PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> If you [Justin Bacon] weren't so quick to call people liars, I
might
> >> actually have enough respect for you to go to the trouble of
digging
> >> for it.
>
> MisterMichael wrote:
> > Hmm. Because of how you behave ... I don't have to defend my
argument!
>
> No, because the question has already been asked and answered, I don't
> need to repeat the answer, especially not when the asking is in bad
> faith.

Asked and answered has not been established, Bradd - and in fact, is
directly contradicted by other evidence and arguments. You never
succeeded in making your case - and now you *claimed* it was, but
refused to offer proof. Further, you did not cite 'asked and answered'
as a basis for refusal, but "you call people liars". In addition, you
have now claimed that when *you believe* someone is "asking in bad
faith" that you are somehow freed from the obligation to defend YOUR
claims, but instead just get to assert they are true, again....

Which means that you are now guilty of ad hominem fallacy twice over
- and doubly a hypocrite. Which is pretty funny. You'd think you would
know how to avoid committing ad hominem by now!

You *claim* that you have shown where MSB has argued "this person is
stupid therefore their argument is wrong". You have cited no evidence
of such a construct - ever. You *claim* "shun Cope" posts are an
example of such, but *you* *are* *wrong*, as any inspection of said
posts indicates (to wit, they say nothing of the worth of any of his
arguments at all).

Your attempt to obfuscate the issue by then retreating to "legal"
definitions of ad hominem "fallacy" *also* failed on account of your
very creative misrepresentation of the context of "shun cope". This
was equivocation fallacy on your part, and you have never (to my
recollection) had the courage to reply directly to the post that showed
how and why, by the way (coward).

> >> Instead, I'll just give you a hint: Google for articles containing
> >> the word "shun" written by MSB.
>
> > Despite having been shown *exactly* why he is committing
equivocation
> > fallacy --
>
> Just how long are you going to go on abusing your favorite new
buzzword,
> juicebag?

Just as long as you keep comitting it, bubba. We have to have
*something* to show for this journey down misinformation lane that you
dragged the newsgroup through, after all - and as a result of all the
revisitings of "name that fallacy" (accompanied by glorious
misunderstandins of their employ), we have found the name for the one
you indulge *all* the bleeding *time*.
You are a shameless equivocator,sir.
Bradd Szonye, the Butcher of Context!

We have also learned, to our simultaneous amusement and chagrin,
that the legal profession uses a variant concept of 'ad hominem' that
is so different from general usage of argumentum ad hominem as to make
their use of the same name utterly misleading. Argumentum ad hominem,
the flaw in reasoning, is lumped in with personal comments, and any
rhetorical flourish that *may* cause emotions to interfere with logical
thinking.

These latter, of course, have nothing at all to do with the family
of fallacies associated with argumentum ad hominem, as can be trivially
demonstrated (you dandelion munching twit!).

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MisterMichael wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>Justin Bacon <triad3204@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Then post a link to the message where you quoted. There's 1400+
>>>messages in the thread, so it's quite possible I missed it. But
>
> right
>
>>>now your posts are stinking of bullshit.
>>
>>If you weren't so quick to call people liars, I might actually have
>>enough respect for you to go to the trouble of digging for it.
>
>
> Hmm. Because of how you behave ... I don't have to defend my
> argument!
>
> Does anyone scent a whiff of Goslinism?
>
>
>>Instead, I'll just give you a hint: Google for articles containing
>
> the
>
>>word "shun" written by MSB.
>
>
> Despite having been shown *exactly* why he is committing
> equivocation fallacy in trying to use "shun cope" as example of ad
> hominem fallacy, Bradd continues to *blatantly lie* about having made
> his case on this matter.
>
> How pathetic.
>
> News flash, Braddie-boy. If that's all the evidence you have, you
> don't have any at all. Please report this state of affairs honestly in
> the future, as a courtesy to the newsgroup.
>
>
> -Michael
>

Telling others to shun Goslin isn't ad hominem, it's poisoning the well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> If you weren't so quick to call people liars, I might actually have
>> enough respect for you to go to the trouble of digging for it.

