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.

>>But why did I make that remark? … I made it because it's always nice to rub someone's (apparant) frustration in his face.

Making a comment designed to “Get the Goat” of an opponent in a debate while a useful tactic at times is ill advised when it opens your points up to rebuttal.

>>Now you might think that this isn't entirely fair.
“All is fair…” but not all is effective.

>>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.

Debate can indeed be enjoyable, and instructive. I personally however have limits on the tactics I will employ when debating both publicly, and privately so those I debate may also enjoy the debate (I get more repeat debaters that way.)

My Father taught me “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” so I will agree to disagree with someone when they stubbornly cling to a position that has become untenable because I value their continued friendship more than a cheap victory, but that’s me.

>>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.
Logic was already brought up in your posts as a point about which people got frustrated. I neglected to go back to prior posts and include them, do you want me to?

>>2. Assumption: The people I've debated are a representative sample of the population.
The only representation I was talking about were the people who were frustrated with you. “a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” You provided the sample, not me.

>>3. Assumption: The frustration of people about alleged illogical behavior on the other side proves that the behavior is indeed illogical.
1. Behavior is either logical, or illogical.
2. Logical people will understand and concur with logical behavior or speech.
3. Logical people cannot be frustrated by logic.

1. You frustrated the people in this sample (regardless of what this sample represents).
2. You were making arguments and having a debate.
3. Your Debate technique frustrated the people you were debating with.

1. Logical people cannot be frustrated by Logic.
2. A group of people were Frustrated by these arguments.
3. Either your Logic was not understood by these people, or your arguments were illogical.

This is Logical.

>>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.

Flattery will get you … Thanked (Grin) but I would advise you not to “Play down” to your audience, limit what you respond to instead that you might have impact when you speak rather than much speaking.

>>I'll concede the general point to you that talking in absolutes is potentially dangerous
>>to the health of one's argument.
Thank you.

>>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).

But since you do not know the person in question, any such arguments would be dismissed a sheer supposition on your part. (Assuming facts which are not in evidence…) As for this man, nope, he was hetero before, and after. A six year long confusion? Good luck proving that one, and if you can what happens to temporary insanity as a plea? (Your Honor, I was temporarily insane for the six years I planned this murder.) As for the therapy for therapists, I agree completely.

>>But as Sun Tzu (or whoever it was) said: "Know thy enemy".
Sun Tzu – The art of War (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html )
There are five points in which victory may be predicted:
1. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
2. He who understands how to fight in accordance with the strength of antagonistic forces will be victorious.
3. He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.
4. He who is well prepared and lies in wait for an enemy who is not well prepared will be victorious.
5. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious.
It is in these five matters that the way to victory is known.

Therefore, I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.

Sun Tzu, brilliant man.

>>I find it extremely unlikely that any one of the participants in that discussion would admit to such a thing.

I would have and I have never wondered about my orientation. The point of debate is to win. “The enemy’s gate is down” – Ender Wiggins

>>They aren't particularly fond of homosexuality, so such an admission would be strange.
Neither am I and I would have not even paused before answering.

>>And indeed, nothing happened. You have to evaluate such arguments on a case-by-case basis.
Well, you were lucky (Grin) and I’d rather be lucky than good, except you cannot chose to be lucky…

>>Political topics? Right now? Very well.
Thank you.

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: support

Dang we agree. Well, I suppose I might play devils advocate some time.

Thank you again and enjoy the thread.