Fancy Language: Recent Resurgence?

[Smurf]

I agree with loseyourname and I've been saying it for some time (as has he). What it actually looks like to me, though Smurf, is that the liberals on this board are dropping their level of debate and that is causing the apparent contrast you're noticing. The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording. The impeachment thread is a good example: we're three pages into a discussion of impeachment and we have yet to see anyone say what the charges should be! It's just random Bush-bashing.

Oh, but of course. It's only the liberals that resort to random bashing.

 

[quantumdude]

IMO, the 'regulars' in P&WA and GD who do not venture elsewhere into the site would benefit greatly from reading the Philosophy section at the very least. It's not necessary to learn Latin terms, but some knowledge of how to argue rationally would certainly benefit anyone whose purpose is to persuade others. In the space of 2 days in the P&WA Forum I have seen remarks that indicate the inability to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid one, a rebuttal from a personal attack, and even a declarative sentence from a question (!).

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, but of course. It's only the liberals that resort to random bashing.

Pretty much, yeah. This forum is dominated by liberals and because of that, you guys control the tone. When no one in the entire first page of a thread comments on the article in the OP (the Hummer thread), what else can be said about it? When no one in a thread about impeaching Bush can come up with any charges to impeach him for, what else can be said about that?

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement, sometimes I think the opposite. That the Conservatives, seem to focus on the details, and miss the big picture. They also tend to ignore the important questions...

I'll admit to paying a lot of attention to details (whether it is undue attention or not is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours). I've been called a pedant before and I'm fine with that. I am, afterall, an engineer.

 

[russ_watters]

IMO, the 'regulars' in P&WA and GD who do not venture elsewhere into the site would benefit greatly from reading the Philosophy section at the very least. It's not necessary to learn Latin terms, but some knowledge of how to argue rationally would certainly benefit anyone whose purpose is to persuade others. In the space of 2 days in the P&WA Forum I have seen remarks that indicate the inability to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid one, a rebuttal from a personal attack, and even a declarative sentence from a question (!).

Bravo, to that.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe if we supply translations at the end of each post for the dumber readers of the forum, then everyone'd be happy.

I learn new words in here all the time, Smurf - there is nothing wrong with reaching for the dictionary every now and then.

 

[Anttech]

In the space of 2 days in the P&WA Forum I have seen remarks that indicate the inability to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid one, a rebuttal from a personal attack, and even a declarative sentence from a question

Would you like to give examples? One man's "Rebuttal" Is another Mans personal insult! Please don't take offence!

Thanks

 

[pattylou]

The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording.

Apologies if this has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread:

Pointless, random, ranting neohippieism. Just wanted to let you all know I'd seen it but won't even bother trying to argue against it. At face value, it should be clear there is no need.

