Which Poly poster would you most regret getting in an argument with?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I see nothing wrong with his argument technique.

You mean, except for the parsing of sentances to oblivion?

Sometimes it's hard to judge when to deal with the sum of a argument or to take each idea within the argument as separate issues requiring distinct answers. I've found that dilemma to be a bigger problem when dealing with a poor argument. My solution has been to avoid all such discussions except those with posters whose opinion I value.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Agathon -

What consequences? Do you understand that an assertion should be followed by proof?

Well it was followed by a lot of argument in the previous debate. Arguments which you either ignored or wilfully misunderstood.

BS, I gave you the definition of coercion from the dictionary and you ignored it because you want to debate with definitions you get to make up.

Rule 1 in philosophy is "don't take definitions of philosophical concepts from dictionaries, which aren't written to solve philosophical problems."

I'd quite happily go with a dictionary definition actually because it would support my case rather than yours (given that Libertarians have queer ideas about coercion while normal people don't).

In the libertarian debate where you claimed "prisoner's dilemmas" showed libertarianism is contradictory (an assertion you never did prove inspite of 2 lengthy threads, you know, the debate from which I got my sig), I said the only moral method for funding government was thru voluntary means and user fees.

This is a deliberate and fraudulent misrepresentation. Collective action problems are practical problems for Libertarian systems (esp for Randian systems). That's different from the inconsistency argument which is that commitment to liberty often requires us to violate it (something which pure libertarian systems don't allow).

In fact, if you had followed that argument you would have seen that Lloyd put up a reasonable defence and managed to save his version from inconsistency. Unfortunately the price of doing that was reducing it to implausibility by making it basically religious morality without God. Kudos to him for arguing fairly though.

I didn't even mention the mods, you did. They were just 2 out of maybe a dozen people arguing against your proposition. As for "differential treatment", racism wasn't even the issue, it was about women not being allowed at Augusta. You kept trying to introduce racism and others kept reminding you it was about women. You argued against Augusta's policy because of "sexism" while dismissing the non-sexist arguments offered in support of banning women as insufficient grounds. But you also argued in favor of all women clubs because "men are pigs", a sexist argument. When we said women on average are slow golfers, you said that only justifies banning slow golfers, not women. But you supported banning men because "men are pigs" even though that too is a generalisation. Your position was inconsistent, of course, that's what's consistent about you.

There's no inconsistency in this position. If there is a problem with sexual harassment in a gym that can be good reason for women only gyms. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for golf clubs. That's different from discriminating for racist or sexist reasons, which I have a problem with.

If you had followed the way the argument context developed, instead of dredging up old posts from different contexts, you wouldn't have been so confused.

[Agathon]

And before you come up with some spurious objection:

The position that women only gyms or men only golf clubs are permissible is an hypothetical imperative - that means it depends on the reason for it being a good reason. Both don't have to be consistent with each other depending on how the contingent facts turn out. Arguments based on fact (like Ming was offering) are going to be useful in this sort of debate.

The position that discriminating for racist reasons is wrong is a categorical imperative (i.e. it's always wrong - and don't confuse this with "the" categorical imperative). No amount of physical facts is sufficient to argue with this claim - it has to be argued in terms of moral principles. Physical facts can only come in at the level of application, rather than justification.

Your inability to understand this elementary point of logic is at the root of your problems.

Now stop confusing the modalities of these statements and you might come up with a useful objection.

[Ming]

If you want to discuss Augusta again, bump the thread...

But in quick review... you were the only person not being logical... so cram it...

[Lincoln]

I would like to see a debate between Etheired and Berzeker. Of course it would never end and Apolyton would have to buy another server before it was over. But anyway I thnk that Etheired was worse. He would even parse whole sentences into convinient phrases in order to lose the context and confuse the issue. Once I took one of his posts and parsed it into one or two words each with an irrelevant comment after each one to see how he liked it but he answered each one with the world's longest post.

[LTEC!]

MtG doesn't like getting into arguments with me.

[Ming]

Originally posted by LTEC!
MtG doesn't like getting into arguments with me.

[LTEC!]