Justin Bacon wrote:
> Was the ad hominem here intentionally ironic or just stupid?

Is "intentionally ironic" your new code word for "liar"?

Also, it's not "ad hominem" when the personal attack is relevant to the
discussion. The question you asked has already been answered in the
thread. Furthermore, I believe that you're re-asking the question in bad
faith. I've no obligation to produce the evidence again. If you want to
come in late and start throwing around your "liar, liar" bullshit, you
can do your own digging.

>> Instead, I'll just give you a hint: Google for articles containing
>> the word "shun" written by MSB.

> Any public announcement of killfiling is an ad hominem? Fascinating.

Indeed, several of the sources we've cited list that kind of plonking as
a classic example of ad hominem fallacy, and we've already discussed it
in the thread. You shoulda seen MSB weasel.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> If you [Justin Bacon] weren't so quick to call people liars, I might
>> actually have enough respect for you to go to the trouble of digging
>> for it.

MisterMichael wrote:
> Hmm. Because of how you behave ... I don't have to defend my argument!

No, because the question has already been asked and answered, I don't
need to repeat the answer, especially not when the asking is in bad
faith.

>> Instead, I'll just give you a hint: Google for articles containing
>> the word "shun" written by MSB.

> Despite having been shown *exactly* why he is committing equivocation
> fallacy --

Just how long are you going to go on abusing your favorite new buzzword,
juicebag?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd6uep1.86d.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > Some Guy wrote:
> > > Telling others to shun Goslin isn't ad hominem, it's poisoning
the well.
> >
> > Poisoning the well /is/ ad hominem.
>
> (in legal mumbo-jumbo land where ad hominem has miraculous
additional
> meanings that have nothing to do with reason!)

You have already admitted that you haven't studied logic, so why do you
insist on debating the meaning of terms? Poisoning the well is a
particular use of the ad hominem fallacy, it is not a legal term of
art.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html (emphasis added)

***

"Exposition: To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ***ad
hominem strike*** against an argumentative opponent. ***As with regular
ad hominems***, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or
circumstantial way. For instance:

.. . .

As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about
its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However,
***what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem***
is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance
to make a case."

***

> Always with the equivocation and irrelevant authorities, Bradd.
It's
> really quite shameless.
>
> WE
> ARE
> NOT
> IN
> COURT.

WTF?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:
> Telling others to shun Goslin isn't ad hominem, it's poisoning the well.

Poisoning the well /is/ ad hominem.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Asked and answered has not been established, Bradd --

Bradd wrote:
>> The question was already asked, and I answered it. The fact that you
>> didn't like my answer is irrelevant. Quit abusing terms of art.

> Responding to a contention that you have not proved your case with
> "the fact that you didn't like my answer is irrelevant" --

Whether I had proven my case was not at issue. Justin asked for evidence
that I had already provided. Regardless of whether you accept it as
evidence, it's still "asked and answered."

Go back to playing with the little children until you learn what words
mean, juicebag.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6uf39.86d.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bradd wrote:
> >> The question was already asked, and I answered it. The fact that you
> >> didn't like my answer is irrelevant. Quit abusing terms of art.
>
> > Responding to a contention that you have not proved your case with
> > "the fact that you didn't like my answer is irrelevant" --
>
> Whether I had proven my case was not at issue. Justin asked for evidence
> that I had already provided. Regardless of whether you accept it as
> evidence, it's still "asked and answered."

No, Bradd. What you made reference to *was* *not* *evidence* of what you
claim you have done. It was, for all the relevance to your argument, a
completely random collection of bits.

Stop lying, hypocrite.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6uep1.86d.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Some Guy wrote:
> > Telling others to shun Goslin isn't ad hominem, it's poisoning the well.
>
> Poisoning the well /is/ ad hominem.

