:smack: that second “innocuous” should read “horrible.”
Daniel
Actually this is just more bullshit on your part. I posted a site which proved you wrong and you can’t even find an honest way to spin it in your favor.
Another lie. Show where you asked even once.
I thought these kind of gratuitous digs which you commonly resort to when you are losing a debate were not allowed in GD? Maybe a mod can clarify the rule for me.
How about this: look at the reasons I supplied explaining why I think your cite doesn’t prove anything, then refute those reasons. Or provide another way to look at things explaining why you think the cite provesyou right. You might find it a welcome change from just repeating “I’m right”. Just a thought. But wait, you’re not going to debate with me any more, so feel free to ignore the advice.
A quick search reveals post #130, and then #150, which you actually quote, but do not respond except to repeat your claim of your own interpretation. Do you bother to attempt to show why you thought anything beyond those two paragraphs was relevant? Uh, no. Then of course, you could go to post 101, which is tied to your many refusals to not respond to the specificpassage. But it turns out that you were right in the end, congratualtions. No doubt that in your mind this will absolve you of everything. Enjoy.
Basically I’m simply calling you dishonest, just as you did in in the beginning of your last post to me. As far as I know, characterizing someone’s debating style, or them, as dishonest is allowed. No doubt a Mod will correct me if I am wrong. But it won’t change that appropriateness of the badge you wear.
And it’s not gratuitous. It’s perfectly on point. And your very reply proves that. Alas, another one of my prayers went unanswered. But I’ll stay at them. Just to help, if you recall…
We are not happy with this sort of thing, but it tends to be a case by case judgement as to when they have crossed the line. It certainly does nothing to move the discussion forward or encourage open exchanges of ideas.
OTOH, you may have noticed that his very next post was a straightforward admission that he had misread/misinterpreted a key text on which most of this discussion hangs. It would not have hurt to give the snide post a pass until you saw how the thread continued from this point.
Still:
It is gratuitous. A clear declaration that one disbelieves another poster–or even thinks another poster is lying–is sadly tolerated in this Forum as a way to point out where one believes an argument is not being proposed in good faith. Snide little comments about “honor” are posted with the specific intention of irritating the other poster on a personal level.
Both of you:
leave the personal observations out of this thread or go wrassle in the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Let’s recap. You and I were debating, All was fine up to and inlcuding my repsponse to you in post #76. Then in post #77, you said I was guilty of a slippery slope argument. I responded asking you to address the analogy and to look up Slippery Slope. You respond in #122, incorrectly stating what a slippery slope argument is, then presneted analogies too tortured to comment on. Maybe I should have. If you’d still like me to, I will. But please, look up “slippery slope”. It does not mean what you think, and stated, it does. There has to be a link among the steps, one leading to the other.
Example: If I tell you I am against legalizing pot and you ask me why, I might respond, because pot leads to harder drugs like heroine and crack. And crack makes people steal, and that stealing can lead to violent crime, including murder. So because I don’t want to increase the murder rate I don’t think we should legalize pot.
That response would be correctly characterized as a slippery slope argument. (FYI: Now it may or may not be a fallacious argument. If I can prove that A leads to B to C… then it is not fallacious. But that burden would fall to me.)
When I drew that analogy with the swimming pool, there was no link implied whatsoever between “the pool” and “the nation” other than through the analogy itself.
So I seriously and politely recommend you check out those cites.
If you still disagree, I recommend posting the question in GQ. Maybe GD, but it doesn’t seem to be the right forum. Maybe tomndebb can suggest the right one or supply an explanation better than mine. (When he comes in to enjoy the gloating to which he is entitled.)
Didja miss the part where I said that, if you were presenting it as an analogy, it wasn’t a slippery slope? Yes, let’s recap:
To reiterate: if you were suggesting that I’d be okay with the pool, then indeed it is a slippery slope. You appear not to be saying that i’d be okay with your silly pool situation, that instead of meaning that, you meant that the pool was analogous to our country.
THAT IS NOT A SLIPPERY SLOPE. IT IS A RIDICULOUS ANALOGY.
Better?
And yes, my analogy was no good. You can’t make brownies out of catshit. I was doing my best to turn your ridiculous analogy into something workable, by adding in the key relevant details that your ridiculous analogy ignored. In so doing, I ended up with a mess, but that’s not my fault–it’s yours, for trying to have such a dumb analogy to begin with.
Daniel
Well, I think you finally understand what a slippery slope argument is. Glad to have helped—fighting ignorance and all that.
Now it looks like we’re onto analogies. This will be more difficult, as weighing an anaolgy’s aptness is dependent not so much a definition as having a command of logic that enables you to intuit the relationship between disparate things and carrying that relationship throughout the analogy.
I heartily suggest playing around with analogies such as those found on IQ tests and some entrance exams. There are also workbooks you can buy. Miller’s Analogies is one, if I recall correctly.
And sorry if my very apt analogy makes you feel so uncomfortable. By I drew it to do just that, to illustrate the soft footing on which your position on immigration that we were discussing stands.
That’s the very reason analogies are used. They simplify the issue focusing one to see the thinking that goes into one’s position.
No if you want to claim it inapt, you may do so. It would help if you explained why. If you stand by the explanation already given and want me to still comment on it, I will do so. You may want to revisit it though. Either way, just let me know.
