To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17832
17831  |  17833
Subject: 
Re: This should be required reading for this group...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:04:33 GMT
Viewed: 
289 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
http://www.akat.com/reasoning.htm

Is there an off-topic curator?  This article should be in the .debate sidebar.

Interesting article but I couldn't tell what it was you thought were doing
when you cited it. :-)

Or why it's a must read. The people that would benefit from reading it won't
do so or won't understand the point it makes. :-)

It makes a handy and compelling virtual stick to beat unreasonable people with?

And at times, pretty much everyone in here is guilty of unreasoning.

Certainly the strong disconnect between reasons and conclusions has been
observed here, in various parties.  Present company (usually) excepted. ;p

James



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: This should be required reading for this group...
 
(...) What? I don't get it. So, like a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm done here. O wait, you mean I wasn't playing chess? It wasn't clever or interesting? It wasn't even a stalemate? I don't even know what I am (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: This should be required reading for this group...
 
(...) But not always, regrettably. Yes, I agree. It is good to be able to remind people that debate involves reason or it isn't debate. Interesting discussion perhaps but not debate. We have a number of high quality debaters here and I think we all (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: This should be required reading for this group...
 
(...) Interesting article but I couldn't tell what it was you thought were doing when you cited it. :-) Or why it's a must read. The people that would benefit from reading it won't do so or won't understand the point it makes. :-) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

9 Messages in This Thread:




Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR