A few trains of thought

[Raijinili]

This post may be long or short. I won't know until the end.

The spark:
http://www.cogonline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=145

The initial thought: There should be a set of defined rules for a rulings question. It doesn't necessarily have to be followed, but it would make somethingoranother easier somehow.

When asking a question about mechanics:
* State the question.
* Give an example of why it matters.

This is the format followed in the topic above (not necessarily in that order, but order doesn't always matter).

When asking a situational question:
* State the situation.
* State the question.

This is exactly the same as above, except that the situational question's example can be dismissed through a technicality, while the mechanical question's example cannot.

So, what's been debating lately? I've gotten into an argument about whether someone committed an ad hominem fallacy with this statement: "Next time I'll learn Japanese and import the game, just to be safe from elitist message board users." This was in a topic about the ending to Final Fantasy, and no other users are getting directly involved. I think that that's a good sign.

Oh, and the above linked site is very good for debaters. I recognized some things that I myself did. Here it is again:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Of course, just because you use a logical fallacy doesn't mean the point is any weaker. It just means that using it doesn't guarantee your conclusion. Although there are some things that shouldn't be used at all in a civil debate, such as ad logicam (which, by the way, is not a commercial for Microsoft's new video recorder).

Some fallacies of note:
* Tu quoque - This example should be taken to heart. Hypocrisy doesn't make the person wrong. In most cases, it is better to IGNORE any personal attacks, instead of letting them branch out into more arguments.
* Straw man - Basically, you attack an argument that was never made. It could be avoided by restating what you THINK is your opponent's points before you respond to them. Well, not avoided, but it will be easier to find the cause of confusion.
Bifurcation - This is when you present only two possibilities, and a third is possible. Or when you present any number less than the total possible number of possibilities.

There are some other things that the list does not mention that should not be used. They aren't logical fallacies. They may be worse.
* Personal insults. Making an insult not only does not help the debate along; it is an intentional distraction from the actual argument. Very dishonorable.
* Stating your position OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. No, wait. This is ad nauseam, which is also a notable fallacy.
* Emphasizing words. Like what I did above. It's very annoying and distracting, and shows a low opinion of your opponent. "Do you speak English?" "No habla ingles, señor." "Alright, I'll say it slower. DOOO YOOOOU SPEEEEEEEAAK EEEEENGGGGGLISSSSSH?"
You can use emphasis, but be careful not to use it in a demeaning manner.
* Saying things like "obviously" and "clearly" when presenting your points. This is VERY disrespectful. It's saying that your opponent is too dumb to understand the points that are so clear to everyone else. In fact, this should be a logical fallacy.

Usually, it's poor form to point out your opponent's logical fallacies. It distracts the opponent, and in fact is usually the ad hominem fallacy at work. This is why I now propose, at the end of this post that did not start with a real point, to assign a neutral arbiter/moderator (not necessarily a board mod) to prevent the abuse of fallacies and other points.

You have just had a peek at how my mind works.

 

[Digital Jedi]

And I'm scared.


On the serious side though, if I'm understanding you correctly, your suggesting that we assign someone to monitor the rules forum with the intention of "moderating" logical falacies, correct? It seems abit arbitrary a task if I'm understanding you correctly. But I presume you were mearly thinking outloud tonight so I won't press to much.

For one thing, though, I belive there is a time and place for such things. But in a Yu-Gi-Oh! forum, it just seems a bit too serious. I'm by no means the final decision on these things, but I'm sure some of the other mods and admins will chime in with their thoughts as well.

Just out of curiosity, was the link below "The Spark" intended to be a link to the Rules Questions forum or was it supposed to link to an actual thread? It seemed it was supposed to based on the statement you made below it.

I'm a little dubious on whether posting links to an atheists web site is the most appropriate for our forums. Not saying that that it was your intention to advocate atheism, but you can understand that this is a layer of controversy we usually shy away from. I would hate for your intial point to be lost in a religious discussion as I fear is gong to come up as a result.

Since this obviously is not the point of your argument, I'm going to leave the links alone, but I would advise our members to stay on topic and resist the urge to make this a discussion on religion for the time being. I'm not saying we can't discuss religion here on CoG, on the contrary I belive that it would be handled well by our members. But those threads always lean towards being heated, and in light of that, I would like to avoid it this time around, since it is not the primary topic.

Yes, I'm pointing it out when it might have been ignored altogether, but I'm taking a premptive strike approach to moderating today, so just bear with me on this one. Thanks

 

[Jason_C]

Just out of curiosity, was the link below "The Spark" intended to be a link to the Rules Questions forum or was it supposed to link to an actual thread? It seemed it was supposed to based on the statement you made below it

You honestly think Raijinili would make a petty mistake? The Clan of Sacred Perfectionists and Grammar Freaks retaliates! ONWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!



I'm going to agree with most of what you said. "Most" being the operative word. First of all, I don't think it's fair to set up rules for posting a question. In fairness, you said they didn't have to be followed. But still. Remember that not everyone really has a grasp of mechanics on the level that you do. Some people honestly can't even phrase the question properly just because they're so confused by it. Like me when talking to a girl. XD.

