In reverse:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mantus
alansmithee,
I see nothing wrong with Zodiak calling people out on poor arguments.
- Just because he can make the same mistakes does not make his points invalid.
|
Then why do the mistakes make the initial posts points incorrect?
Quote:
|
- Even if he was arogant it would not make his rebutles any less sound.
|
True, but it might make people less receptive to what he has to say. And also, arrogance is a sign of disrespect, which is something I thought this board tries to shy away from.
Quote:
|
- It actually does encurage meaningful debate because we would get less BS.
|
No, there's the same amount of BS. As you said above, making a mistake in form or substance isn't necessarily something that will render a post valueless. However, if we all get bogged down in showing how everything isn't textbook perfect, there will be little room for anything relevant to be posted.
Quote:
|
- Nitpicking over spelling and gramar is an attack on the posters character therefore there is quite a bit of difference between pointing out a logical falacy and a gramar/spelling error.
|
It is one thing to say if you think something is illogical. But the manner in which you do it matters. And btw, I don't see how correcting spelling is any worse, nor where it rises to a character attack.
Quote:
|
- You are being judged on how you post. The more BS people post the less others will wish to have discusions with them. There are certain members on this forum who I won't even bother with.
|
And I as well have certain people I don't bother with because I think they have nothing worthwhile to say. I was pointing out one members BS.
Quote:
|
- The benefits are many. You certainly don't have to take it to the same level, but if we all simply attempted to pose sound arguments rather then then flinging the same old pre-constructed BS at each other it would go a long way to improving this forum.
|
Again, you can constructively debate/discuss/whatever, or you can all get more worried about form over content. And testing many arguments for strength is extrememly difficult do to the fact that there is often little that can be conclusively proven to be absolute truth in politics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
/thread jack
I am honestly perplexed by this statement. If a political viewpoint cannot be broken down to it's essential elements and an effort made to provide a categorically proof, then don't you have nothing more than one person's opinion?
In the context of this topic, "Are we safer now", we could simply post a "yes" or a "no" but that provides little illumination. My "opinion" is that we are not, but doesn't that obligate me to provide some evidence to support my belief? It is unlikely that I could prove my opinion to everyone's satisfaction, but I would have presented points that would be open to discussion and, hopefully counterpoints that might alter my opinion.
I have found nothing in Zodiak's posts that suggests to me that he is being arrogant or an "asshole." I do believe his intention is to raise the level of political discourse here, which we have all been asked to do by our mods. It would be more respectful to challenge the poster's premise, backed by why you believe it to be inaccurate, than deriding the poster.
/end thread jack
|
Of course you should provide as much proof as you think necessary. But when dealing with politics, absolute truth is hard to find, because of the relativeness of what people discuss and the lack of absolute authority in deciding what is "right" and "wrong". For instance, if I am having a discussion about the war with someone who places no inherent value on life, what we think are acceptable casualties might be very different. But honestly, it will be impossible to say who is truly "right" without making a judgement call. Many ideas/concepts are unable to be quantified, so determining which is truly "better" can be a difficult task. Take this thread, how can you PROVE if we are safer or not? Then, how can you assign the proper amount of cause/effect to the activities in Iraq to the increase/decrease in safety?
As to what you and Mantus thought of what Zodiak said, honestly I'm not stunned in the least as you both (based on prior discussions) agree with what he/she said. You both most likely saw it as some rube conservative being put in his place. A more conservative person would probably see it as a pseudo-intellectual snob ineffecively trying to argue by looking more at the form/structure of an argument than the meaning of it.
But if people would rather go the way of petty nitpicking thorugh every post, go ahead and start with this one. Just don't expect any meaningful discussion to take place.