I get a one-up.

[Ming]

It's a rule... husbands CAN'T win arguments with their wives. I think it's one of those unspoken wedding vows

[Alexander's Horse]

Mrs Horse refuses to argue with me. She just threatens to kick me out or get the divorce papers.

In other words she goes straight for nukes.

I think this is unfair but otoh even if you win an argument with your wife you lose anyway so it probably just saves time

[Ming]

Yes.. the last thing you really want to do is PROVE that your wife was wrong about ANYTHING... you do lose for winning

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Ye of bad memory... I'm talking about two years ago.

Ye gads, 2 years ago and I'm supposed to be able to confirm or refute that? You accused me in the Santorum thread of calling you a left winger when I said your interpretation of the interstate commerce clause was left wing, and I had to point out the difference between being a left winger and using a left wing interpretation of a constitutional clause. Then you said you rejected that expansive definition of the ICC so I don't know what you think now. Btw, didn't you say my position was left wing too? I know I had to track down the original intent of substantive due process to show it wasn't originally left wing even though left wingers have been using to create bogus rights.

If you made the same argument two years ago, then fine, but you didn't . You called me an out and out leftist because I thought welfare wasn't a bad idea.

Then why run from the label if that's what you believe? There are plenty of people here who don't shy away from being called left wing, they call themselves that.

Btw, since I supported the New Deal, am I a leftist now?

I don't know what you support, Imran, you keep changing your position. First you make arguments based on the expanded (i.e., perverted) meaning of the interstate commerce clause and then you say you don't agree with that expanded definition.
YES, if you support the New Deal, you're a leftist. The New Deal was a leftist agenda, if you think it was a right wing agenda, where does that leave the Framers who never dreamed they were giving Congress the power to force us into a federal retirement system, much less all the other big government programs started by FDR. Btw, Bismarck started the welfare system in Germany to ward off the socialists, so what does that tell you? It doesn't tell me a welfare state is right wing...And what does the left in this country call conservatives who want to roll back or eliminate the welfare state? Right wingers?

You mean, except for the parsing of sentances to oblivion?

Like I said before, you guys need to learn what "parsing" means. It doesn't mean quoting sentences and responding.

MRT -

because i dont have the will to engage in a long debate with you.

You mean any debate. When you jumped into that prior thread about libertariansim, all you did was troll. I never could get you to respond to my rebuttals.

and youll never admit if you are wrong. thats why.

I have, but the truth is irrelevant now, isn't it, MRT. When have you admitted being wrong? You effectively admitted lying in that thread when you said you were just trying to piss me off instead od debating your assertions.

its like arguing with a brick wall

My God you're a hypocrite. When I defended myself from your accusations you just ignored me and went on to repeat the same accusation.

and im not saying youre dense, no, youre actually very bright, but the way you conduct yourself is aggrivating because youre stubborn, and what you will do is just take quotes out of context and argue the merits of single comments rather than the whole arguement put together.

So prove it. I've heard this accusation before and I always ask the plaintiff to show me how and where I took something out of context and they just ignore my request and continue debating. When I think someone has taken my words out of context, I don't have a temper tantrum, I show them what I meant and where I believe they mis-construed my argument. Btw, that "whole" argument depends on the ideas contained within the sentences. If someone offers up multiple ideas in a paragraph, or even one sentence, I'll address them separately and they are free to explain why one part of a paragraph requires inclusion in another.

Spencer -

B can actually write structured sentences and spell. I see nothing wrong with his argument technique.

Thx, but you're just making yourself a target.

[Ted Striker]

What's the point in getting married then?

[MRT144]

when im wrong ill admit to it, but opinions arent based on fact and therefore i dont need to prove my opinions.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ming
Yes.. the last thing you really want to do is PROVE that your wife was wrong about ANYTHING... you do lose for winning

In many marital arguments I think couples are really fighting about something else from what they are arguing about. So it doesn't matter what you say.

i.e. an argument about housework or the family budget can really be an argument about not enough TLC in the relationship.

If so, its pointless to say "Okay, I'll do more housework"

Marriage is very confusing for mere males