Subject:
|
Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:00:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 stating ‘Eric
(Bob) was bad in the past!! Sure the attacker was wrong, but Eric was wrong,
too, so deserves the attack.”
That was the original issue. That was what the analogy refered to. Again, the
obfuscation on your part is clouding the issue.
| |
| |
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.
|
What you have done is brought up irrelevant ‘discussion points’ to make your
case that Eric deserved what he got--‘he’s being sly--he’s bad elsewhere and
good here...’
As far as I can see, Eric’s been a (mostly) supportive person lately here on
LUGNET. You state that his actions in other forums is relevant. I rightly then
state that if we look into his ‘other actions’ elsewhere then by god we better
start looking into *all* other actions of *everyone involved*, ‘cause that’s
what you’re calling for. You say ‘what he does over there’ is on the table, but
you’re unwilling to then put ‘everything else’ on the table.
It’s disingenuous, and, once agian I’ll say--you’re better than that.
Furthermore, his--your, my, anyones--actions elsewhere has no bearing on this
specific issue here at LUGNET. If I made in illegal left hand turn in Rome,
Italy, the OPP officer here in Burlington, Ontario, Canada does not then have
the right to pull me over for it.
| |
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.
|
And I pointed out to you that your ‘jumping in’ was due to a
misinterpretation--I had in no way stated that Eric was ‘right’ in everything
whilst those that were ‘poking fun at him’ were bad, and in no way was I setting
any precident on this matter. I was specifically referring to the issue, and
the facts of the issue pretty much speak for themselves.
| |
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.
|
I most certainly have. And we are now in the ‘fun’ territory, in which one of
us ‘muddies the water’ at the cost of truth and justice. I’ll pull up a
quotation form a blog I once read--
“The GOP has mastered an error condition in the political process, an infinite
loop of abstraction that drains all meaning from political speech. They don’t
have to focus on meaning, really, at all, they just turn up the burbling
nonsense until we all descend past the noise machine event horizon into
infinitely unproductive debate, never to re-emerge. This is how we progressives
(rationalists?) keep ending up on the sucker side of the media war with the
right: we’re still using the old paradigm of meaning and they’re busily
deploying the equivalent of malware and DOS attacks. ”
By continuing to state, without proof or adherence to the issue (and subsequent
issues thereof) in question, that I’m wrong, when in fact I have shown your
reasonings to be flawed regarding this issue(s) and the way you pull in your
‘debating points’, you make it seem that this is all a matter of opinion, and
that ‘the other side’s (my) opinion’ is questionable. When, in fact, all I’ve
been doing is making the facts known, and using analogies (albeit not perfect
ones, to be sure) to show how some of the points brought up by others to, well,
not necessarily condone the actions of those that ‘done bad’ to Eric, really
didn’t say, ‘Hey! it doesn’t matter what Eric did in the past or what he does
in other places--that kind of ‘foul play’ should not be part of the LUGNET
experience.’
DaveE said it, and yet, here we are--many post later, going around with people
not, well, saying that.
| |
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 was stating the original case (again), which was trying to bring the debate
back to where it was relevant. No you didn’t say *anywhere* that Eric didn’t
deserve an apology. However, the direction of your posting points and the great
length you’ve undertaken to bring up parenthetical issues (which I fully believe
are great debating ideas in and of themselves, fyi, so y’know,keep bringing ‘em
up) has shown me that you believe--regarding the original issue--Eric doesn’t
deserve an apology. Either by past misdeeds or by whay he does elsewhere, he
shouldn’t get one. My interpretation on this could be totally flawed (and it’s
early in the morning and I haven’t the time to go re-read the entire thread, so
I’ll just go with my gut and my faulty recollection on this one)
Just from your above statement--you never said that Eric doesn’t deserve an
apology. You even showed us, the jury that you apologized to Eric for something
in this very thread! Bravo! That’s what we like to see (at least, what I like
to see--taking ownership and standing up and ‘doing the right thing’!) It’s
still obfuscating because in that lovely little paragraph, as well as everywhere
else, you did not make the point--
So here’s the million dollar question, Tim:
Should Eric get an apology from the transgressor(s) for the malicous mislinking
on the Technic sidebar?
You’ve stated that you have never said he shouldn’t get one. However, that’s
not the same as, ‘Well, yes he should get an apology’. In that, there’s all the
world of difference (there’s a computer logic analogy that I’d like to throw in
right now but then I’d just be going off on another ‘Daveism’...)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Sorry ‘bout that.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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)
|
Absolutely I agree that there are times when you can bring in character
reference and all past misdeeds--if a guy’s being charged with whatever offence,
and there’s a history of similar offences, then by all means, I can’t see why it
wouldn’t be admissable.
That said, if a guy’s in a store, legally buying groceries, and a cop comes up
and slaps the cuffs on him and locks him up *because* he’s robbed stores in the
past, even if he’s done his pennance for his past misdeeds, then who’s wrong?
Certainly *not* the guy doing things legal. If Eric did something wrong here on
LUGNET, then there’s a whole body of evidence to be used against him in whatever
decisions need to be made by the admins. Once again, I call ‘relevance’. Since
you bring up the legal system as you did, it’s perfectly apt in this case. In
this case, Eric was wronged. He wasn’t doing wrong. If he was doing wrong,
then by all means, bring up all past transgressions and have at it! However, by
saying, ‘He done wrong before’, so somehow the transgressors against Eric are,
well, not perfeclty exonerated, should be given some leniency--is crap. The
legal system would state same. If a ‘reformed’ criminal’s house is broken into,
can the cops ignore that? “Well, he was a robber--jsut desserts I say!!”
Some circles would appreciate the irony (I sorta do), but in no way does that
absolve the current crooks.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
I have no idea where we are on this one--this entire thread has gone 5 minutes
past any reasonable interest. That said, I made the point that it was a
separate issue, and I dealt with it as such. If I put ‘hooks’ into it from
other lines of discussion, they were for whatever reasons that I’m not bothering
to look up. Was it part of your main arguement? Or not? It doesn’t matter--the
point is dealt with--if someone is having ‘less fun’ because of their ‘run in’s’
with Eric, then the solution is to not have ‘run in’s’ with Eric. Easier said
than done, to be sure, but it is a big world and I don’t find myself fretting
about these kinds of things. I ignore what I consider background noise (and I’m
sure many people ignore me ‘cause I’m background noise to them). Eh, life’s too
short for that type of worry. So where are we now? +6 minutes??
| |
| |
| |
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
|
As long as we’re having fun...
| |
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.
|
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
