Defend or Assert My Position Using Your Rules

About: a list of fallacious arguments

MR on Facebook: ... It may surprise you that "freedom OF religion" is not the same thingy as "freedom FROM religion" & that neither phrase is in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights - nor is the phrase "separation of church & state" - look them up!

Tina suggested that a good exercise, like in spousal disagreements, would be to argue the other person's points. That is, argue defending my position & I yours. This is an invitation to get it started here & then perhaps later move it to facebook just to see how it goes. Two of the things that I disliked in the past are the "liar, liar" thingy & leftie innuendo about my sources like Fox & Rush - both of which are covered in your list of invalid arguments (see the about box).


(no takers likely on this one!)

Tags

  1. arguments
  2. first amendment
  3. freedom from
  4. freedom of

Comments


Mark de LA says
From the bottom of P.2562 of the Tai Shu commentaries: "Satori the goal of Zen is not explainable, just as 'tis foolish to define, thus restrict FREEDOM!"


Seth says
MR 2012-03-01 08:56:23 15842
MR 2012-03-01 08:45:22 15842
Found on an incredibly interesting dialogue on Slashdot:
Slashdot on Wikileaks & Intelligence gathering: ...

Legal and moral or ethical are not even close to the same thing. Legal (as in it is currently law) and Constitutional are not the same thing either. The government is not right by default. Just because you legally can do something does not mean you should.

Having a majority of our ethically and morally dubious congress critters say something is hunky dory does not make it so.

Further, and I said this before, how the hell am I supposed to trust the government if I'm not allowed to know anything? Should I trust them based off of tautology?

We are trustworthy, because we are trustworthy? Trust us.

...

Notice that on slashdot nobody is crying about illogic or off topic comments & the organization of nesting seems better. (just saying)

I'm wondering what is the distinction between moral and ethical ?   Seems to me, based upon how i have heard the concepts used, morals are based upon religion, whereas ethics are based upon what works.

Mark de LA says
MR 2012-03-01 10:56:09 15842
(Seth above): ... I'm wondering what is the distinction between moral and ethical ? Seems to me, based upon how i have heard the concepts used, morals are based upon religion, whereas ethics are based upon what works.

... for me the distinctions blur; ethical being more public whereas moral is also spiritual &/or individual being what keeps life civilized - doesn't need religion but religion can certainly inform.


An example moral principle might be the integrity principle: I say what I do & I do what I say - not really religious.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-01 10:45:09 15842
source: Mark above

Two of the things that I disliked in the past are the "liar, liar" thingy & leftie innuendo about my sources like Fox & Rush - both of which are covered in your list of invalid arguments (see the about box)


I believe you are talking about "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)" here, first on the list.  Does that mean that you agree not to do this when we are engaged in a serious consideration of an issue?
Yep, in the context of this 15842.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-02 11:30:33 15842
Sorry, Mark, you have proved again that any political discussions with you are a total waste of my time. 

Now the only question i have for myself is do i have enough discipline to totally ignore you.
When you miss the main point of my point of my post & merely contradict what I am saying it IS a waste of time - please ignore!


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-01 11:06:01 15842
source: Mark above

Notice that on slashdot nobody is crying about illogic or off topic comments & the organization of nesting seems better.

You know i'm not talking about "illogical" or elevating logic above other considerations either.  If you remember, i am the first to rail against the over use of logic.  But what i am saying is that certain behaviors create an atmosphere in which serious thought cannot occur.  The list of fallacious arguments is just a list of those behaviors.  All i am asking is that, when we are engaged in trying to think about a subject to learn about it and to mutually discover a better understanding of it, that we not engage in those behaviors because they do not assist us in achieving that goal.

I do think, that to stay on topic is necessary, otherwise you do a random walk in the mud ... no possibility of any mutual better understanding. 

If you remember we did try the "arguing the other side" idea, and it did not work.  What we haven't tried is this discipline of avoiding these turds in our mutual inquiries.  Notice, we don't need to always avoid these turds, only when one of us declares an item to be, let's call it, "for serious consideration" ... or whatever other tag you choose.
Seth, you used the word rational more often.  Discourse has thought, feeling & will components of which thought is just one part of the conversation.  When or where did we try the arguing the other side? - link please!


Mark de LA says
Arguing about arguing & debating about debating are things which I find not useful.


Seth says
MR 2012-03-01 11:12:24 15842
seth 2012-03-01 11:06:01 15842
source: Mark above

Notice that on slashdot nobody is crying about illogic or off topic comments & the organization of nesting seems better.

You know i'm not talking about "illogical" or elevating logic above other considerations either.  If you remember, i am the first to rail against the over use of logic.  But what i am saying is that certain behaviors create an atmosphere in which serious thought cannot occur.  The list of fallacious arguments is just a list of those behaviors.  All i am asking is that, when we are engaged in trying to think about a subject to learn about it and to mutually discover a better understanding of it, that we not engage in those behaviors because they do not assist us in achieving that goal.

I do think, that to stay on topic is necessary, otherwise you do a random walk in the mud ... no possibility of any mutual better understanding. 

If you remember we did try the "arguing the other side" idea, and it did not work.  What we haven't tried is this discipline of avoiding these turds in our mutual inquiries.  Notice, we don't need to always avoid these turds, only when one of us declares an item to be, let's call it, "for serious consideration" ... or whatever other tag you choose.
Seth, you used the word rational more often.  Discourse has thought, feeling & will components of which thought is just one part of the conversation.  When or where did we try the arguing the other side? - link please!


Well i am searching for a descriptive phrase that describes useful dialogue ... dialogue that is not just arguing to argue ... dialogue which is not engaged in just to be right and show the other person rong.  Choose whatever phrase you want to use to name that kind of useful dialouge.  What phrase would you use?

I don't think we tried it very long, but i remember that you proposed it and we tried it a little bit.   For me it does not do much, to be honest with you.  It feels more like something that helps one learn to debate ... my goal in dialogue is to learn a better understanding, not to learn to debate. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-01 11:24:05 15842
MR 2012-03-01 11:03:43 15842
MR 2012-03-01 10:56:09 15842
(Seth above): ... I'm wondering what is the distinction between moral and ethical ? Seems to me, based upon how i have heard the concepts used, morals are based upon religion, whereas ethics are based upon what works.

... for me the distinctions blur; ethical being more public whereas moral is also spiritual &/or individual being what keeps life civilized - doesn't need religion but religion can certainly inform.


An example moral principle might be the integrity principle: I say what I do & I do what I say - not really religious.

Strangely enough i have found that "I say what I do & I do what I say" is not all that practical of a rubic because when you say something you are not in the same context as when you do the thing.  Things change.  That said, having that ability is certainly makes contracting with an individual more predictable.

For me, "honesty" is far more important and i tend to associate that quality with integrity.  
It was an example of a moral principle not necessarily a debate topic. The broader topic of integrity I covered in 14341 & in others. In some seminars I have taken a set of values or principles & arrange them a tree which defines behavior by saying e.g. for Seth honesty trumps integrity (as defined).


See Also

  1. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 60 viewings related by tag "arguments".
  2. Thought The Patriot Act - Good or Bad ? with 4 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  3. Thought On the publishing of classified information with 1 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  4. Thought FYI with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  5. Thought The First Amendment with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  6. Thought Free Speech? with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  7. Thought Bush's proclamation ... with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  8. Thought Free Speech vs Free Shouting with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".