I would argue that my above observation is not an ad hominem (that's a personal atack, smurf), but rather me trying to set the record straight. Call me a pedant, Russ.
~~~~~
And, incidentally:

I will, however, give props to the several liberals who insisted on using the correct definition of the word "impeachment" in that thread. The rhetoric does have limits for some.

And some of us refused to even *participate* on that thread. I don't know if you realize that, or appreciate the implications.

 

[pattylou]

Pretty much, yeah. This forum is dominated by liberals and because of that, you guys control the tone. <snip>When no one in a thread about impeaching Bush can come up with any charges to impeach him for, what else can be said about that?

One thing that can be said about it is that many of the liberals thought the topic was not worth participating on at all. This does not equate to an opinion on Bush, but rather an opinion on the subject matter as a topic for debate.


Let me ask you something. If the PWA forum is 70% liberal, and 30% conservative (with moderates in both camps) ...

And hypothetically 90% of the conservatives use ad hominems, rhetoric, etc... but only 50% of the liberals do...

Then we will have the majority of mindless rhetoric coming from the liberals. But, the conservatives will actually be more prone to the behavior!

So, which camp is worse?

The point is, your argument that "mindless rhetoric" is a predominantly liberal tendency (on the basis that we "dominate" the forum) is bad logic.

I hope you wouldn't use this sort of misquided math in any research you were involved with. It certainly wouldn't fly in biological research, such as clinical trials of a new drug.

 

[Art]

I agree with loseyourname and I've been saying it for some time (as has he). What it actually looks like to me, though Smurf, is that the liberals on this board are dropping their level of debate and that is causing the apparent contrast you're noticing. The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording. The impeachment thread is a good example: we're three pages into a discussion of impeachment and we have yet to see anyone say what the charges should be! It's just random Bush-bashing.
I will, however, give props to the several liberals who insisted on using the correct definition of the word "impeachment" in that thread. The rhetoric does have limits for some.

Ref the link above supplied by Smurf.

I believe this style of argument is;

Argument By Generalization:
drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. (The cases may be unrepresentative because of Selective Observation.)

I don't believe anybody or any group can lay claim to the moral highground when arguing politics. In fact I have yet to see anybody (including me ) change their mind on a substantive issue no matter how well constructed or argued the other side's case.

As to the verbosity originally mentioned by Smurf, I think Churchill summed it up quite well

Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

 

[quantumdude]

Would you like to give examples?

How about a hypothetical?

Let one person assert that proposition X is true.
When a second party builds a case for the proposition ~X, that is a rebuttal. The rebuttal should employ such logical techniques as demonstrating that X does not follow from the premises forwarded by the first party, or by demonstrating that ~X follows from a proposition to which both parties have agreed.

When a second party simply denies X, thereby asserting ~X, that is a disagreement. Disagreements typically remain disagreements because more often than not the two parties are using two different sets of premises. Disagreements are fine, provided that they stick to the propositions that have been forwarded.

This brings me to the last two types of responses that I want to cover.
When a second party asserts ~X, and conjoins with it a comment about the other person (as opposed to the other person's statements) (eg: You are an idiot for believing X) then that is a personal attack, which is a type of ad hominem.

And finally, when a second party alters the actual position of the first party from proposition X to a different, weaker proposition X', and then proceeds to argue against X' as though X' were held to by the first party, then this is a case of a particularly underhanded form of ad hominem which is known as a strawman

Neither of the last two are acceptable modes of discussion among educated people.

One man's "Rebuttal" Is another Mans personal insult!

While it is certainly sometimes true that a person can become offended by a proper rebuttal, it is not the case that what is and what is not a proper rebuttal is a matter of opinion. The logic is either there, or it is not.

Please don't take offence!

I never do take offense to intelligent rebuttals or disagreements.

 

[Anttech]

When a second party builds a case for the proposition ~X, that is a rebuttal. The rebuttal should employ such logical techniques as demonstrating that X does not follow from the premises forwarded by the first party, or by demonstrating that ~X follows from a proposition to which both parties have agreed.
When a second party simply denies X, thereby asserting ~X, that is a disagreement. Disagreements typically remain disagreements because more often than not the two parties are using two different sets of premises. Disagreements are fine, provided that they stick to the propositions that have been forwarded.
This brings me to the last two types of responses that I want to cover.
When a second party asserts ~X, and conjoins with it a comment about the other person (as opposed to the other person's statements) (eg: You are an idiot for believing X) then that is a personal attack, which is a type of ad hominem.
And finally, when a second party alters the actual position of the first party from proposition X to a different, weaker proposition X', and then proceeds to argue against X' as though X' were held to by the first party, then this is a case of a particularly underhanded form of ad hominem which is known as a strawman
Neither of the last two are acceptable modes of discussion among educated people.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I see no evidence of it here. Perhaps our premises are different and will remain different.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[russ_watters]

Apologies if this has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread:
I would argue that my above observation is not an ad hominem (that's a personal atack, smurf), but rather me trying to set the record straight. Call me a pedant, Russ.