(in legal mumbo-jumbo land where ad hominem has miraculous additional
meanings that have nothing to do with reason!)

Always with the equivocation and irrelevant authorities, Bradd. It's
really quite shameless.

WE
ARE
NOT
IN
COURT.

Thankyou for your contribution to the evidence against your relevance.
All those books on logic, and he can't get it right.
Hmm. Goslin had all those websites on logic, and *he* couldn't get it
right, either.

JeffieSzonye Braddgoslin, The Equivocator!!

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Whether I had proven my case was not at issue. Justin asked for
>> evidence that I had already provided. Regardless of whether you
>> accept it as evidence, it's still "asked and answered."

Michael Scott wrote:
> No, Bradd. What you made reference to *was* *not* *evidence* of what
> you claim you have done --

Hello?! Is there a dead cat in there? What part of "regardless of
whether you accept it" did you not understand? Justin asked me to repeat
myself. I am under no obligation to do so. Refusing to do so does not
strengthen or weaken my case, especially not when the request is
apparently in bad faith.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6ujst.86d.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> >> Poisoning the well /is/ ad hominem.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > (in legal mumbo-jumbo land where ad hominem has miraculous additional
> > meanings that have nothing to do with reason!)
>
> I didn't rely on my legal sources to support the above claim; those
> sources didn't even mention poisoning the well. They're completely
> irrelevant, so why are you attacking them?

Habit. You rely on false authority so often that it's no longer
reasonable to assume you are doing anything but. Get used to it, bitch -
it's the bed you made for yourself.

> However, critical-thinking textbooks and encyclopedic sources do support
> my claim. For example: "Poisoning the well is a special case of
> argumentum ad hominem" (Wikipedia, "Poisoning the well"). The fallacy
> is, by definition, pre-emptive ad hominem.

And he equivocates *again*! From your own source:

"A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided
by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst
reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive
protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disputed
proposition. The protocol is ***regulated by certain rules of interaction***
and ***violations of these rules are fallacies***. Many of the fallacies in
the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense."

Ie; most of the bullshit you harp about has *nothing* to do with errors
in reasoning, but this alternate-universe of "rules" by which one is
expected to conduct an argument. Poisoning the well is a violation of your
"rules", not any sort of reasoning, and freely mixing contexts for ad
hominem is EQUIVOCATION.

The rest of the universe recognizes *this*

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin,
literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves
replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the
argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument
pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and
the remainder of his or her beliefs."

'Pre-emptively' saying unpleasant things about someone only becomes this
when such assertions are *also used to claim an argument is wrong*.

In fact.. (again, from your own source)

"Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational
discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy"

Petard? Bradd. Oh, you're his? So. Sorry.

Are you done shaming yourself with your *ignorance* of a topic you claim
to understand so well? Again, just like Goslin, your own sources prove you
are full of it.

JeffieSzonye BraddGoslin, BUTCHER OF CONTEXT!!!!!




-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I didn't rely on my legal sources to support the above claim; those
>> sources didn't even mention poisoning the well. They're completely
>> irrelevant, so why are you attacking them?

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Habit. You rely on false authority so often that it's no longer
> reasonable to assume you are doing anything but.

Riiight. When you made a bad assumption and attacked a strawman, it
wasn't because of your shoddy thinking, nope, no chance of that.

>> However, critical-thinking textbooks and encyclopedic sources do
>> support my claim. For example: "Poisoning the well is a special case
>> of argumentum ad hominem" (Wikipedia, "Poisoning the well"). The
>> fallacy is, by definition, pre-emptive ad hominem.

> And he equivocates *again*! From your own source:
>
> "A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is
> provided by argumentation theory .... In this approach, an argument is
> regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals ..... The
> protocol is ***regulated by certain rules of interaction*** and
> ***violations of these rules are fallacies***. Many of the fallacies
> in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this
> sense."
>
> Ie; most of the bullshit you harp about has *nothing* to do with
> errors in reasoning --

I did not claim that all fallacies are errors in reasoning. Indeed, I
stated exactly the opposite on several occasions. I even stated that
most of the informal fallacies are not about logic or reasoning at all,
but instead deal with flawed premises.

