Trolling

The same thing that is gained from a game of chess, which is another civilized form of war. That said, debate here is not at all what I perceive it to be. I like the American Heritage definition: “A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition”. For this purpose, I see the teams as evenly balanced in terms of numbers, and I see them defending and attacking only the proposition, never one another. What Great Debates does, to a large extent, is prohibit ad hominem attack. But what it fails to do is prohibit pile-ons. Were I the uber-mod, that is one thing that I would forbid. When six people pounce upon one, it often devolves into nothing more than “me too” posts (the four expressing very similar ideas), with each one of them demanding the equal time of their victim. They then claim victory when he finds himself in the untenable position of needing more than 24 hours in a day to keep up with them, and the debate was a sham. I like the format for debates at Philosophy Forums. One person, or a team of people, engage a debate, which is then enjoined either by whom they invite or else the first comers equal to their number. That probably wouldn’t work here because of tradition and other factors, but it makes for some really excellent debates with lots of light and very little noise. Anyway, that’s pretty much how I see it.

That’s fine. We can call it Factor-X for all I care. I’m just defining what I’m talking about so we both will have the same epistemic footing.

Ah, so pretty much debate for the sake of debate. That can be fun. I don’t think that’s how most people here see it.

Especiallly on you. I guess I’ll never understand why you get the reactions you do. Must have been something in the past.

As a Libertarian Objectivist Christian, I reckon I’m a bit of a philosophical oddball.

Sure. And that’s not what I’m talking about when I say that deceit undermines debate.

If I say, “I’ve got some stats here on NYC homocides that show they far outnumber US deaths in Iraq,” and I don’t have the stats, that’s the kind of deceit that taints debate. Even if I’m getting ready to come back in later and say, “Ha ha! Just kidding!” the debate is still undermined.

If I say, “The media grossly exaggerrates anti-Jewish attacks: there has not been a single case of a Palestinian killing an Israeli citizen in Jerusalem in the last five years,” and then later I come in and say, “Dumbass, I was talking about Jerusalem, North Carolina!” then the debate is still undermined.

If I say, “Really, there are more homocides in New York City in the last twelve months than in Baghdad? Care to make a wager on that?” Even if I’m planning on coming back after the wager and saying, “Given that Iraqis are also human, and that you didn’t consider the thousands of homocides against Iraqis, I win the bet,” I’ve not undermined the debate. I’ve just let the other person’s lack of thought blow up in their face; nowhere did I deliberately mislead them.

If you consider debating a game, well, that may be why I’ve found many of your posts to be disingenuous. I don’t consider it a game, for the most part–at least, not when I’m talking with smart folks. (Sometimes I engage in the less-than-honorable behavior of picking on mental midgets; I acknowledge that as a character flaw).

Daniel

I agree with everything you said until, of course, you said something about my considering a debate to be a game. Why? Because I said that both chess and debate are civilized forms of war? It is a logical fallacy to extrapolate particular similarities into general similarities, so you shouldn’t assume that I think either that debate is a game or that chess is a discussion. There is an aesthetic to chess that separates it from other games. And there are other things that are civilized forms of war — like economic transactions, for example.

I said if you consider it to be a game, if you want to get picky. And if you want me to avoid logical fallacies, then tell me about this syllogism:

Therefore, debate is deception.

May I fairly attribute this belief to you?

May I also, based on this:

attribute to you the belief that deceit is an acceptable part of an economic transaction?

If not, I’m really not understanding what position you’re actually defending here; if so, I’m really not sure what position you’re actually defending here, since defense of the use of deceit in a debate necessarily undermines that very defense.

Daniel

Inasmuch as I was accused of “trollish behavior” by Lynn, I feel it is proper that I respond.

For several months, I’ve read thread after thread started by people who have a feverish attitude regarding the upcoming election. While I would never act to discourage their right to participate in the elective process, some of the cites offered are anything but neutral and everything partisan.

Disagree? Then I’m sure you’d believe that everything published about Nikita Kruschev by Tass was equally free of party-bias.

My purpose was not to annoy or attract attention to myself. I sought to introduce the notion that things are not always as they seem at first glance. I thought critical evaluation of a news source would be essential in formulating a platform regarding irrespecial issue, as well as fighting ignorance.

