believe that you, on the other hand, are using DA to talk about a situation in which you saw one viewpoint, and were merely pointing out problems with it. Have I got that pretty much correct? If so, then I would not view that as DA, but simply getting at the truth.
And yes, I am confused about your notions of balance. Balance, to me, suggests two opposing entities, roughly equal. But pointing out holes in one argument is not a balancing position. Taking up a diametric opposite position would be balancing.
Hope that clears things up, if not I’ll take another stab at it. But I’d also ask that you try not to get too frustrated here. I’m acting in good faith, and communication between humans is so difficult that it’s amazing that we get anything done at all. You’re trying to relate your mental-map of concepts to me while I’m doing the same to you, and we’re trying to meet in the middle. Have patience, waiting is.
Yeah, it seems like you pretty well have it now. There’s nothing really complicated about it, and maybe your confusion came from not realizing that. I won’t argue that pi is a rational number, because it is not. But I might well argue that pi is synthetic, and not analytic if everyone is taking the other side. Either stance is justifiable.
Yeah, I’m saying the staff and/or their policy ends up with Lib hurting the boards. I don’t call that “indicting” the staff; I call it disagreeing with them on one point. Get real.
Quite possibly. Like I said, we all carry around mental-maps; concepts involved in eternal interpenetration. One of the first things almost any philosopher does is define (or re-define) the terms they’re using. In this case, we had different cluster concepts associated with the term “Devil’s Advocate”. Not exactly earth shattering, nor unlikely.
This, I do not grok. It seems that you’re saying that both are equally valid views, yes? Why, then, would you not argue that they’re both valid, instead of taking up one ‘side’? I mean… if a bunch of people are saying “Pi is analytic” is it really necessary to respond by saying “Pi is synthetic and not analytic” instead of “Pi can be modeled both ways and there is evidence to support both positions?”
Especially since you say that either stance is justifiable… why get into a debate and argue, specificaly, that one stance is not? (As arguing that “pi is synthetic, and not analytic…” is doing) If your point is that both are valid, why argue that one is not?
Or are we again getting hung up in semantics?
Here not only do I agree with Liberal; but to some extent, we hold identical views on this subject. To a lesser extent, I do the same thing. When a thread is full of 'dittoheads", pileons and “me toos” then I feel a strong urge to find a point of merit in the other side, and argue it.
For example- I despise those who make real kiddie porn- they are sick child molestors, who need be be locked up forever. But- I have argued that simple possession of Child porn shouldn’t nessesarily be a serious felony, and I have also argued that some prosecutors definition of “kiddie porn” is ridiculous. This is a perfect example of being a “Devil’s Advocate”. (This has been interpreted by some idiots as me defending child molestors BTW.)
Ofcourse I have wings. I’m a little angel. 0:}
Though I see no wings on the lady in the pic. *But did you see the name of the URL? * 
This is a hijack, but I need to explain:
Some time ago I asked what a ‘douchebag’ was and someone [can’t remember who[m], sorry] send me a link to a pic of a douchebag.
See: I never understood the insult.
Nor did I after seeing the pic.!
I merely thought it was an awfully tiny bag of water to get yourself washed with.
Then I thought: Well, maybe a douchebag is a thing you take with you when you go camping or something. You know: Better a small amount of water than nothing…
Because…
A ‘douche’ = a ‘shower’ in Dutch [and in French]** :)**
So, that’s why Liberal is refreshing. As a shower.
Didn’t see the name until you pointed it out just now, so I went back and checked. On the matter of wings, look at it again. She’s got pixie wings, kinda translucent thingies.
You are absolutely correct, sir. I was looking at the wrong place for her wings. heh. A bit like dragonfly wings, right?
[I forgot to mention: I did a Google search for ‘douche’. *Now* I understand the insult. 
*:: muttering how strange some words are in translation:: *]
Yep, very much like dragonfly wings.
Also, even though I speak english and know what women use it for, I still don’t get why it’s used as an insult. For my money I’d much rather call someone a used suppository or some such than a douche bag.
hehehehe 
Well… Wouldn’t a ‘used suppository’ mean the same a ‘absolutely nothing’?
At least a douche bag has been to fun places.
Could indeed. I must remedy this insult so that it is in greater accord with santorum.
Well, at least one fun place. I’m not sure I wanna know about it if you were sharing one of those things… 
I wouldn’t say that it’s synthetic and not analytic. I would merely argue the point that it is synthetic. (Or analytic). If the point is pertinent, then I’ll say that it could be either. But I’m not going to make someone’s argument for them while I’m debating them.
Aeschines,
I’m going to ask you again to show me where in the linked thread** Liberal ** was bending rules or pissing on lines.
But, if it can honestly be modeled either way, why not take upthat position as your own? I’m just not understanding this. It’s not proprietary… if someone has a bit of the truth, and you think you have a bigger bit, then it’s fighting ignorance and not helping to make their argument. No?
Gah. I’ve explained this forty ways from Sunday. I don’t mean to sound impatient, but you pretty much refuse to drop it. If my position is that it can be modeled either way, then that is what I will argue. If I believe it is appropriate in the manner I’ve described, then I will then take the opposing position and offer the best argument for it that I can. It is often the case that I personally favor one position over another, but the underlying logic is maleable.
In fact, I have offered the opposing position to my own for consideration when I felt that the argument was going the wrong way. For example, take the famous modal ontological proof. After people assailed the definition, tried to attack the logic, and otherwise got off on tangents, I offered that the proper way to counter the proof is to reject one of the premises. I then explained that you could reject “it is possible that God exists” by offering “it is possible that God does not exist”. I explained how that gives the opposite conclusion. But once that position was taken up, I returned to defending the premise because I believe that the alternative is weaker. Valid and viable, but weaker. And I explained why I thought it was weak.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with what I am doing or the way I am doing it. I am not trying to bend the rules, Veb’s bizarre declaration notwithstanding. I am not trying to see how far I can get my toe to the line. That is of no interest to me whatsoever. My interest is in the argument. The debate. Nothing else. And I honestly don’t care to discuss this anymore. I shouldn’t have to be defending myself for being an honest debator and seeing all sides of an issue.
That’s all I have to say about that.
Then with all due respect, I’d ask you to look at your post, where you say that both are valid but you’d only argue for one. Perhaps you are not communicating as efficently as you might like. But I’m happy to drop it at this point, as you’ve made your thoughts clear and evidently misspoke.
Again, with all due respect, look at whether or not some of the things you’ve said might give a different impression than you intend. Happens to even the best of us.
Finn, you can’t cut off people’s quotes and lift them out of context and expect to understand what they’re saying. The rest of the first sentence was “…if everyone is taking the other side”. The second sentence had a parenthetical following it: “(Or analytic.)” The reason you’re misunderstanding me might well be that you aren’t listening. I’ve put all the words in there, but you have to read them.
==========
For the record, here are the entire quotes with context:
I might well argue that pi is synthetic, and not analytic if everyone is taking the other side. Either stance is justifiable.
I wouldn’t say that it’s synthetic and not analytic. I would merely argue the point that it is synthetic. (Or analytic).