How is it "equivocation" when I never equated the two senses of the
word? On the contrary, I've had to explain the difference to you on
several occasions because you kept confusing them.

When I make a point of explaining it to you, and you keep getting it
mixed up anyway, that's not me equivocating, that's you being a
juicebag.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114605337.611792.122810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> You have already admitted that you haven't studied logic, so why do you
> insist on debating the meaning of terms? Poisoning the well is a
> particular use of the ad hominem fallacy, it is not a legal term of
> art.

Poisoning the well is only a fallacy of the 'breaking the protocol'
kind - which is therefore a meaningless 'fallacy' except in arenas where
those protocols ARE ACCEPTED. They are not accepted here, as can be
demonstrated quite easily - *sod*.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114609413.491716.60160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Van Eemeren is a professor of argumentation theory. ***Within
> argumentation theory***, he has advocated a certain type of
> understanding (i.e., pragma-dialectical) of how the rules of discourse
> (breaking those rules is the "fallacy" you are referring to) impact the
> final conclusion of criticizing a particular proposition -- logical
> fallacies can be categorized in those "argumentation theory" fallacies.
>
> If you want to argue that, within usenet, you aren't breaking the
> "accepted" rules of criticizing propositions in your use of logical
> fallacies (i.e., you aren't committing an "argumentation theory
> fallacy"), I might agree in many cases (your red herrings and ad
> hominems, for example, are very common in newsgroups).
>
> But that doesn't mean you are not committing logical fallacies as
> understood by the philosophy of logic!!!

What you don't seem to understand here is that the relevance of
"philosophy of logic" to arenas where its rules of discourse do not apply is
*zero*. Bradd's endless harping about fallacy this and fallacy that - which
most people understand as *errors* *in* *reasoning* - and which *BRADD*
himself often uses in that fashion (he says 'shoddy thinking', not
'rule-breaking-arguing') are in fact nothing more than violations of a set
of rules which are completely irrelevant to this forum. He is thus an
equivocating little bitch, trying to make a case for poor _reasoning_ when
making a case only in the arena of "extremely civil arguing" which happen to
have similar names to poor-reasoning errors. At the very beginning of this
argument, I immediately intuited that Bradd's argument was based on
aesthetics rather than *reason*, and now we have the cite that demonstrates
exactly how "philosophy of logic" contains a rather large amount of
aesthetic beliefs. Bradd, of course, is very pleased with himself to have
had his equivocation game go on as long as it did.

I am absolutely happy to grant that *in a courtroom* or any arena where
the "rules of argumentation theory" are the accepted standard of
*rhetorical* conduct, there is probably a large collection of these
"fallacies" of which MSB would be guilty. When any comment intended to
produce an emotional spike of agony is a "fallacy", regardless of its
relationship to an argument ...

MSB is only concerned with errors in *reasoning*, however, and is
certainly not playing by those rules.

So if you want to run around saying "MSB is not a good philosopher!", by
all means, go ahead. If you want to whine "MSB is not engaging in debate
according to the rules of Van Enema!", you can do that, too. But if you
want to claim that MSB is using flawed reasoning, you had damnned well
better make sure that you get the *reasoning* error correct. So be very
careful what standard of 'fallacy' you bring to bear.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I just caught you making blatantly false claims about my evidence in
>> the "poisoning the well" subthread.

Michael "Juicebag" Brown wrote:
> No, actually we cut right to the heart of your bullshit, equivocator.

Which fantasy world did you get that from? Eberron?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> You might want to, y'know, actually learn about this stuff before you go
>> ranting about it. Poisoning the well often also indicates a mistake in
>> the speaker's premises. And either way, it's still considered a logical
>> fallacy in critical-thinking circles.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> The act of commenting about someone before the argument is remarkably
> difficult to connect to some claim 'and therefore they are wrong' when
> the second individual hasn't even made a statement yet.

