# SmashTheState **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 30, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731 "2009-07-30T01:00:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/241 "2009-07-31T19:40:49Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Okay, folks, notice what happens here. **Finn** says **Smash** asserts that aspartame is bad for us because it breaks down into chemicals that, according to **Finn** , don’t actually end up harming us. **Smash** asserts that methanol, in the absence of ethanol, is damaging. For a citation of this proposition, he pulls out a 20+ year old study on Aspartame, methanol, and potential ill effects relating to the first caused by its breakdown into the second. But he does in the process make mention of “20 years worth of growing concern” over the issue. **Finn** then **improperly** attributes the cite to the claim of 20 years of growing concern (hint: nope, it was a citation to the claim that methanol sans ethanol is damaging). Having set this straw man up, he knocks it down, then goes on to say that modern research has shown that Aspartame is safe to use, without offering any citations to such research (my own later post makes some reference to them). **Smash** then attempts to assert a) his statement about aspartame was basically a throwaway line, b) **Finn** got the issue of the citation wrong, and c) there are “concerns of sizeable numbers of the very scientific community you claim to fellate” about Aspartame, without producing any evidence that this statement is in any way true. > > Whew. > > **Smash** : here’s a clue. There is no sizeable number of scientists of decent reputation who are claiming that Aspartame is unsafe to use. There are some scientists who purport to have concluded by study that it is, but they refuse to allow review of their results or their slides for confirmation. > > **Finn** : when you attack someone for the quality of their citation, it helps to correctly attribute the argument that the citation is purportedly supporting. Here, the proper response was not to claim the citation was invalid as support for the claim of ongoing concerns over Aspartame; the proper response was to assert that, regardless of whatever worries the study raised in the early 80s, the concern in question has long since been settled as being non-existent (citation to study results). > > Neither of you is particularly good at anything but rhetorical flourish, frankly, mostly because one of you dismisses anything but the more fringe notions about science and society as being inaccurate or biased, and the other dismisses the first as being unworth dealing with in a comprehensive, logical way. > > But continue the dance, by all means. Maybe something of value will shake out of the trees as a result… Seems to me that on a plain reading **Smashy** was, in point of fact, offering the cite for the proposition that there was “20 years worth of growing concern …”. > [@](#): > > Jackmannii will want a citation because despite supposedly being a medical professional, he appears completely oblivious to 20 years worth of growing concern about the long-term effects of aspartame by some decidedly un-“woo” scientists. Here’s an article entitled “ASPARTAME: METHANOL AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH” by Dr. Woodrow C. Montre, published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition (Volume 36, Number 1, 1984) which, according to the IAACN, is a peer-reviewed publication. There is no “straw man” by **Finn**. **Smashy** may have wanted to cite the article for the proposition as you assert, but that’s not how it actually reads. The plain reading is that a 20 year old article is the beginning of 20 year’s worth of “growing concern”. ---
**Author:** ![Other\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Other\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Other_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/242 "2009-07-31T19:44:54Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > [I see what you did there.](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/P/paralipsis.htm) Thank you for the link; now I have a name for that sort of act. 🙂 ~S.P.I.~ ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/243 "2009-07-31T20:01:24Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Seems to me that on a plain reading **Smashy** was, in point of fact, offering the cite for the proposition that there was “20 years worth of growing concern …”. > > There is no “straw man” by **Finn**. **Smashy** may have wanted to cite the article for the proposition as you assert, but that’s not how it actually reads. The plain reading is that a 20 year old article is the beginning of 20 year’s worth of “growing concern”. Reading extremely carefully, I think **DSYoung** is right. However, the confusion is, I think, due to **StS** ’s unclear writing. I almost wrote this post agreeing with you, but I reread the passage a couple of times, and I see that the main clause in **StS’s** first sentence you quoted is the one that relates the second sentence, even though the main point of the first sentence seems to be contained in the dependent clause. On my first (and second and third) reading of **StS’s** statement, I thought the citation was showing 20 years of growing concern. Now, **DSYoung** , I don’t know what the relevant corollary to Gaudere’s Law is named. Maybe it could be named after you? > [@DSYoung](#): > > Having set this straw man up, he knocks it down, then goes on to say that modern research has shown that Aspartame is safe to use, without offering any citations to such research Did you miss [Post 172](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11396083&postcount=172) and [Post 173](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11396083&postcount=173), in which **Finn** offered five different citations to research and research summaries, complete with quotes? When you’re offering someone a critique of their rhetorical style, get the beam out of your own eye first. Daniel waiting to see how DSYoung’s Law will bite him on the butt ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/244 "2009-07-31T20:03:38Z")
Also, **Miller** , I may be judging **mswas** overharshly, based on some of my interactions with him and on how it raises my hackles when someone smugly calls out a messageboard in general. I’ll put my opinion back on hold and watch. ---