Huh? Could you explain, please?

Let me ask you something. If the PWA forum is 70% liberal, and 30% conservative (with moderates in both camps) ...

And hypothetically 90% of the conservatives use ad hominems, rhetoric, etc... but only 50% of the liberals do...

Then we will have the majority of mindless rhetoric coming from the liberals. But, the conservatives will actually be more prone to the behavior!

So, which camp is worse?

In that case, with those hypothetical numbers, the liberal side is still the side responsible for the the majority of the negative tone. Yes, that means that a few bad apples can ruin it for everyone else. Perhaps that's unfair, but that's life.

Ref the link above supplied by Smurf.

I believe this style of argument is...

Argument By Generalization

No, but it is good that you are trying to identify such things. By all means, continue.

I don't believe anybody or any group can lay claim to the moral highground when arguing politics. In fact I have yet to see anybody (including me ) change their mind on a substantive issue no matter how well constructed or argued the other side's case.

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with whether or not people are open-minded, but rather how well thought-out and presented their opinions are.

 

[Anttech]

I'll admit to paying a lot of attention to details (whether it is undue attention or not is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours). I've been called a pedant before and I'm fine with that. I am, afterall, an engineer.

I am also an Engineer, not a Mechanical Engineer but a Network/Telecoms Engineer. In my Job I find that having a good overview of what is happening far more beneficial than getting lost in the details. The Details can be important, but not all the details, just ones that actually matter to that overall picture. IE the ones that if you don't get right the process breaks..

 

[russ_watters]

While it is certainly sometimes true that a person can become offended by a proper rebuttal, it is not the case that what is and what is not a proper rebuttal is a matter of opinion. The logic is either there, or it is not.

I never do take offense to intelligent rebuttals or disagreements.

The inability to distinguish between a genuine insult (on both the giving and receiving end) is a big, big problem here.

 

[pattylou]

The inability to distinguish between a genuine insult (on both the giving and receiving end) is a big, big problem here.

Part of the problem is probably due to the fact that there are a decent number of non-americans participating. The language won't always sound the same if you were raised in a different culture from the person who is speaking to you.

The problem is widespread on the internet anyway, due to the lack of body-language cues in conversation.

 

[russ_watters]

I am also an Engineer, not a Mechanical Engineer but a Network/Telecoms Engineer. In my Job I find that having a good overview of what is happening far more beneficial than getting lost in the details. The Details can be important, but not all the details, just ones that actually matter to that overall picture. IE the ones that if you don't get right the process breaks..

But at the same time, in a computer network, every single connection matters. Miss one bad connection and an entire network can fail.

Similarly, one bad assumption/logic step can mean an entire line of reasoning is flawed.

 

[Anttech]

The inability to distinguish between a genuine insult (on both the giving and receiving end) is a big, big problem here.

Perhaps, but you may get insulted by something I would not, and the other way around.

For example, hypothetically speaking, Mr X may enjoy being talked to in a arrogant condecending overtone, while Mr Y is very insulted by this. So a person talking in this arrogant way could very easy insult Mr Y, but not Mr X.

To be insulted takes two people...

 

[pattylou]

Huh? Could you explain, please?

The second quote (from you, and using words like "Pointless, random, ranting neohippieism") was rhetoric, without details to back it up. What part of the thread was pointless? What was random? Why did you not identify those parts and allow your "opponent" to explain why those positions weren't random or pointless?

You claimed that mindless rhetoric was "pretty much" a problem with the liberals. Yet your quote qualifies. This isn't inconsistent with your claim (we all post like that sometimes...) it just seems like an oversight on your part.

In that case, with those hypothetical numbers, the liberal side is still the side responsible for the the majority of the negative tone.

Smurf said:"It's only the liberals that resort to random bashing." And you responded "Pretty much, yeah."

If your position is that, in terms of "mindless rhetoric," the typical liberal here is worse than the typical conservative here, then your numbers argument is insufficient to demonstrate it.

If your position is simply ... that there are more liberals here, and that because of that, mindless rhetoric is more likely to come from them, then such a position entirely changes the tone of your response to Smurf. I have little problem agreeing with you if this is your position.

Which position are you holding?

 

[Townsend]

But at the same time, in a computer network, every single connection matters. Miss one bad connection and an entire network can fail.
Similarly, one bad assumption/logic step can mean an entire line of reasoning is flawed.

If a system of logic is complete then it is computable...however it does require that the programer make a valid program that does what it is suppose to do. So you are exactly correct russ...which I know you know but I just wanted to say I agree with you.

However, I also think it doesn't do well to talk too far over peoples head, like what Art was saying in the Winston Churchill example. In the end our goals should be to extract some form of truth and not just to 'win' the argument.

 

[Anttech]

But at the same time, in a computer network, every single connection matters. Miss one bad connection and an entire network can fail.

Actually it doesnt, that's my point. If the people who wrote RFC's for example got stuck in the details of how to create a reliable protocol that never lost packets. The internet would never have been born. The IEEE members who thought up these protocols, built in Redundancies, which ment that the detail of a few packets not arrive doesn't matter, because the recieveing end can ask for these packets again... The overall Flow of traffic is what is important not the details. This is also the case with routing protocols, if one router fails, its doesn't matter really, because an engineer with a good overall logic will build in redundancies which compensate for that, and the routing protocol being dynamic and not stuck smashing its head against the fact that one router is down, will find a different path, and the network will settle down again.

 