What part of "pre-emptive" do you not understand? The whole point of
poisoning the well is to dismiss the other guy's claims before he can
even make them! Good grief, even when we quote the definitions for you,
you still get them wrong.

> If anyone in the audience uses that information *incorrectly* (which
> is to say, in order to evaluate the worth of the arguments presented),
> the fallacy in *thinking* is _theirs_. That means that poisoning the
> well fits neatly into the "rules" fallacy theory (b/c it's 'against
> the rules' to give people ammunition with which to be stupid) ....

No, because poisoning the well refers both to audience deception and to
self-deception. The latter is not just a protocol error; it's an error
in judgment on the speaker's part.

The fallacies of relevance generally don't distinguish between "I made a
mistake" and "I tried to trick you." It includes both variants under the
same umbrella. Likewise, the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" refers
both to deliberate deception and self-deception. Critical thinkers
simply don't care much whether you're fooling other people or fooling
yourself; they're equally grave mistakes.

You clearly believe that fooling other people is entirely different from
fooling yourself, and that only the latter is a mistake. However, every
time you try to back up your belief by citing fallacy definitions,
you're guilty of fooling yourself, because those definitions mean to
capture both.

> Here's the thing, Bradd. We've learned *from you*, who so foolishly
> explained the distinction in the two arenas --

Please make up your mind. In the same article, you state both that I
explained the distinction and that I tried to hide it (equivocation).
Those two claims are self-contradictory, yet another example of your
self-deception.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6vsc5.ar9.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "And therefore he is wrong" is not an essential part of poisoning-the-
> well fallacy. Instead, it's about bias: either falling victim to your
> own or instilling it in other people (or both, as the former often
> inspires the latter). That bias is what makes it unpalatable to critical
> thinkers.

You have missed the subtlety of my point, which is hard to do given my
penchant for asterisks, but perhaps I didn't use enough that time.
"And therefore he is wrong" is an essential part of whether
poisoning-the-well fallacy meets the standard of being a flaw in *reasoning*
(ie; conventional argumentum ad hominem) or whether it only meets the lesser
(and often irrelevant) standard of "breaking the protocol" - ie; that a
sterile debator finds it unpalatable because of "potential" damage to the IQ
of an insufficiently wise audience.
You keep insinuating "flaw in reasoning" is lurking in the background of
all this, but it's only true under circumstances which haven't taken place
here on r.g.f.d; it's not clear _anyone_ has ever reasoned "stupid therefore
wrong", here.

> >> The fallacies of relevance generally don't distinguish between "I
> >> made a mistake" and "I tried to trick you." It includes both variants
> >> under the same umbrella.
>
> > Which is why they are irrelevant to charges of "sloppy thinking".
>
> They're both antithetical to critical thinking.

.. when "critical thinking" is defined extremely narrowly, that is.
Ooh! It's almost equivocation again...

> >> You clearly believe that fooling other people is entirely different
> >> from fooling yourself, and that only the latter is a mistake.
>
> > Strawman. Try again.
>
> Which part is untrue? Do you not believe that it's acceptable to foment
> sloppy thinking so long as you're not guilty of it yourself? That's what
> I meant by my claim.

That's not what your words indicated, Bradd. You said "fooling". MSB
doesn't "fool" anyone. "Fool" implies deception, agenda ... the kinds of
things that *you* do, and most certianly did with your first choice of
wording. MSB is quite honest - he stakes his positions, makes his
arguments, and creates suffering in those he perceives as being stupid in
public. MSB believes in testing other people's ability to remain capable of
reason when under fire; those that cannot become delightful playthings. Is
that "fomenting" sloppy thinking? Or does weeding the weak from the strong
*improve* "thinking" overall? Hmm?