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/245 "2009-07-31T20:05:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the goal is to make you look like a buffoon. > > It’s working. _“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”_ – **Jonathan Swift** ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/246 "2009-07-31T20:06:36Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > _“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”_ – **Jonathan Swift** Most people have to take shrooms to be this delusional. ---
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/247 "2009-07-31T20:09:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Out of curiousity how do Panhandlers organize? I mean wouldn’t going on strike be a net benefit for everyone else? > [@Jolly\_Roger](#): > > **StS** , what exactly would you like to see happen? I mean, other than letting driunk drivers off free, what do you want society to do to make the world a better place? I’m completely serious, too. I want to know what you think should happen if the “state” were to be smashed. Is there any reason I should answer these? My experience has been that every word escaping my keyboard on SD gets mocked and ridiculed regardless of content. Indeed, the last time I tried to discuss the activities of the OPU, I ended up walking away in disgust, as it turned into the sort of poor-bashing free-for-all I have since come to expect around here. People can mock me to their’s heart’s content, but I won’t drag the OPU through the mud in a public forum. This is a good example of how the toxic atmosphere of smug exclusiveness around here mutes any interesting discussion which falls outside the narrow interests of the ruling clique on SD. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/248 "2009-07-31T20:11:07Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > _“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”_ – **Jonathan Swift** "He who seldom speaks, and with one calm well-timed word can strike dumb the loquacious, is a genius or a hero.” – Johann Lavater ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/249 "2009-07-31T20:14:04Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Also, **Miller** , I may be judging **mswas** overharshly, based on some of my interactions with him and on how it raises my hackles when someone smugly calls out a messageboard in general. I’ll put my opinion back on hold and watch. I thought of you while smugly dismissing **hotflungwok** here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11398195&postcount=107](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11398195&postcount=107) > [@](#): > > Anyway, I am not going to continue this line of discussion. If you don’t understand the difference between subjective experience and the neurological functioning of the brain then you need to go pick up a book on cognitive science and come back. ‘How the Mind Works’, by Stephen Pinker would be a good start for you. > > When you understand that the subjective component of cognition is not in any way explained by describing the neurological functioning we may resume this at a later date. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/250 "2009-07-31T20:17:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Reading extremely carefully, I think **DSYoung** is right. However, the confusion is, I think, due to **StS** ’s unclear writing. I almost wrote this post agreeing with you, but I reread the passage a couple of times, and I see that the main clause in **StS’s** first sentence you quoted is the one that relates the second sentence, even though the main point of the first sentence seems to be contained in the dependent clause. On my first (and second and third) reading of **StS’s** statement, I thought the citation was showing 20 years of growing concern. I still can’t read it that way. Seems to me a bit of a tortured interpretation, though I’m willing to believe that **Smashy** wanted to use it in that manner. Nevertheless, the “charge” as it were is that **Finny** was knocking down a straw-man; which seems to me unfounded. Knocking down a straw-man implies willful dishonesty, a charge hard to substantiate when the “real target” is so obscure. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/251 "2009-07-31T20:18:24Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > Is there any reason I should answer these? My experience has been that every word escaping my keyboard on SD gets mocked and ridiculed regardless of content. Indeed, the last time I tried to discuss the activities of the OPU, I ended up walking away in disgust, as it turned into the sort of poor-bashing free-for-all I have since come to expect around here. People can mock me to their’s heart’s content, but I won’t drag the OPU through the mud in a public forum. > > This is a good example of how the toxic atmosphere of smug exclusiveness around here mutes any interesting discussion which falls outside the narrow interests of the ruling clique on SD. It’s up to you. I am genuinely baffled by the idea of a union dedicated to a socially parasitic profession that produces nothing of value that is desired by anyone. I really don’t understand what leverage someone who has a job that is almost universally disapproved of has. You needn’t explain it to me if you feel too piled upon, but I really don’t get what kind of leverage they can wield. I also confess that I have some contempt for the idea of organizing panhandlers when if they have the ability to organize into a union, then they are capable of holding a profession that actually benefits someone through their artifice. I believe that a person’s profession should be providing a valuable service. I don’t have much respect for panhandlers, but then again I don’t have much respect for hedge fund traders for many of the same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/252 "2009-07-31T20:19:24Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I still can’t read it that way. Seems to me a bit of a tortured interpretation, though I’m willing to believe that **Smashy** wanted to use it in that manner. > > Nevertheless, the “charge” as it were is that **Finny** was knocking down a straw-man; which seems to me unfounded. Knocking down a straw-man implies willful dishonesty, a charge hard to substantiate when the “real target” is so obscure. I read it the way **DSYoungEsq** read it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/253 "2009-07-31T20:22:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I read it the way **DSYoungEsq** read it. To my mind it doesn’t really matter which way one reads it; to attack the other interpretation as a “straw man”, one must be of the view that one is _purposefully_ misreading it that way, which I think cannot be sustained. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/254 "2009-07-31T20:25:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind it doesn’t really matter which way one reads it; to attack the other interpretation as a “straw man”, one must be of the view that one is _purposefully_ misreading it that way, which I think cannot be sustained. Fair enough. So here’s my take on it. They are both arguing their points of view honestly, but are both arrogant assholes. Is there anything people find disagreeable about that point of view? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/255 "2009-07-31T20:26:20Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s up to you. I am genuinely baffled by the idea of a union dedicated to a socially parasitic profession that produces nothing of value that is desired by anyone. I really don’t understand what leverage someone who has a job that is almost universally disapproved of has. > > You needn’t explain it to me if you feel too piled upon, but I really don’t get what kind of leverage they can wield. I suppose panhandlers could organize political pressure to get laws passed that improve their lot - after all, they may vote. Additionally, while obviously withdrawal of their “services” cannot put pressure on anyone, they could organize demonstrations that cause annoyance to businesses in order to wring concessions. ---
**Author:** ![lexi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lexi/32/6806_2.png) [@lexi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lexi)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/256 "2009-07-31T20:30:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s up to you. I am genuinely baffled by the idea of a union dedicated to a socially parasitic profession that produces nothing of value that is desired by anyone. I really don’t understand what leverage someone who has a job that is almost universally disapproved of has. > > You needn’t explain it to me if you feel too piled upon, but I really don’t get what kind of leverage they can wield. > > I also confess that I have some contempt for the idea of organizing panhandlers when if they have the ability to organize into a union, then they are capable of holding a profession that actually benefits someone through their artifice. > > I believe that a person’s profession should be providing a valuable service. I don’t have much respect for panhandlers, but then again I don’t have much respect for hedge fund traders for many of the same reasons. Unions don’t just rely on strikes to air their concerns, and what you see as a parasitic profession might be the only way a person with mental or physical health issues can survive. My understanding of the OPU is that through actions, whether it be protest, direct action, or through the courts, the OPU defends the human rights of the Homeless when they get tread upon by the courts, police, and business associations. It would be nice if StS could start an “Ask the organizer of the Ottawa Panhandler’s Union” and it could be a factual thread instead of an argument about the politics of poverty, or poor bashing… ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/257 "2009-07-31T20:30:57Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Fair enough. > > So here’s my take on it. > > They are both arguing their points of view honestly, but are both arrogant assholes. > > Is there anything people find disagreeable about that point of view? I think they are both arguing their honestly held point of view, but I tend to think **Smashy** is nutty. Of course, I’d be the first against the wall when his panhandler-revolutionaries take over, so I’m a bit biased. