|Some thoughts||Mel Erickson|
Mar 21, 2003 2:32 PM
|I've been lurking here for awhile but I'm sure many of you know me from the General discussion board. Most know I enjoy a good argument, just ask my wife. I've refrained from posting here for many reasons, one is I'm afraid I'd get too carried away. You can get a glimpse of what I'm talking about by looking at this thread, MB1 "Bikes Not Bombs mess in Georgetown this morning." 3/20/03 2:42pm
I have a pet peeve which is amply exhibited by most of the "arguments" that have appeared recently on this site. It equally applies to alot of "arguments" on most discussion boards. Why I picked now to bring it up is probably a mixture of frustration and hope but here goes.
WOULD YOU PEOPLE TRY AND USE EVEN A MODICUM OF LOGIC IN THE "ARGUMENTS" YOU MAKE?
I'm not sure, but I think I feel better now. At the risk of being branded a nerd I offer the following website for your edification. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Flame away, I probably deserve it. I'll go back to lurking now.
|Where's the fun in that?||js5280|
Mar 21, 2003 2:43 PM
|We're following strict FEC debating rules here. Well, except that we let anyone post their views, not just Democrats and Republicans ;-)|
|Fascist. Thank God there's a Constitution to protect||purplepaul|
Mar 21, 2003 2:51 PM
|pointless morons like myself.|
|half the fun of knowing logic is ignoring the rules||DougSloan|
Mar 21, 2003 3:02 PM
|I majored in philosophy, emphasis in logic and language.
As with knowing any "system," some of the best fun is abusing the rules. Unfortunately, most people do this unwittingly, though.
It would be fun to illustrate all the fallacies in RBR discussions, though. It could keep a logic professor busy for years.
Most of the problems I see here, though, are not necessarily logic issues, but simply assuming false premises, or arguing vague points that are not even susceptible to agreement as to what is even being discussed. It usually goes something like this:
A. I think Bush is doing a good job.
B. But he stole the election.
A. Gore is a crybaby loser.
B. Gore would have won, but for Nader.
The "arguments" never even really meet. It's really very pointless.
|So ask for your money back.||Spoke Wrench|
Mar 22, 2003 6:29 AM
|Isn't it a little illogical to complain that a product for which you paid nothing isn't worth it?|
|Most of the arguments here...||Jon Billheimer|
Mar 22, 2003 7:12 AM
|mimic real life discussions among "normal" untrained people. Thank God most of us are not lawyers like Doug and Mel. Then things would get really nasty:)- Why do you think governments are so totally screwed up? Answ: most of them are run by lawyers!!:)- Besides which, a lot of these "so's your old man" type arguments are entertaining in a juvenile sort of way. If there can be such a thing, one aspect of the current conflict in the middle east is the comic relief of listening to the Arab bluster, braggadocia, and hyperbole coming from the mouths of Saddam and his henchmen.|
|I'm not sure if that's a compliment or a cut||Mel Erickson|
Mar 22, 2003 7:29 AM
|but, I must confess, I'm not an attorney. My wife thinks I would have been a good one, and I'm not sure if she thinks that's a good thing or not. Maybe I'm just a lawyer wannabe.|
|Just a little lawyer-bashing...||Jon Billheimer|
Mar 22, 2003 7:58 AM
|on a slow Saturday morning:)- I have to indulge myself a little here since the honourable legal profession always seems to manage to skim off a substantial portion of my bottom line every year!|| |