Replies

As an analyst, by nature and training (computer analyst to be specific)

I have had many classes in Logic, and logical constructs. I cannot resist the arguments being made in your posts!

If you don’t mind, may I join the conversation, from a strictly “Logical” or “Debate” perspective?

I certainly will not mind. You provide an insightful and interesting analysis of the arguments I've made.

You said “It seemed as if you were merely expressing your own frustration - a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” This statement is so full of assumptions that I cannot resist examining it closer. A) You assume the other poster is frustrated. B) You assume any frustration the other poster is caused by you and not say a toothache. C) You assume that this frustration is similar to other frustrations you have observed with others who were dealing with you. I) you admit that others are frustrated by you II) You assume this is for a common cause III) You assume that the reason for this frustration that you observe is that all the other people you have frustrated cannot follow your “Logic”. IV) You assume that your intellect is superior to every one’s who is frustrated by you. V) You conclude that this poster is frustrated with you for the same reason that others have been frustrated with you because you are using logical constructs they are not capable of following. D) You assume you are logical and everyone else is not.

You're correct. But why did I make that remark? Did I make it to advance some point? No, because it doesn't advance any point. I made it because it's always nice to rub someone's (apparant) frustration in his face. Doing this might well result in the person becoming more and more irritated, and he might well self-destruct before the audience by making an idiotic argument. Of course, this doesn't apply equally to online debates. But I've utilized it so often that is has almost become a second nature for me. If someone appears frustrated, I confront him with it. If someone wants to stop the debate, I do the same. "Why would you want to stop? Don't you have an answer?"

Now you might think that this isn't entirely fair. But I distinguish between two kinds of debates. Debates between relatively like-minded people, in which both sides genuinely try to come to a certain resolution. This might be a debate between you and me about what the best way ios to combat international terrorism. Sometimes, the dispute is not rooted in some ultimate agreement, and in such cases, argument is essentially pointless (if you don't believe that a debate is an end in itself, like I do), because the two sides aren't going to agree anyway. In such cases, I debate only for the fun of it. And, since no resolution is forthcoming anyway, I try to enjoy the debate as much as possible.

From this statement we can assume that either the majority of the people are not logical, or you are not logical and frustrate everyone else who is.

I disagree with this interpretation. This statement rests upon the following assumptions and fallacies:

1. Assumption: The frustration of those people had something to do with logic.
2. Assumption: The people I've debated are a representative sample of the population.
3. Assumption: The frustration of people about alleged illogical behavior on the other side proves that the behavior is indeed illogical.
4. Fallacy, false dilemma: logical people can disagree with each other, and even get frustrated over the fact that they can't resolve their disagreement

You assert that homosexuality is not a “character, and personality issue” you offer no supporting evidence for this bald assertion, and continue on to build upon this bald assertion with “While those can be somehow molded“ Following an assertion with the statement that if your assertion can be proven wrong, your argument fails is like painting a great big bulls eye on your logical weaknesses, don’t do this (In a debate I would have slaughtered you with this)

Absolutely. But it's a calculation. I'm weighing the time that it will cost me to provide support for what I said against the chances that the person has the slightest idea of what he's talking about (and thus might be able to contest what I said). I don't have an infinite amount of time. It's an question of choice. If I'm debating someone who is well-informed or intelligent, like you, I'll be more careful. Otherwise, not so much. Many people will let you get away with sloppy reasoning without even noticing.

I would reply to this with “I know a therapist who decided he was homosexual after 15 years of marriage , he lived as a homosexual for 6 years, then went straight again. He basically changed his mind, and decided he was not homosexual anymore.” (While this is a true story. But I am using it as an example here) see how quickly the “Bald Assertion” arguments fall by the way side? This is a poor debate technique as it allows your opponent with a single story (even an exceptional story which is not the norm) to prove your point wrong because you spoke in absolutes about a bald assertion.

I'll concede the general point to you that talking in absolutes is potentially dangerous to the health of one's argument. However, in the case that you mention, I may well argue that your therapist might be a bi-sexual, or that he had a strange period of confusion while his sexual orientation did not change (most therapists need therapy themselves, so it seems).

While you assume an answer, all the debater of the opposite side would have to say is “Well, I struggled with same gender attraction as a teenager, but I am happy with the choice I made.” And BOOM all your arguments come crashing down around your ears because you allowed the opponent to utterly destroy your arguments with a personal story. Worse yet, the story does not even have to be true, merely believable, since it is about what he thinks! The worst for you is, your opponent can get away Scott free with saying this as it is un-checkable, and if anyone says later “Did you…” he / she can say “You know that was just debate…”

Absolutely. But as Sun Tzu (or whoever it was) said: "Know thy enemy". While opponents in a debate aren't enemies, the same rules apply. Let's factor in the opposition and the audience. I find it extremely unlikely that any one of the participants in that discussion would admit to such a thing. They aren't particularly fond of homosexuality, so such an admission would be strange. And indeed, nothing happened. You have to evaluate such arguments on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, you are not using “Logic”, and you are not using the definition of “Informal Logic” I looked up earlier. From just the information in this post, I could tell you why you frustrate everyone else, but I also know from this post that you will not accept that. You will continue to believe you are the one who is logical.

Probably. But I'll defer to your judgement, since you are an intelligent and impartial third-party observer.

May I ping you to join in debates that I am going to be in on FR?

It would be a pleasure.

May I have a list of the topics you consider important and your position on them?

Political topics? Right now? Very well.
War on Terror: support
Individual rights: support
Free market: support
Government services/health care: oppose
War on Drugs: oppose
Guns: support
Government regulation: oppose
Right to die: support
Tougher crime laws: suppport

I don't know whether this will suffice, or whether this was what you asked for, but I tried.

Thank you very much for the amusement you provided me today.

Thank you for your nifty analysis. Your skill impresses.