:rolleyes: Congratualations on your victory in the French-Indian war, too. I’ve written a lesson plan on the slippery slope fallacy: the only misunderstanding on my part was which stupid argument technique you were using. Turns out you were going for stupid analogies, not stupid slippery slopes. And I was clear on that way back when: it’s you who have remained confused all this time.
For someone with such trouble with basic comprehension, you sure can be condescending, can’t you? Comment or not: I’ve not yet seen rational argument from you.
Daniel
:eek: You’re a teacher? You wrote a lesson plan on the slippery slope argument? You, the same person who wrote this:
?!
Okay, let’s move on. But for 1 million dollars I won’t track down where you live and show this to your Department Head. Send payment to *SDMB with instructions to foward to me. You have 24 hours to comply.
Now on to the analogy in question. We start with the foundation: Let’s make believe that the country is like a swimming pool in a backyard, and that the goverment is you, the owner. Now, notice the “make believe”?
Okay, so you have your pool, and it’s a mighty nice pool, and a mighty hot day. I’ve seen this pool before, and I’ve heard storeis about how wonderful it is. Now, here I am on this hot day and there it is. Boy, the people who own that pool have a pretty good life, and boy is it hot and boy would I like to be in that pool. Well, no one’s around, so why don’t I just scale this fence and make myself at home? I think I’ll do just that.
Now this is your home, your pool, and you are a nice guy. I’ve even heard that on another hot day when a family from down the street knocked on your door and asked if they could take a dip, you said fine. You even gave them some lemonade. In fact, you’ve done that quite a few times, people knock on your door, ask permissionto use your pool and you’ve welcomed them in. [Note: people asking for permission=immigrants seeking to come her legally.]
On a couple of occassions you said no, though. Once you were having a family party and wanted to keep it private, which was your right. Another time, some bikers came and you politley refused them. [Foreigners seeking legal immigration.] Not for any specific reason, just that you weren’t comfortable with them in your pool and your daughter in her bikini. Plus you heard that they deal drugs on the side. But no problem. It’s YOUR pool. [The USA.] People are allowed to ask for your permission to take a dip. [Seek entry legally.] And you are free to let them do so or not, based on a set of rules you have in your head. [Actual U.S. immigration laws.]
So what do you do when you come downstairs and see me [illegal immigrant]lounging by the pool. Maybe I’m not alone. Maybe I have 2, 3, or 10 friends with me. What do you do? Do you have the right to ask me to leave? [Attempt to impose the rule of law.]Do you have the right to call the cops if I/we don’t leave? [Enforce the law.] And what should you expect from the cops if you call them? These strangers [illigegal immigrants] are trespassing on your private property [the USA], in violation of your desires [U.S. law]. Does the cop not have an obligation to have them remove themselves from your property? And to forcibly remove them if they don’t?
Now, that is just an analogy, constructed to simplify the issue so we can more clearly see the issue we are faced with (illegal) immigration. I thiink the same things apply: a desirable location, people who would like entry to that location, those who attempt to do so legally, those that attempt to do so illegally, an owner, the rule of law, and an enforcement capacity. There is even compassion.
So, tell me, how is this not a valid analogy. And saying:
is non-responsive. You may claim it to be a terrible analogy, but your reasons are invalid, which I hope is clear from the analogy in it’s more drawn-out form. Things being fundementally different do not preclude them from being equated in an analogy. In fact, that is often the very reason why they are helpful. They allows us to strip away the baggage and intricacies of the discussion at hand.
That’s me; you’ve finally got something right.
Do your worst, Mr. Goldfinger.
Lovely irony. I point out in detail problems with your analogy. You respond for several posts with a complete non-sequitur, claim a nonexistent victory over ignorance, act condescending (with, I might add, utterly no right to do so), and finally think that you’re addressing my previous post by repeating the same stupid analogy in greater detail. And then you declare my previous response non-responsive?
Go ahead, declare another victory. I’ll waste no more time with you.
Daniel
Fair enough. I didn’t think you were interested a response, but here goes.
But the analogy equates you with the U.S. governement. And the government CAN kick you out of the nation.
But it CAN happen. Let’s say you have a big Richie Rich mansion. Someone can move into the East Wing and you might not know it for days. Therefore the analogy doesn’t fail. The analogy intentionally breaks from the real world and poses hypotheticals.
What they’re called is immaterial. And if you feel they are vital, you may ask them to stay. But how about if you think there work is not vital?
Again, if you come to that estimation, you may choose to allow them to stay. The important word being “allow”. But if you are trying to imlpy that illegal immigrants—not just immigrants, but illegal ones—are vital to out nation, I would disagree and ask if you have a cite to support that specific claim.
Okay, you’re posing a hypothetical: that there is only one way to oust them, and that that would have undesireable ramificatons. Again, you can choose to allow anyone you want to stay. So if your argument is that illegal immigrants are needed here and kinking them out will have a drastic negative impact on us, you have to show your assumption to true. Again, I would ask you to support that claim.
It seems bizarre and awful to me to choose option 1; it seems to ignore the reality of my household to do so. As far the hypothetical you’ve constructed, you might be right. But yet again, it seems your argument hinges on the assumption that kickiing illegals out will be catastrophic consequences. Now all you have to do is support your assumption.
Look all this snarkiness has gotten old, no doubt for you, as well. I apologize for my role in it. If you care to continue I will endeavor to omit it from my posts. If so, I’d be curious to hear your reply to my critique of your analogy and comments on mine. Much in the same way I’ve gone through yours.
If not, onward.