My observation of trolls on this board is that they are one trick ponies, never offering anything beyond that. I post on a wide variety of topics, as anyone who searches would quickly learn.

My thread included: a) a fully factual post, backed up with an article from an online news source, b) an overview line obviously separating the post-linked part from the candidate, and c) a winking smiley.

Not that I’ll receive an apology, but that’s the straight dope.

FWIW, dances, I didn’t read your post as a deliberate effort to mislead people, and that makes all the difference for me. The winky smiley automatically raised my suspicion, as did the “former girlfriend purchased the beer” part and the “leaving the pub” part.

That’s a key difference between your post and december’s famous post, which contained no indication that it was a joke, and indeed fudged the facts in order to obscure the fact that it was misleading (referred to “The President,” an appellation that always refers to the current president, and misattributing one quote altogether). I didn’t respond to december’s post back then because he had such a reputation for dishonesty already that I’d learned his well was poisoned, and tried not to drink from it.

Note that, like december’s infamous post, yours mainly worked to catch leftists who posted before they examined the facts. However, I don’t get the impression that you intended to do that, inasmuch as you gave several clear clues that it was not to be taken seriously; I therefore am not at all talking about you when I talk about dishonesty tainting the debate.

As near as I can tell, if you’d included a link in your post to one of the hysterical jump-to-conclusions posts you were satirizing, everything would’ve been copacetic.

Daniel

I don’t. But I don’t think you need to try to establish by modus ponens justification for “why I’ve found many of your posts to be disingenuous”. You might simply be wrong — i.e., that they aren’t disingenuous. Maybe your perception is merely skewed. Maybe it isn’t necessary that you attempt in every discussion we have from now to eternity to pin that burden on me. Why don’t you just drop it? Let it go.

I’m not defending anything. I’m expositing. Deception is unethical, in my view, only when it is initial and when its purpose is to bend the volition of its peaceful honest victim. Deception is not always unethical. Suppose a known serial rapist came to your door and asked where your sister is. Do you feel compelled not to deceive him?

I understand what you are saying; but I’m calling this a bad analogy relative to your exposition on deception in debate. I have never seen a rapist start a thread on a message board inquiring the whereabouts of my sister. Anyway, if said raptist did come to your door in such capacity, why the need of deception? The common sense rebut would be to give him a hearty, honest, unambigous GTFOOH.*

*GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.

Terrible analogy. If I lie to a known rapist, my otherwise unethical act becomes ethical by virtue of preventing a greater harm. If I lie in a debate, my unethical act simply obscures the issue.

Daniel

It can hardly be a “terrible analogy” since it is not an analogy. It is an example to illustrate the assertion I made that deception is not always unethical. I have also cited specific deceptions that are not unethical in debates. You have chosen to call them something other than deceptions, rather than concede the point, but that’s not my problem.

:rolleyes: Terrible example, then.

Daniel

Deceiving a serial rapist is a perfectly good example of the ethical use of deception. I’m not sure what game of deception it is you’re playing here.

…and once again I’m reminded of how you distort the debate to make it about irrelevancies, in an effort to “win,” and am reminded why I shouldn’t engage with you. Sorry about that; I’m out.

Daniel

Your teachings were unneeded, sensei.

Seriously, if everyone pulled that kind of stunt all the time, it would just waste people’s time and chap their nads. I wouldn’t call it trolling, though. More like, “bulling.”

Your apology seems disingenuous, as does your argument. I mean, refusing to concede that deceiving a serial rapist is not unethical is the very height of belligerence. It seems to me that you are infected with the very “must win” malady for which you slam others. Stones, glass houses, and all that.

It wasn’t an apology to you, but to other folks reading the thread. Since I earlier said, “If I lie to a known rapist, my otherwise unethical act becomes ethical by virtue of preventing a greater harm,” you’re breaking the ninth commandment. And successfully moving the debate away from the original topic.

Daniel

Don’t you ever feel embarrassed? Shut the fuck up, and fuck off. I’ve never, ever, come across quite such a spectacular asshole as you. Once again, just shut the fuck up, and fuck off.