12 Jan 04
Originally posted by rwingettRob, this phenomenon is not confined to SVW. He does it frequently (see the exchange that resulted when SVW and I hijacked the thread 'Some Special Relationship'😉 but it is not due to a defect in him but to a defect in the process of becoming personally involved in arguments.
The trouble with many of your posts, SVW, is a heavy reliance on false dichotomies. Your last post is a good example:
All governments are silly by nature. They are all just gangs with enforcers. The question then becomes... "Which ones invite bullies to start wars by being cowards?" and "Which ones kill silly killers to make life better for the innoc ...[text shortened]... out of hand. But now that it's done, I feel compelled to post it. So make of it what you will.
A few Freethinkers, for example, argue in the forums a lot. Look at the exchanges between bbarr and a certain other RHPer of a religious persuasion. bbarr tends to start out in a detached, rational way, but reason, while always useful in verifying and discovering truth, is only sometimes useful as a form of rhetoric; specifically, when the other person also respects reason. In the case in questionm the other person does not, instead linking 'reason' with 'death'. This person constantly constructs 'false dichotomies' of the type you mention. I have watched in amusement as bbarr, knowing his point is valid but also knowing that he can't communicate it to this person, becomes angry and in some cases abusive. He has then on occasion been guilty of the same fallacy because he becomes emotinally involved with his thought. The 'false dichotomy' is not a logical construct, it is irrationality.
I have also been guilty of this when in similar circumstances, so I try to abandon threads when reason cannot be used to communicate.
So yes, your analysis is correct, but I think it is something all of us need to avoid however we can.
(My apologies, Bennett, for picking on you, but I didn't want to drag anyone in that hadn't been dragged in already as an example.)
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by royalchickenBut the difference is that most people will say "if not A then B", and then attempt to give some justification as to why C is invalid. SVW has the extraordinary capacity of not even being able to fathom the existence of C. C doesn't need to be invalidated because there is only A or B. I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter because I'm just a worn out commie 😉
Rob, this phenomenon is not confined to SVW. He does it frequently (see the exchange that resulted when SVW and I hijacked the thread 'Some Special Relationship'😉 but it is not due to a defect in him but to a defect in the process of becoming personally involved in arguments.
A few Freethinkers, for example, argue in the forums a lot. Look at t ...[text shortened]... n you, but I didn't want to drag anyone in that hadn't been dragged in already as an example.)
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by royalchickenThis is the last post I will make. The whole point of this evening is to say that it is too painfull to try and have a dialogue with fools. I am crazy enough without trying to "duke it out" with people who are too enraptured with themselves to even consider truth as a stand alone object. I almost wish that the UN takes over. Then we can have a rat in every home, just as Stalin wanted. I hope that Washington state falls off into the ocean. That would be good.
Rob, this phenomenon is not confined to SVW. He does it frequently (see the exchange that resulted when SVW and I hijacked the thread 'Some Special Relationship'😉 but it is not due to a defect in him but to a defect in the process of becoming personally involved in arguments.
A few Freethinkers, for example, argue in the forums a lot. Look at t ...[text shortened]... n you, but I didn't want to drag anyone in that hadn't been dragged in already as an example.)
What is this site all about. Chess. Intelligence. I'm better than you. My rating is higher than yours. I have a star. I have Wings. I have a brighter color star than you.
Fools. I am crazy enough without that kind of silly crap. bbar... winning game after game... while openly stating that he uses databases and any means available to do it. Are you really playing him? Or are you playing a computer and a memory bank? Are you smart enough to know the difference? I doubt it.
But I am a worn out cynic.
May you all have a nice life and die and rot or be burned to ashes like alll of the race has done. That is not offensive. Just the way I see it.
Mike
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by rwingettThe first sentence does not describe a false dichotomy at all the way you discussed it before; it is a valid response*: first show that there are two mutually exclusive choices, then show that there are no other choices. Since assumedly there is a logical process involved in ruling out C,D,E, etc., there is no fallacy here. However, not accounting for C,D,E, etc. is as you say a fallacy.
But the difference is that most people will say "if not A then B", and then attempt to give some justification as to why C is invalid. SVW has the extraordinary capacity of not even being able to fathom the existence of C. C doesn't need to be invalidated because there is only A or B. I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter because I'm just a worn out commie 😉
*You formalized it wrong though. You need ''A or B but not both'. The way you have it, A and B could both be true.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCrikey.
This is the last post I will make. The whole point of this evening is to say that it is too painfull to try and have a dialogue with fools. I am crazy enough without trying to "duke it out" with people who are too enraptured with themselves to even consider truth as a stand alone object. I almost wish that the UN takes over. Then we can have a rat in ...[text shortened]... d to ashes like alll of the race has done. That is not offensive. Just the way I see it.