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/258 "2009-07-31T20:33:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yeah, it’s a pretty underhanded tactic to say that when someone retracts a position due to a persuasive argument, that they are being dishonest. He made it up in the first place. He got caught. And now, coincidentally, he just happens to be completely unable to find a cite for even his revised assertion? Come on. His original assertion was a lie. When someone who knew what they were talking about caught hm, he lied again. And now he expects folks to believe that the DMS’s Casebook really said that in Latin America everybody hallucinates ghosts when a family member dies. Just like he’s continuing to lie about what “most” anthropologists believe or, for that matter, what a tiny minority would actually believe. Anthropological study is not in the habit of positing let alone agreeing on mental illness of tens of thousands of figures for whom records specific are thin to non-existent. He’s just a liar. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > For a citation of this proposition, he pulls out a 20+ year old study on Aspartame, methanol, and potential ill effects relating to the first caused by its breakdown into the second. But he does in the process make mention of “20 years worth of growing concern” over the issue. 1. No, it was not a study. 2. Yes, he makes mention of that and, as I pointed out, posted a position paper (not a study) which did _nothing to address it._ It did not, in fact, even make any real claims about Nutra Sweet other than that it was suggesting further study. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > **Finn** then **improperly** attributes the cite to the claim of 20 years of growing concern (hint: nope, it was a citation to the claim that methanol sans ethanol is damaging). It’s no strawman to figure that Smashy had offered a cite that he thought had _something_ to do with the claim he made _in the sentence immediately preceding the cite._ That’s why I pointed out that the cite had nothing to do with the claim. Rather than taking me to task for a “strawman”, you might, instead, admit that Smahy actually never provided a cite to prove his contention and instead only offered a 25 year old position paper saying that we need to study Nutra Sweet’s effects. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > **Finn** : when you attack someone for the quality of their citation, it helps to correctly attribute the argument that the citation is purportedly supporting. Any way you slice it, I did. If the claim was that the 25 year old position paper somehow ushered in 20 years of growing controversy, then I addressed that. If the claim was that the metabolites of Nutra Sweet were dangerous in single doses or over time, I addressed that too. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Here, the proper response was not to claim the citation was invalid as support for the claim of ongoing concerns over Aspartame Even though it was, at best, a non-sequitur… > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > ; the proper response was to assert that, regardless of whatever worries the study raised in the early 80s, the concern in question has long since been settled as being non-existent (citation to study results). Which was the point I made in the post you’re objecting to and the facts I provided in the three posts immediately following. Instead of trying to lecture me on my behavior, you might want to fix yours, instead. I pointed out, quite clearly, that he’d need an actual statistical study rather than a 25 year old position paper and that his 25 year old position paper addressed nothing, at all. In other words, I pointed out that he had yet to support his point (burden of proof and all that) “Ask yourself what would be a more accurate cite to prove your claims, a 25 year old position paper or an actual, ya know, statistical study. Then provide a cite for that, instead of a totally irrelevant cite that you’re too dumb to realize doesn’t even address your actual claim.” I then went on to actually do the work to rebut his claims rather than simply pointing out that he hadn’t supported them. Although, no, it was’t necessary, and pointing out that debating woo-salesmen simply keeps them in the public eye and they’ll repeat their fictions later on anyways isn’t exactly all that contentious a position, I don’t believe. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/259 "2009-07-31T20:35:10Z")
It did not occur to me until the Swift quote just how much our own Smashy is like Ignatius J Reilly. I can just see him at Levy Pants now. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731/260 "2009-07-31T20:40:41Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > They are both arguing their points of view honestly, but are both arrogant assholes. Arrogance is having a higher opinion of yourself than is warranted. Just like Smashy’s actual abilities come nowhere close to his claims, which is why he ends up sputtering about the dangers of Nutra Sweet when he has no clue what’s actually going on. Or why he thinks he’s a wonderful genius, or what have you. As you yourself have admitted that I never am without cites for the factual claims I make, it’s pretty dense of you to allege that I’m “arrogant”. Hell, you just said you’ll start lurking in some threads if I’m pointing out facts. So Smashy is a pretentious fuck, and not only was I right in this most recent exchange, but I’m not a whiny bitch like him and I actually provide (and defend) cites when called on claims. You’re being a jerk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smashthestate/504731.md?page=14)