[Smurf]

However, I also think it doesn't do well to talk too far over peoples head, like what Art was saying in the Winston Churchill example. In the end our goals should be to extract some form of truth and not just to 'win' the argument.

Pfft get real. This is politics, not philosophy!

 

[Art]

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with whether or not people are open-minded, but rather how well thought-out and presented their opinions are.

I think perhaps Russ you missed the point, I was responding to this piece by Tom

It's not necessary to learn Latin terms, but some knowledge of how to argue rationally would certainly benefit anyone whose purpose is to persuade others.

 

[Lisa!]

You know what's the problem , Some people come here for everything but discussing or perhaps they simply don't know what discussion means. They're here to impose their own ideas( mostly their political party ideas I guess). They don't want to listen to others, get other people's ideas to learn new things, or whatever like that. They simply want to oppose other people with different political view. They even get angry at themselves when they agree on something with someone. I think there are afew people like what I said, but I think they can cause lots of problems anyway. Sometimes they know what they're saing is totally wrong, because of their partner in the discussion's been able to bring enough good reason to prove them wrong, but they just continue arguing because they're afraid of admiting the fact that they've made a mistake. I usually stay quiet here due to my low knowledge (I've decided not to post here anymore, but I still can't avoid posting here )and I think if others do the same, this forum would improve a lot.
AGAIN REMEBER I SAID THEY'RE NOT IN MAJORITY.(PERHAPS LESS THAN 5 PERSON)

When no one in a thread about impeaching Bush can come up with any charges to impeach him for, what else can be said about that?

Welll I don't know know what's going on in that thread( because I'm tired of seeing lots of same threads about Bush and how we can get rid of him. Willy-nilly Bush is the peresident of the US till the next US presidential election unless he'll die), but I think the Iraq war could be enough for impeaching him.

I'll admit to paying a lot of attention to details (whether it is undue attention or not is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours). I've been called a pedant before and I'm fine with that. I am, afterall, an engineer.

I think it's good that you pay attention a lot to details and correct other people's mistakes(especially mine ). But it's not good if you just get stuck on details and don't pay attention to otheerimportant facts or issues.
For example I noticed that you usually correct my mistakes but you never answer some of my questions. I know you have no duty to do that and you have the right to do whatever you like, but it's alittle...
Perhaps you think my question's been silly or you've not got what that mean, but anyway I'd appreciate it if you(and everyone else whom I ask him a question) told me very frankly "I'm not going to answer your question because it doesn't make sense to me" or "could you explian what you mean?"
I really have a hard time to understand what it means when someone side step your question.

 

[SOS2008]

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement, sometimes I think the opposite. That the Conservatives, seem to focus on the details, and miss the big picture. They also tend to ignore the important questions...

Details do not necessarily equate to substance, so often are not meaningful. Focus on definitions, for example, usually is a distraction from the main point, and often used as a substitute for real debate skills.

In addition to what I call the "google-hoop" game (members demanding evidence while never providing evidence themselves), the conservatives tend toward op-ed style posts while liberals consistently provide quotes/links to sources as evidence in making their case. If it could be quantified how often which members provide “op-eds” versus evidence, this would be proven.

One thing that can be said about it is that many of the liberals thought the topic was not worth participating on at all.

True--for example I had no desire to participate in the thread on abortion. Another factor is time. Those of use who provide sources must spend some time to do so. A good example is the thread about impeachment. I love the double standard in that one—where certain members were making generalities, while at the same time demanding specifics from others immediately, Achtung!

…So a person talking in this arrogant way could very easy insult Mr Y, but not Mr X.

Geez, no one is patronizing and demeaning in this forum—what are you talking about?

 

[Skyhunter]

Langauge is a powerful tool.

Communication, especially in this medium is dependent on language. How sophisticated, or "fancy" the language depends on the concepts being communicated. Some ideas just do not translate well into words. Having more words helps reduce ideational confusion.

I wish I had spent more time studying my english assignments and learning to use language when I was younger.

 

[Pengwuino]

You people will argue over anything won't you.

 

[Townsend]

You people will argue over anything won't you.

I see you haven't risen above arguing over anything...don't be such a hypocrite.

 

[Pengwuino]

I see you haven't risen above arguing over anything...don't be such a hypocrite.

I can probably think of maybe 3 threads that i argued in in the PWA out of hte last probably 50 threads that involved an argument. I got sick of it. These people are insane and bias ideologs that think they can do no wrong.

 

[Townsend]

These people are insane and bias ideologs that think they can do no wrong.

So they're pretty much just acting like typical Americans act...the only difference is that there is a lot more liberals around here than normal.

 

[Pengwuino]

So they're pretty much just acting like typical Americans act...the only difference is that there is a lot more liberals around here than normal.

What is "normal"? Everywhere I go its like this.