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>Telling others to shun Goslin isn't ad hominem, it's poisoning the well.
>
>
> Poisoning the well /is/ ad hominem.

Technically speaking, poisoning the well is slurring your opponent
before he's
had a chance to present his argument, so the audience is biased against your
opponent before he can even speak.

Usenet being what it is, it's not only possible, it's in fact common,
that people may
stumble into an argument part way through. If you repeatedly attack
your opponent
at the same time as you attack his argument, you're still effectively
poisoning the well,
which is what MSB does.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> You have missed the subtlety of my point, which is hard to do given my
> penchant for asterisks, but perhaps I didn't use enough that time.
> "And therefore he is wrong" is an essential part of whether
> poisoning-the-well fallacy meets the standard of being a flaw in
> *reasoning* ....

Informal fallacies are not about "reasoning" as you seem to be using it;
that's the domain of formal fallacies. Instead, they're all about flawed
premises, specifically premises that seem true but aren't. The two most
common types of informal fallacy involve ambiguity (the argument falsely
presumes that two different things are actually the same) or irrelevance
(the argument falsely presumes that two unrelated things are connected).

For example, equivocation is an ambiguity fallacy where the speaker
presumes that two different meanings of a word or phrase can be used
interchangeably. And poisoning the well is relevance fallacy where the
speaker presumes that a dubious opponent implies a dubious counter-
argument. Arguments that rely on these obviously-flawed premises can
succeed, however, because human psychology often conceals the flaws.

Furthermore, arguments containing informal fallacies are often logically
valid. If the flawed premise were true, it would lead to a sound
conclusion. You seem to use "reasoning" to refer to logical validity,
because that's where "and therefore ..." comes in.

>> [Deliberate deception and self-deception are] both antithetical to
>> critical thinking.

> .. when "critical thinking" is defined extremely narrowly, that is.

I define it as "the skill originally described by ancient Greek
philosophers, now taught as a basic requirement in most colleges and
many high schools." My wife is currently taking such a course; it
teaches about bias, fallacies, problem-solving, argument, and related
subjects. The /very/ first thing her class taught was to recognize and
analyze bias, to minimize the risk of fooling yourself or your audience.

>>>> You clearly believe that fooling other people is entirely different
>>>> from fooling yourself, and that only the latter is a mistake.

>>> Strawman. Try again.

>> Which part is untrue? Do you not believe that it's acceptable to
>> foment sloppy thinking so long as you're not guilty of it yourself?
>> That's what I meant by my claim.

> That's not what your words indicated, Bradd. You said "fooling". MSB
> doesn't "fool" anyone. "Fool" implies deception, agenda ...

The shoe fits.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> You have missed the subtlety of my point, which is hard to do given
>>> my penchant for asterisks, but perhaps I didn't use enough that
>>> time. "And therefore he is wrong" is an essential part of whether
>>> poisoning-the-well fallacy meets the standard of being a flaw in
>>> *reasoning* ....

Bradd wrote:
>> Informal fallacies are not about "reasoning" as you seem to be using it;

> BUT THOSE ARE THE FALLACIES THAT *MSB* IS DISCUSSING.

How the hell am I supposed to guess what you're discussing, when you
keep making a complete hash out of the terminology?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael "Juicebag" Brown wrote:
>> You are deliberately obscuring a fundamental difference between
>> academic *rhetorical standards* and _thinking_.

Fallacies are about critical thinking, and that's important to more than
just academics.

Clawhound wrote:
> I must agree. Usenet makes no pretense at being an academic journal or
> a formal debate. Usenet is more like a permanent playground argument.
> It's an unhealthy mixture of fact, opinion, and bullshit. All in all,
> it's good stuff!!!

Hey, if you have low standards, that's fine with me. Just don't pretend
that you're a foe of "shoddy thinking" while perpetrating it yourself.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael "Juicebag" Brown wrote:
>>> Which is not "shoddy thinking" --

>> But it is.

> AND HE ADMITS HIS EQUIVOCATION YET AGAIN!

