Subject:
|
Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:52:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8377 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--snip--
I think this entire argument can be put down to a disagreement over what
evidence is applicable to the use in the argument. I think you’re as
unlikely to convince me that your choices are valid as I am to convince you
that mine are. We are both picking and choosing what we will and won’t
include.
|
Here’s the thing--my justification for ‘choosing evidence’, if you wish to
call it that, is like anytrhing else
So here’s a hypothetical situation--
Bob had a pretty ‘transgressive’ start to life. He had gotten into some
unlawful mischief in his youth, but, through ‘doing time’, community service,
and such, the law now states that he has absolved all transgressions.
Now Bob is a productive worker in society, and a fine contributor to his
local community. However, when he’s at the local PTA meeting, someone steps
up and says, “Why that Bob!! He was a bad seed before!! He should be
punished!!!”
|
Dave,
Your analogy is incorrect. It would be correct if Bob had done something in
another town and then someone in the town hall had abused Bob for his actions in
the other town, Bob had defended himself, James had said Bob was reformed and
then Jim had said he wasn’t. James and Jim then argue over Bob’s reform. Noone
has argued that Bob should be punished.
| |
I ‘pick and choose’ my evidence by what’s relevant for this issue. What
isn’t relevant is people bringing up (almost constantly) the ‘badness’--the
transgressions--of someone’s past when the ‘official’ stance is that these
past transgressions are absolved.
So again, I’m not cherry picking. And when I talk about how *I*‘ve had
(mostly) fun with my entire history on LUGNET, it doens’t mean I’m bringing
*all* of the history of LUGNET into this issue *but you can’t*--it means that
your issue of ‘Eric limits people’s fun here on LUGNET’ as you specified is
crap--first it’s a separate issue from the original issue, therefore I
addressed it as such, and secondly, once again saying that Eric limits
people’s fun here has been addressed by the admins, both past and present,
and now, it appears anyway, Eric *is* contributing to the ‘good times’ of
LUGNET.
So I addressed the various issues that you prsented, and there’s no logical
fallacy therein. If you want to jump around with ‘why Eric’s bad’ and I
point out that, well, your premise is wrong, and you don’t like the
truths--again, you are more than entitled to your own opinions, but you
certainly are not entitled to what the truth is--nor am I for that matter.
What is, is. Eric has shown himself to be a better person here. He looks
like he has learned to at least try to let things go easier. So he got a
little ‘officiously litigious’ on this one--again, the important bit is why
he did that in the first place.
If he went on a rant for ‘no real reason’, then I’d call him on it. But
(almost) everyone in this thread has pointedly said that *something* happened
that was a malicious attack on Eric. We can debate the measure of response
as a separate issue (like the above ‘Eric limits fun’), but the fact--the
*truth* is--that the *malicious attack* did happen. That’s the issue. We
can dress it up and debate all around it, but the truth is right there.
So where do you stand, Tim? Should Eric get an apology? Not from you and I,
for as you stated, you had nothing to do with the ‘original sin’ but jumped
in when I posted something I think you misinterpreted. We can discuss ‘does
Eric *deserve* an apology?’ and go into all that is Eric and his impact on
others...
Lets put it this way--had I ‘tampered with’ some links and images on a
sidebar that pertained to your stuff--even if I did it as a joke, but you
didn’t take it as such, should I offer you an apology? If not, then there’s
nothing more to say. Again, it doesn’t matter if you wouldn’t get upset if
this happened to you--I don’t think I would have been upset--I’m an ‘eh,
whatever’ kind of guy *for me*. The fact is--Eric was upset, and he had a
*right* to be upset--therefore he should get an apology. We can go on about
all the other stuff regarding his past and what happens elsewhere (not on
LUGNET), but that’s obfuscation, and irrelevant to the original issue.
|
I’ve generally considered you to be reasonable in your arguments. You are now,
to put it bluntly, wrong in your argument and your means of delivery. What I
have done is give examples to support my point. What you have done is give
examples to support your point. I have consistently disagreed with your
arguments. You have shifted from disagreeing with my examples to attacking my
reasons for giving the examples. The reason you have shifted to this strategy is
because, as I said, we are each selecting different samples for our arugments.
The difference is that I have refrained from attacking your choices.
To put it succinctly, my reason for jumping in was to disagree with ONE
STATEMENT of yours. I even spelt it out in my original post. I did obsfucate the
issue by arguing with other points which was stupid but by my statement in the
original post I hope it was pretty obvious why I jumped in. All else is
obsfucation, both your arguments and mine. You can’t pick and choose what is
obsfucation and what is relavent from my arguments in order to bolster your own.
You have presented no proof satisfactory to me that my premise is wrong.