Mike
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by royalchickenOh yeah? Well you're nothing but a worn out commie. I hope the UN kills you in your sleep! 😛
The first sentence does not describe a false dichotomy at all the way you discussed it before; it is a valid response*: first show that there are two mutually exclusive choices, then show that there are no other choices. Since assumedly there is a logical process involved in ruling out C,D,E, etc., there is no fallacy here. However, not accounting for ...[text shortened]... g though. You need ''A or B but not both'. The way you have it, A and B could both be true.
Ha ha, just kidding.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyif you want to communicate with people who are unusually able in some mental respects, then posting in our forums is tolerable, even desirable.
This is the last post I will make. The whole point of this evening is to say that it is too painfull to try and have a dialogue with fools. I am crazy enough without trying to "duke it out" with people who are too enraptured with themselves to even consider truth as a stand alone object. I almost wish that the UN takes over. Then we can have a rat in ...[text shortened]... d to ashes like alll of the race has done. That is not offensive. Just the way I see it.
Mike
but if you don't, then ..... ????????
12 Jan 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettrob - here i think you have hit on the true essence of logic - it relies on assumptions/axioms/faith. you state it very well. you assume things such that you can then go where you want to go. the length of derivation from axiom to statement is unimportant. so why not just go straight to it and assume your statement - nice.
Oh yeah? Well you're nothing but a worn out commie. I hope the UN kills you in your sleep! 😛
Ha ha, just kidding.
12 Jan 04
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenRoyal Chicken: "Look at the exchanges between bbarr and a certain other RHPer of a religious persuasion." ....... "This person constantly constructs 'false dichotomies' of the type you mention."
Rob, this phenomenon is not confined to SVW. He does it frequently (see the exchange that resulted when SVW and I hijacked the thread 'Some Special Relationship'😉 but it is not due to a defect in him but to a defect in the process o ...[text shortened]... rag anyone in that hadn't been dragged in already as an example.)
Are you referring to me ?
12 Jan 04
1 edit
This again shows how some Freethinkers on this site deal with other people. SVW is apparently not in a good shape. He is angry. In this situation you guys can't think of something better than to attack him. You also attack him on the way he is "reasoning": False dichotomies ...... get óff ..... You talk about communication .... when somebody is angry you do not talk about dichotomies and you do not talk about logic. It seems to me that if you guys do not know how to handle the situation you grab your lender of last resort: you accuse your opponent of not being able to reason logically and start talking about a's, b's and c's ....... gét óff .... The Voices of Reason ...... don't be ridiculous ...
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by latex bishop
I think this is a tad unfair on the French, their position is more linked to the development of a stronger united "European" standpoint, the main aim of this is to arise as rival to the singular power of the USA.
This is not to say that the USA as a singular super power will misuse its position regardeless, but that if it is left unchecked the USA ...[text shortened]... hing old Bin Ladden could muster.
But, hey, its all a question of perspective.
Andrew
Your remarks about the French foreign policies are correct. They want Europe to be a "counterweight" to the United States in world politics. This has always more or less been the stance of the French government. Tony Blair opposes this point of view. He wants a partnership with the United States within NATO in order to be able to have a European influence on US foreign policies. Blair even considers the French stance dangerous. He looks upon the French position as not being in favour of European interests. I agree with Tony Blair. It is no wonder that Russia supports the French position. It is about time that a new government in Germany will change the German stance and bring Germany back to the position of wanting to be partners with the US instead of being a "counterweight" together with the French and the Russians.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHey Star,
Ok. Geez! You are my hero. You speak so eloquently! Gosh. Let me stand and admire you...
Or What a fool. Still just a worn our Commie?
Do you really think I give a rats' ass as to what you think?
Not. X... Y... Z... then A... then B... back to Z... but only of X...
Cripes! I don't have any "oppenents" that I know of. You? don't make me ...[text shortened]... total failure.
So?
I hate you. You hate me. Mr. Rogers is a worn out commie. He he.
You are truly an ignorant idividual, as demonstrated in your last post. I wish that I could say what I really wanted to say to you but it would be moderated. I have nothing but contempt for you and I hope that the drink gets soon.
Ragerds,
Bl
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI didn't see SVW's responses because rwingett's post began a new page. Note that my post to rwingett is in defense of SVW; we all make such errors.
This again shows how some Freethinkers on this site deal with other people. SVW is apparently not in a good shape. He is angry. In this situation you guys can't think of something better than to attack him. You also attack him on the way he is "reasoning": False dichotomies ...... get óff ..... You talk about communication .... when somebody is angry you ...[text shortened]... 's, b's and c's ....... gét óff .... The Voices of Reason ...... don't be ridiculous ...
I apologize for referring to you; I was merely relating a mistake we all make and I didn't want to use your name as it had not been brought up already.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by royalchicken
I didn't see SVW's responses because rwingett's post began a new page. Note that my post to rwingett is in defense of SVW; we all make such errors.
I apologize for referring to you; I was merely relating a mistake we all make and I didn't want to use your name as it had not been brought up already.
If you want to criticise my ways of reasoning I would appreciate it if you would do that when I, in your opinion, are making these alleged mistakes in my posts at the time when these discussions are taking place. That would be more appropriate in my opinion. I accept your apologies.