WTF?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MisterMichael wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Michael "Juicebag" Brown wrote:
> > > (1) MSB claims that his bonus comments are for entertainment.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Doesn't matter in determining whether they're
fallacies.
>
> Actually, it does, Braddie-boy, and you really need to stop
> equivocating.

No, it doesn't (and you really should stop using that word in
ignorance).

> The basis for identifying poisoning the well as a
> variant of argumentum ad hominem is because of an *assumption* that
> such comments are intended to weigh against a speaker's future
> arguments

Intention is irrelevant to whether the statement is an ad hominem.

> - and in fact all the relevant examples of poisoning the well
> very clearly do this. As you have cited yourself "don't listen to
him,
> he's a lawyer" - ie; "his arguments are without merit, he has a
> negative quality" - ie, a blatant error in *reasoning*.

You dip, whether the author intended the statements to be ad hominems
is irrelevant.

> But if that's _not_ the purpose of such comments, and not the
> _effect_ of such comments, then the basis for an accusation of
> poisoning the well *vanishes*.

That's like you saying you didn't intend to say something stupid, and
everyone saw through your stupidity, therefore what you said wasn't
stupid.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael "Juicebag" Brown wrote:
>> > (1) MSB claims that his bonus comments are for entertainment.

Bradd wrote:
>> Irrelevant. Doesn't matter in determining whether they're fallacies.

> Actually, it does .... The basis for identifying poisoning the well as
> a variant of argumentum ad hominem is because of an *assumption* that
> such comments are intended to weigh against a speaker's future
> arguments --

Incorrect. It's defined as unfavorable information intended to discredit
opponents (whether they're real or hypothetical). I wouldn't expect you
to understand the difference, though.

>> Quit pretending that you "get off on a technicality." There's no such
>> think in the realm of critical thinking.

> We've already established, Braddie boy, that "in the realm of
> critical thinking" is not where we live --

We've certainly established that you don't live in the realm of critical
thinking. Looks like you wouldn't notice it if it bit you on the nose.

> We are not obligated to adhere to Van Enema's "rules of argument" ....

Quit citing van /Eemeren/'s theories until you understand them. As far
as I can tell, you don't even know what they are, let alone what they
mean.

>> You admit that you don't study logic. Perhaps you should; maybe then
>> you'd quit perpetrating these ridiculous abuses of it.

> Then why can't you make a case for your charges of sloppy thinking --

I've certainly established that you're a "sloppy thinker," as critical
thinkers would interpret it. Of course, it's impossible to satisfy your
own use of the phrase, since you redefine it as necessary to exclude
your own sloppiness (i.e., special pleading fallacy).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114807203.610241.75070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > The basis for identifying poisoning the well as a
> > variant of argumentum ad hominem is because of an *assumption* that
> > such comments are intended to weigh against a speaker's future
> > arguments
>
> Intention is irrelevant to whether the statement is an ad hominem.

<raises hand> Bradd disagrees with you.

"Incorrect. It's defined as unfavorable information intended to discredit
opponents (whether they're real or hypothetical)."

In fact, all of the definitions of these fallacies feature "intention"
of various sorts. If the statements are not *intended* to be pre-emptive
strikes against arguments, then they could not possibly be examples of the
flawed reasoning that comes of attacking the speaker instead of his
argument! If statements have no effect on their target's ability to make
his case to the public, then there is a rather weak case for claiming some
manner of harm was done to the audience's reason. With no damage to the
audience and no intention to do so from the proponent, there is no ad
hominem and no poison in the well!

> > But if that's _not_ the purpose of such comments, and not the
> > _effect_ of such comments, then the basis for an accusation of
> > poisoning the well *vanishes*.
>
> That's like you saying you didn't intend to say something stupid, and
> everyone saw through your stupidity, therefore what you said wasn't
stupid.

Nice strawman, bitch. Try again, this time without begging the question,
you *incompetent whore*.


-Michael