FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Tu Quoque (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Tu Quoque
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
This is to carry on the conversation (that had nothing to do with OSC) we were having in the locked thread. I will start by addressing Samprimary's post.

I said: "There is a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.

swbarnes2 said: "And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?"

Me: "That's a tu quoque. I never said that."

Samprimary said : "Tu Quoque is a form of Ad Hominem, a red herring and not related to your charge."

You want to rescind that statement?

Oh, crap, I got class. I'll be back later.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Oh, crap, I got class.
This is debatable depending on the purpose of this thread.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, errr...Samp was right. You used the term incorrectly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I admit to not being quite clear on this. Just what does 'tu quoque' mean? It looks like it ought to be 'you too!'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I'll be back later.

That sounds SO familiar! But surely resh will come back and defend his arguments. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Nice one, Javert. I walked right into that one.

It does, KoM, in essence. "You, also" is the literal translation.

Let me break it down in simple terms for you, Squicky.

"You have a political agenda."

"So do you!"

Not a tu quoque? Definitely not a Red Herring like Sam thinks, but it is a form of the ad hominem like he says. Do want to rescind your statement?

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
SORRY Morbo. I wish I had the time management skills that OSC has. This forum is a pleasure that unfortunately has a lower priority than most of my obligations. I can't help it if you interpret my absences as running away from arguments.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM,
Tu quoque does mean "You, also". It's a fallacious arguing tactic that responds to a criticism by pointing out that the criticism applies to the person making the criticism, when this is irrelevant to the first statement.

It was applied incorrectly in this case because Samp did not direct his comment at Resh and because Samp's comment about the antis was relevant to the initial criticism.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, that's what you said when you ran away from defending your arguments in the
Dang, we have to update evolution again thread.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
No, maybe you misunderstood, Mr Squicky. I said that swbarne's statement was a Tu Quoque. Sam was the one who jumped in and said that it was not. I'm not saying Sam is guilty of the fallacy. I'm saying he is wrong in saying that it is not the fallacy I say it is. (That sentence could be written better.)

I said that those on the Global Warming side have a political agenda (regardless of the truth of the science). He (swbarnes) argued back by saying that those who deny Global Warming have a political agenda also. Since he falls under the Global Warming side and I fall under the Deniers side, that makes it a Tu Quoque.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
No it doesn't, for the reasons I stated above. You are also distorting your publically viewable statements. You said something substantially different from what you are claiming you said.

I did however mix up Samp and swbarnes.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
How does it not apply?

A Tu Quoque, in your own words, is a "fallacious arguing tactic that responds to a criticism by pointing out that the criticism applies to the person making the criticism, when this is irrelevant to the first statement."

This isn't what happened? And how did I distort my statements? I cut and pasted, and then I boiled them down to their most essential elements. Let me go back to the original thread and see where I might have gone wrong.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
From your first link: A Tu Quoque "is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it." Emphasis mine.

Got anything else?

[edit] I just realized that someone other than Squicky posted those links. I assume they were just for everyone's edification, Javert, or are you taking a side?

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carrie
Member
Member # 394

 - posted      Profile for Carrie   Email Carrie         Edit/Delete Post 
Sed... ego loqui latinam speravi.

Losers. [Razz]

Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Damn. Owned. Translation please?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carrie
Member
Member # 394

 - posted      Profile for Carrie   Email Carrie         Edit/Delete Post 
"But... I hoped to speak Latin."

Double losers. [Wink]

Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
Just trying to inject a little precision into the squabble. Carry on.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Loqui= speak, speravi= hope. My decent spanish should have helped me understand that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Nice one, Javert. I walked right into that one.
I love how I can feel like I'm involved with a thread without actually being here. Thanks kat!
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pegasus
Member
Member # 10464

 - posted      Profile for Pegasus   Email Pegasus         Edit/Delete Post 
<offtopic>

Resh,

I just have to say that I saw your name and I finally got where it came from. That is definately my favorite movie in the series.

</offtopic>

Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
brojack17
Member
Member # 9189

 - posted      Profile for brojack17   Email brojack17         Edit/Delete Post 
I was surprised when a thread pertaining to politics was locked. I have never seen that before. [Smile]
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I said that those on the Global Warming side have a political agenda (regardless of the truth of the science). He (swbarnes) argued back by saying that those who deny Global Warming have a political agenda also. Since he falls under the Global Warming side and I fall under the Deniers side, that makes it a Tu Quoque.
I like how you are not only reinventing your own publicly viewable statements, but you are implying things unsaid by swbarnes to artificially force his statement to fit your charge of 'tu quoque.' Seeing as how you've recently taken to peppering your posts with charges of formally named logical fallacies, you may be interested in the fact that this represents a fallacious act in and of itself, of a form that has a very overplayed name.