Likewise I have presented no proof satisfactory to you that your premise is
wrong. This is simply because you are choosing a different sample to me and
arguing its merits while I am arguing the merits of mine.
Furthermore I have never said that Eric shouldn’t get an apology so you are
building a strawman. I have, in fact, even apologised to Eric for something in
this thread which would hardly support the position that I think Eric shouldn’t
get an apology.
| |
| |
I’m not sure how you can read that I am speaking for Rene. I state that
Eric’s action threatening Ross (should be Al, my mistake) and Rene is an
issue. Nor did I go flying off the handle over it, or at least no more so
than you did (if you are implying that I did).
|
I used language that I regret and, on reading it, made unintentional
allusions. My ‘didn’t fly off the handle’ was meant to point out that my way
of ‘admonishing Eric’ to not aggravate the situation was as low key--by
saying ‘you’re better than this’, I think, was a very nice way and about as
far from ‘flying off the handle’ as one can get. I also think that this
entire thread has demonstrated that everyone involved has been doing
same--tempers haven’t ‘flared’ and no one has ‘flown off the handle’.
|
OK. I genuinely wasn’t sure where it was directed which is why I chose to add
the brackets.
| |
| |
| |
The body of evidence *here* shows that he’s pretty good *here* *now*. I’m
sorry if you can’t see that. And I’m sorry that people like to provoke him
*here* that leads to these issues. I’m also sorry that I do tend to go on
about it :)
|
As I said above, you are picking your body of evidence according to what
suits your argument (or possible vice versa) as am I (or possibly vice
versa). It is similar to the situation in mathematics where there are
various ways for measuring time-moving averages and intuition must be used
(usually) to choose which one is more applicable to the situation. Our
intuitions disagree.
|
I’m using the relevant data for this issue. If you want to talk about other
issues, I’m all for that and we can pull in whatever data you wish to pull
in. Keeping the data relevant to the issue isn’t ‘cherry picking’. It’s
keeping the data relevant to the issue.
|
You claim you are using the relevant data and I claim that you aren’t. I’m sure
you will continue to insist that your sample is the right one and you’re yet to
give me a convincing argument that mine isn’t the right one. Considering that
sample choice is an issue in scientific papers where there are much more
rigorous ways of deciding what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ I think that outright
stating that yours is relavent and mine isn’t is adding nothing to your
argument. To shift to another common forum of debate, in Law there are times
when you can use a person’t past transgressions as an argument for their current
guilt. It is restricted I agree but it doesn’t make selection as clear cut as
you seem to think (and for all the faults of any given, Democratic legal system
I am optimistic that the people involved in shaping it are trying hard to
balance the needs of society against an individuals needs in choosing what is
allowable as evidence)
| |
| |
| |
Where did I ‘bolster’ my point from past evidence? I made a somewhat
parenthetical observation that my fun here at LUGNET is in no way
diminished by people I don’t like.
|
Parenthical or obsfucating? ;)
|
I’m good at both. I dealt with this above, but it bears repeating. Your
point that ‘Eric limits fun’ is a separate issue, and I dealt with that point
by showing that a) LUGNET’s big enough for everyone, and b) I’ve had fun
through many many bumps along LUGNET’s history. My having fun has never been
dependant on anyone else.
|
You seem to be saying (from the top paragraph and this one) that the issue of
fun was both a separate issue and also formed part of my main argument. It’s one
or the other. I will tell you now that it is a side issue. I should never have
brought it up and I don’t entirely disagree with you (nor do I entirely agree
with you).
| |
| |
Except I just realised that I somewhat contradict my own arguments by
stating that I agree with it and you somewhat contradict your statement by
the arguments you make in this post with it... which goes to show that the
optimal solution may actually be the least logical.
Tim
|
Actually, as far as I’m concerned, everyone in this thread has been
performing better than expected. No yippage of ‘bans’ or ‘i’m quitting!!’.
It’s been a pretty good conversation all around. I think everyone has
demonstrated the ‘better than that’ attitude. However, there have been some
(minor, at least to me) pot shots directed at Eric.
Dave K
|
So we both argued a point, contradicted ourselves on that point and now you
consider that that point may have been correct (and I think I agree with you)?
That’s some good going on both our parts.
Tim
PS. While I am enjoying this debate I’m afraid this will have to my final word
as I will not be around for a while.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
| (...) huh?? The analogy was as close to apt as I had the time to make--Eric (being Bob) had committed transgressions on LUGNET in the past for which he was 'officially' forgiven. Now smomeone maliciosly attacked Eric, and people have chimed in (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
| (...) Here's the thing--my justification for 'choosing evidence', if you wish to call it that, is like anytrhing else So here's a hypothetical situation-- Bob had a pretty 'transgressive' start to life. He had gotten into some unlawful mischief in (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
