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?
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.
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.
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton argument about Monica, Who are you going to believe me, or the 42 liars over there (Please understand I mean no comparison with Bill Clinton, merely that he is the one who used that argument last in my memory)
Let’s go further into your post, shall we?
You said “Perhaps, but homosexuality is not a character and personality issue. While those can be somehow molded, it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation. Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.”
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)
You add yet another assertion with out any visible means of support “it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation.”
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.
Debating 101 “Never speak in absolutes” /Humor
Next, you give your opponent (in the debate) an opportunity to utterly destroy your argument with absolutely no research by asking him / her “Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.”
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…”
Lastly, you attack his story about a man (which he will be able to use to do exactly what I just said) and picked at the least important part of it in an attempt to make the story look petty. In reality, you have legitimately allowed him to bring the story back in his next post to destroy your arguments.
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.
May I ping you to join in debates that I am going to be in on FR?
May I have a list of the topics you consider important and your position on them?
Thank you very much for the amusement you provided me today.
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?
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.
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.
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton argument about Monica, Who are you going to believe me, or the 42 liars over there (Please understand I mean no comparison with Bill Clinton, merely that he is the one who used that argument last in my memory)
Let’s go further into your post, shall we?
You said “Perhaps, but homosexuality is not a character and personality issue. While those can be somehow molded, it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation. Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.”
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)
You add yet another assertion with out any visible means of support “it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation.”
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.
Debating 101 “Never speak in absolutes” /Humor
Next, you give your opponent (in the debate) an opportunity to utterly destroy your argument with absolutely no research by asking him / her “Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.”
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…”
Lastly, you attack his story about a man (which he will be able to use to do exactly what I just said) and picked at the least important part of it in an attempt to make the story look petty. In reality, you have legitimately allowed him to bring the story back in his next post to destroy your arguments.
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.
May I ping you to join in debates that I am going to be in on FR?
May I have a list of the topics you consider important and your position on them?
Thank you very much for the amusement you provided me today.