But!

Let's step back from this preliminary attempt at distortion and take a look at what actually happened in the thread.

RESHPEC: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.

SWBARNES: And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?

RESHPEC: That's a tu quoque. I never said that.

Reading swbarnes' statement, there's an easy extrapolation. He's pointing out something which has been pointed out to you before, multiple times: the pejorative charge behind global warming consensus as having a 'political agenda' is pretty valueless as a charge in support of the position of the global warming deniers, given that this group is demonstrably afflicted by political agendas as well. What is essentially being said is a counterpoint.

The counterpoint is valid and not fallacious. What would have made it a logical fallacy of the Tu Quoque variety would be if swbarnes' had said something to the effect of "No statement a global warming denier could make about the political agenda of global warming consensus could be true, because they are associated with a position that is guilty of the same thing." Hence the name of the fallacy: You Too.

More simply, if he had said that your charge of global warming theory's political agenda could not be true *because* you had or were associated with a position that exhibited the same 'flaw' -- that would have been Tu Quoque.

Other people may be compelled to explain this more exhaustively or quantitatively than me, but this is sufficient for my purposes whether or not I believe you willing or able to accept your mistake.

quote:
Definitely not a Red Herring like Sam thinks, but it is a form of the ad hominem like he says. Do want to rescind your statement?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

quote:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
quote:
This is a classic Red Herring
quote:
Red Herring

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Qaz
Member
Member # 10298

 - posted      Profile for Qaz           Edit/Delete Post 
Tu quoque is the correct term for that. "You have this fault." "...Oh, yeah? Well, so do you!" is definitely a tu quoque.

A better refutation would have been, "Even if it is true that there is a political agenda behind global warming arguments, this does not establish that these arguments are false."

Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tu quoque is the correct term for that. "You have this fault." "...Oh, yeah? Well, so do you!" is definitely a tu quoque.
That example is a personal attack. Is swbarnes statement an ad hominem?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Even if that statement was a tu quoque, I find the need to point that out funny, given that it was in response to a clear non sequitur. I'd think if he was so worked up about logical fallacies, he'd put more effort into not using them himself.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you Qaz. I don't see how it is so difficult for Sam to realize this. In his attempts to explain how I was wrong, he proves me right. His quote: "Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser."

This is precisely what swbarnes tried to do. I thought the matter was closed when I quoted from wiki. And that is the second time I've been accused of twisting my "publicly viewable statements," but I have yet to see any explanation as to how I did that.

Now I recognize that simply because the Global Warming alarmists have a political agenda, this does not mean that they are wrong. It just provides a motive for why the science may not be quite as foolproof as the alarmists like to make it out to be. And swbarne's Tu quoque has teeth because of that fact, inasmuch as the deniers can be shown as well to have a motive for denying what may be rock-solid science. So I don't think it was a non-sequitur, Matt.

Final point; I concede it may have been a Red Heriing. As Sam points out by quoting fallacyfiles.org, the two are not mutually exclusive. Compromise? It was a Tu quoque, but it was also a Red Herring. Look, I've engaged in debates with classmates in a logic class where everyone (including the Professor) changed his or her mind as to whether a fallacy was one form or another (usually Straw Man versus Red Herring), so it's important to understand that there are often gray areas when it comes to informal fallacies. Truce then, and moving on?

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So I don't think it was a non-sequitur, Matt.
Sure it was. I'm not going to start a thread to fight it out, but you were clearly attempting to show that the global warming arguments were somehow tainted because there are political motivations involved. That doesn't follow. It's a non sequitur.

What's interesting is that I don't think you can have it both ways here. If you claim that politicization is not relevant, then your first statement is a non sequitur. If your claim is that calling out the political motives behind AGW arguments is not a non sequitur with regard to the strength of those arguments, then a response that the anti-AGW arguments are also politically motivated cannot be a tu quoque because it simply applies a similar critique of the opponent's position on the same argument.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm. That is interesting. One thing I have found sometimes about so-called logical fallacies is that even though they are, sometimes they still make a good point. I said as much concerning swbarnes Tu Quoque.

There is a difference, though, but whether it is relevant I'm not sure yet (because I haven't thought about it. Global Warming activists are trying to impose policy changes that will affect all of us. Those of us who are resisting have a political agenda that is defensive, or you might even say, conservative. This, I think, is a fundamental difference between what liberal progressive activism and conservative activism. It's the difference between being on the attack and being on the defense. That line is starting to blur now, because what we conservatives are doing could be construed as a counter-attack. Ahh, so much of this culture war is defined by the definitions.

