Why do people insist on arguing this way?

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by WillNever, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    Certain people on the board have a habit of taking what someone says and then making an enormous and illogical leap to some melodramatic extreme that was never stated and is not logically parellel with the original statement, and then arguing against that extreme instead.

    What would spur someone to engage in this sort of posturing? Did their brains never fully develop..? Or are they simply bad faith trolls?

    EXAMPLE:

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Do you expect a rational response from BM?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ellie Banned Banned

    Messages:
    424
    I dont see anything wrong with those examples.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    Oh yeah, maybe I'm setting the bar too high.

    I know, they are excellent examples indeed. Thank you for saying so.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    I agree with Ellie - both Baron Max responses were logical and valid. I assume the first had more relevant context...but the second was clearly an acceptable response by BM.
     
  9. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Is directing an argument to such extremes a way to conduct an intelligent discussion?
     
  10. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    Nay, the first quotation contained everything Baron Max quoted. The rest of his post was rather irrelevant.

    For the second, please show us where either:

    (1) it was proposed or suggested by WillNever that there will be "no place on Earth where like-minded people can form their own society so as to live as they want with those that the want and like?"

    (2) it was proposed or suggested by WillNever that humans are to be forced, through social proximity, to become exactly like everyone else, to think like everyone else, to never have any different likes or dislikes, to be denied the right to not like someone else because of some "feature."

    (3) it was proposed or suggested by Willnever that "we're all gonna' have to conform" because of a "brave new world" being proposed.

    Please use exact statements by WillNever, if you can. I will read.
     
  11. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    WillNEver: "...and it's mainly now the sickly old religious fruits who oppose the inevitable."
    BaronMax:"So is there to be no place on Earth where like-minded people can form their own society so as to live as they want with those that the want and like?"

    If you deny that I don't understand...then ask BaronMax if I understood his point - if I did, I'm literate. End of story.
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Why not? Usually what it shows it that the original argument simply set some limits beyond which their argument failed. By taking it far enough, we can usually see that the argument simply sets different limits than the other person.

    It's no different to people saying "Killing is bad." But by probing a little deeper, even if going to extremes, we can often discover that the person is being dishonest and that "some" killing is okay.

    "All arguments by WillNever are factual, logical, and reasonable."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  13. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    But why would their arguments apply to situations beyond the scope of what they are talking about?

    Also, the extremes are not logically equivalent to the original statement. We can see that from the above examples. Controlling your emotions to stop yourself from killing is not logically equivalent to "never smiling, never being happy, never being emotional, etc."

    In those cases (and this applies to almost every case on this board), drawing such parellels makes no sense. We have a word for that. It's called a strawman, and it's used by either bad faith trolls or other sorts of sorry, braindead losers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,987
    Oh, you noticed?

    You noticed?

    The one thing to watch for, though, is the general application of a particular notion. That is, one might think something is just fine as they've said it, but what happens if we apply that "logic" equally?

    For instance, you might turn Max's "like-minded" argument on its ear. After all, what if a group of like-minded people form a society in which they have sex with children? It could seem to you exactly what he's proposing, so to speak. After all, should NAMBLA, through social proximity, be forced to conform to social standards that describe sexual intercourse with children as dangerous, exploitative, and wrong? Now, most of us would say, "Yes," for reasons that may seem obvious to you or me, but in Max's outlook, that's horribly bigoted of us.

    I'm of the opinion that such hyperbole is pointless. In the past, Max's "like-minded" argument has included the right to arbitrarily oppress people; the argument that one is only equal when they are superior just doesn't work.

    And yes, you are setting the bar too high. Not that I would disagree with the standard of good faith inherent in your inquiry, but in the face of reality, it's asking a lot of people around here.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Asking a lot of some people around here
     
  16. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    Yes, and we've noticed that some members are endless streams of ad homs, strawmen and red herrings.

    Pot, kettle. What?
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    LOL, yes we have.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    Who are you referring to..?
     
  19. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    I WillNever say.

    *cough* Tiassa*cough*
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Why not? Where did anyone set any scope of the discussion? And even if one person sets some articificla limits, why should the other abibe by it if it fits his argument or the discussion?

    Logically equivalent? No, but it IS a natural extension. Let's face it, Will, anyone who could stand and watch his 5-yr old daughter being molested or raped by someone and still not lose control of his emotions .....is a "Mr. Spock" indeed!!

    So are you saying that everyone on Earth would agree with you on that issue, Will? I think what you call a strawman just might not be one, huh?

    So is this another example of your famous ability to control your emotions? ...LOL! Good thing I wasn't raping your 5-yr old daughter, huh? ...LOL!

    By the way, Will, you never answered my original question;
    In your little scenario, where you'd kill to prevent someone from killing someone else, ....How can you tell when someone is trying to kill someone else?
    How can you tell that they're just not going to beat the shit outta' them and not kill them?
    Care to answer that question, Will? Or would you rather resort to name-calling .....as examples of your famous emotional control????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  21. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    Why shouldn't you pretend someone's argument is something it isn't..? That's essentially what you are asking.


    Going from not killing someone to "not smiling, not being happy, and not being emotional" is very far from being a "natural extension." It's a very remote and contrived extension, actually.

    My emotions are in control. Yours aren't, though. That is why you're still umarried and without children at age 65.

    If they are beating the shit out of someone, they aren't killing them. The proper response would be to beat the beater up, not kill the beater. If they have a gun or knife aimed however, then they're either planning to kill or planning to injure with the risk of killing, in which case what I said holds true.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Huh? And just so you don't misunderstand, I'll repeat it. Huh?

    So who sets these limits that you're talking about? Who makes the decisions on what's a natural extension and what isn't?

    Which is why you made this thread?? I'd say that you were upset by my arguments and wanted to try to gain some sympathy and support. Emotions getting out of control, Will?? ...LOL!

    People get beaten to death all the time ...and it usually starts with two people beating on each other. Yet you're trying to tell us that you'd be able to tell which blow or punch was the killing blow, and you'd be able to stop it before it landed?????

    How would you know for sure that he was going to kill rather than to just threaten or maim? So you might kill the guy when he was NOT going to kill the other guy????? Ooh, your idealism is falling apart again, Will.

    Sorry, Will, but if it's not obvious to you, it is to me .....you have far less control of your emotions than you want to try to protray. And that's okay, that's about like most people ...about like that father who killed the molester.

    Baron Max
     
  23. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,103

Share This Page