Edit: the Non-sequitur. If what I was doing was trying to show the arguments as tainted because of the politics involved, perhaps. But if all I was trying to do was show that political motivations are a motive, regardless of the truth of the science, then no. I think it was a bit of both. So good point.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I went back and looked at it. This changes everything.

I said: "Taking the trust we place in experts with things like DNA evidence and particle physics (string-theory and inflation theory notwithstanding) and comparing it to trusting the "Global Warming" experts is the fallacy of Weak Analogy, for two reasons. One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments. Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments."

Not a non-sequitur, because I was trying to show that the comparison was weak, and for those two reasons. So saying that "global warming denial is [not as] pure as the driven snow" has nothing to do with the weakness of the analogy about "trusting the experts."

Do I win? (Just joking, but seriously; do I win?)

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Making the assertion in the context of trying to support your claim of another fallacy does not prevent it from being a non sequitur.

EDIT: I said the opposite of what I meant. I've fixed that.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks. But hey, I forgot that that was what I was doing, too. I just assumed like everyone else that I was trying to attack global warming activists with poorly formed arguments (as usual).
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In his attempts to explain how I was wrong, he proves me right. His quote: "Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser."
I'm not proving you right about anything because what swbarnes' did was not a fallacy and it was not a personal attack. It wasn't a fallacy of Tu Quoque, not even under wikipedia's current vague double-definition. You're doing your best to concede the point that that little snipped isn't fallacious because you YOURSELF now admit that it makes a valid, logical point.

MattP said it best:

quote:
If your claim is that calling out the political motives behind AGW arguments is not a non sequitur with regard to the strength of those arguments, then a response that the anti-AGW arguments are also politically motivated cannot be a tu quoque because it simply applies a similar critique of the opponent's position on the same argument.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
The whole debate changed because of my last post. We had forgotten what we were even talking about.I said that the analogy about trusting experts with DNA evidence being the equivalent to trustin experts about global warming was poor (whoever had made it, it probably wasn't even been swbarne.) The analogy was weak in part because there are politcal motivations behind global warming, but not DNA science (in general; I'm sure someone could conjure up some individual case.) So trying to turn around and say that my argument was weak because global warming skeptics (such as myself) have a political agenda is both a red herring and a tu quoque. I wasn't talking about the validity of the science; I was talking about the validity of the analogy. Is that clear enough? Or do you still have issue with it?

P.S. Granted, I am just as much at fault for allowing the focus to erroneously shift as anyone else; perhaps more so. And at a certain point I was on a weaker footing for it, though I think I still had some basis for my arguments. I'm also still curious about something. At what point did I start purposely twisting my own "publicly viewable statements?"

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The analogy was weak in part because there are politcal motivations behind global warming, but not DNA science
That doesn't create irrelevancy for swbarnes' statement. Your judgments rendered on global warming consensus include the pejorative conclusions about 'political motivations' and come from a group that's even more aptly charged with political motivations. It's directly related to qualifying your statements.

quote:
So trying to turn around and say that my argument was weak because global warming skeptics (such as myself) have a political agenda is both a red herring and a tu quoque.
"Resh's argument is weak because Resh/Resh's group has a political agenda" is a red herring and a tu quoque fallacy. It's also not a statement that has been made, so at this point I can only congratulate you on managing to prove that an invented comment is what you think it is!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Too easy.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
"Resh's argument is weak because Resh/Resh's group has a political agenda" is a red herring and a tu quoque fallacy. It's also not a statement that has been made, so at this point I can only congratulate you on managing to prove that an invented comment is what you think it is!

quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2
And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, Sam. But if you want to debate the merits of my original statement as referenced by the first part of your post, that is fine. How, exactly, is one group more aptly charged with political motivations? And oh yeah! at what point did I start purposely twisting my own "publicly viewable statements?"
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Troubadour
Member
Member # 83

 - posted      Profile for Troubadour   Email Troubadour         Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone else having 'Princess Bride' flashbacks? [Smile]
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Never saw it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, Sam.
Thank you for putting swbarnes' statement right next to a statement which I pointed out that it is not equivalent to. It helps people see the lack of equivalence better and makes it easy to support my position!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Somehow I get the feeling that everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because no one wants to take my side.

Sam, how is "you're basing your argument on the fact that this position has a political agenda? But your side has a political agenda as well!" not a Tu Quoque? If you must admit that is the case, then your argument must be that that is not what, in essence, was said. In that case, would you explain how that is so? Because I'm certain you realize that swbarne was being sarcastic with that statement about the driven snow.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Somehow I get the feeling that everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because no one wants to take my side.
I think everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because they're smarter than I am and this thread is a ridiculous waste of time, presently devolved to hairsplit contentions over a pretty patently trivial issue. This is all stupid.

quote:
In that case, would you explain how that is so?
The statement in question is a question. You are assuming that the line of thought that the question is going to follow will necessarily result in a fallacious argument. But you're jumping the gun. It's still just a question. If you answered swbarnes' question and he replied to it, it could result in a tu quoque ("I disregard your premises because your side also has a political agenda") or it could turn out that it's not where he was going with it at all, or if it was leading into another line of scrutiny involving your statements ("So then why can one use the 'political agenda' bit to distrust this side's science while simultaneously trusting in a side which has the same problems with bias?" or "Okay, so, conversely, if the political agenda matters in a way which makes global warming science untrustworthy, how about the science you're arbitrarily trusting from the people who made that charge?"). Without it yet being a personal attack, you're judging it only on unsaid assumptions that 'complete' the formula for you and allow you to pigeonhole the statement in question.

You don't yet have "Therefore, your position sucks." You don't yet have 'Therefore, P is dismissed.' You just went ahead and assumed that for your own benefit. It makes the named fallacy charge premature and (by definition!) incorrect!

Normally a trivial contention, right? Definitely not worth a thread, right?

Yeah, I'm sure.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Definitely. It is very stupid. I thought we would carry on with the bigger picture here, but it looks like you were the only one who wanted to, and over something you rightfully call quite trivial. I'm actually interested in going over the minutiae that one sometimes encounters in Logic. That being said, I'm pretty sure that swbarnes wasn't just asking an honest question. And do you think you are debating honestly by applying the most literal interpretation possible to his statement? I'm sure he would admit (if he'd just jump in for a minute) that he wasn't trying to lead "into another line of scrutiny," as you say. He would probably tell you that I was right on track.

Besides, you are still missing the point. I was using the political bias argument to discount a comparison that was being made, not the science of Global Warming itself. The comparison is only made on the one side, that "we should trust the experts." There is no analogue to that on the other side of the debate, so pointing out the political bias on my side has nothing to do with the weakness of the comparison that is being defended there. Thus, a Tu quoque.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Somehow I get the feeling that everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because no one wants to take my side.

I can assure you this isn't the case.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
You mean I'm not generally despised around here? Or is it that everyone knows I'm wrong but is just being nice to me? I highly doubt that to be the case.

No, the real reason is that this could quite possibly be the most boring thread in the history of Hatrack, and possibly even the world.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Troubadour:
Anyone else having 'Princess Bride' flashbacks? [Smile]

[ROFL]

By which I mean yes.

Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 8624

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte         Edit/Delete Post 
"I think everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because they're smarter than I am and this thread is a ridiculous waste of time, presently devolved to hairsplit contentions over a pretty patently trivial issue. This is all stupid."

Damn right, Samp. That's precisely why I'm staying out of this.

If it becomes an actual discussion, say, about something like DNA, evolution et al, as there seemed to be brief hope of the thread that spawned this thread becoming, I might join in. But until then, I note, again, that this is hair-splitting of a trivial matter, and it simply isn't worth the amount of effort you two are putting into it.

Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And do you think you are debating honestly by applying the most literal interpretation possible to his statement?
If 'most literal interpretation' means 'the interpretation that does not involve assumed supposition' then yes!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
Feel free to theorize all the day long on my motivations.

Every time you post in such a vein, it will only prove to the rest of the board that you don't keep your earlier promises to engage the evidence.

I'm sure it's a conclusion long since reached by many people here. But having the hard evidence at hand is invaluable.

So go on, keep generating it. We will have, 6, 8, maybe 10 pages of proof that you can't defend your ridiculous claims on those other boards.

But that's fine. You obviously can't handle the heat of defending your earlier scientific statements, so you would be better off staying out of those particular kitchens.

The honest thing to do, of couse, is to openly concede that you can't defend them. But if you fail to do the honest thing, people will figure that out pretty quick on their own.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
What are you talking about? What scientific statements? We are talking about a logical fallacy here. Are you talking about the evolution debate? I thought I have been clear that I don't believe pure science is an adequate paradigm in which to discuss our origins, and I'm not qualified to discuss science in strictly scientific terms and under strictly scientific rules. This has disqualified my opinions from consideration. Of course, as I've said many times before, this doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Ok, I'll resurrect the thread. Look for it!

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, sometime this week, I promise.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2