Also, I get what you're saying about emphasis, but I'm not certain I entirely agree with it. I know you say emphasis was allowed as long as it wasn't insulting. But just remember that, when typing, the accents that are normally and almost subconciously perceived cannot be conveyed at all. This can cause much of the intended meaning to be lost. So TALKING LIKE THIS can sometimes help get the point across.

Ok, the truth is I agree with everything you said. However, I, like DJ, just felt like there were some issues that needed very careful treading on. Must . . . Find . . . way to . . . phrase sentence without ending in preposition!

I, like DJ, just felt like there were some issues that needed to be tread upon carefully.

That better? It's still a little awkward, but I'm tired.

 

[Raijinili]

I'm a little dubious on whether posting links to an atheists web site is the most Appropriate for our forums. Not saying that that it was your intention to advocate atheism, but you can understand that this is a layer of controversy we usually shy away from. I would hate for your intial point to be lost in a religious discussion as I fear is gong to come up as a result.

I had that concern, too. But when I read the list of logical fallacies, I was surprised to see that there were examples from BOTH sides of the argument. Like so:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#antecedent

You honestly think Raijinili would make a petty mistake? The Clan of Sacred Perfectionists and Grammar Freaks retaliates! ONWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cogonline.net/threads.15069

I'm going to agree with most of what you said. "Most" being the operative word. First of all, I don't think it's fair to set up rules for posting a question. In fairness, you said they didn't have to be followed. But still. Remember that not everyone really has a grasp of mechanics on the level that you do. Some people honestly can't even phrase the question properly just because they're so confused by it. Like me when talking to a girl. XD.

It's not so much rules as required elements.

The situational question begins with an example. Without a question, there's... no question.
The mechanical question begins with a question. Without an example, there is no point to the question.

Also, I get what you're saying about emphasis, but I'm not certain I entirely agree with it. I know you say emphasis was allowed as long as it wasn't insulting. But just remember that, when typing, the accents that are normally and almost subconciously perceived cannot be conveyed at all. This can cause much of the intended meaning to be lost. So TALKING LIKE THIS can sometimes help get the point across.

TALKING LIKE THIS does not get the point across. It shows a low opinion of your opponent, and increases the chance that it will change from a civil debate to a flame war.

 

[Jason_C]

Tonality is crucial to conversation.

 

[masterwoo0]

"TALKING LIKE THIS", is the only way to show emphasis when there is no other way to show a inflection in voice, since this is the internet after all.

When two (or more) people are talking in person, you can easily see when one person is either annoyed, or striving to make a point. Sure, you could always TALK LIKE THIS, or, talk like this, or, talk like this, but the first is more aggressive in attracting attention to the point, while the second is merely a passive-aggressive technique used to draw the person to the statement, where they may otherwise gloss over it, and the third is very passive in its approach, and is tailored more for those who are actively reading each word, and allows them to choose the tone themselves, based on the nature of the debate.

The latter is what we all seem to do, regardless of how the writer actually means to come across. Several times I myself have been accused of being rather "gruff" with my written "tone". But, there is no malicious intent behind the majority of my post. I am, by nature, all about "no nonsense".

Sometimes, it is reflected in my writing. I can be a individual of many words, and other times, I am "bottom line, up front", which usually punctuates the debate as "closed".

Anyway, again, it is hard to moderate something that is one person's opinion, and may not be the true feeling expressed.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Hmmm, I'm afraid I'm of the opinion that caps offer emphasis and tonality where they otherwise might not be inferred. I use them all the time, but I don't think I've EVER used them in an inappropriate context.

I use random combinations of CAPS, bold, intalics and undelining wherever I think the one might be more fitting then the other. No pattern really. But one must be careful where the caps are placed. Especially when poiting out a are where BOTH subjects need to be addressed or where a manditory effect is a MUST. For example: "You can Special Summon any monster from your deck, but MUST show that monster to your opponent, prior to Special Summoning."

There's no disparagment there. It's actually the way I talk in real life. I emphasis words that I don't want you to overlook. When I type I capitilize those words largely. I think most people know I'm not disparaging them or belitling them when I've used them. I've seen it used before over the course of time in forums and before the advent of the internet, in literature and documents, so it's not exacty a recent trend. But it IS something that you must use carefully.

"NO YOU CAN'T" just sounds like I'm yelling at you or I question your intellegence of a question.

"I afraid that is something that simply CANNOT be done." is less aggressive in its tonality. Although I woul resierve a phrase like this for someone who has failed to express that he understands that it cannot be done after much discussion about it. In real life, this part of my tonality and expression. Without it, a lot of points would be completely lost

"ALL HAIL THE INVINSIBLE LORD OF CHEESE." Now that? That just sounds like I'm crazy. Though I DO like cheese. Mm, GOUDA!

 

[Raijinili]

Tonality is crucial to conversation.

Fallacy Audiatur et altera pars.
State what you mean by "tonality". Because I'm talking about single-word emphasis.
State what you mean by "conversation". Because I'm talking about a debate.

(Note the above statements. They're slightly aggressive. How did I do this?
By using the word "because" at the start of the sentence.
It shows disdain for someone because I'm implying two things: that they missed something vital, and that they missed something obvious. This should not be done.
Why did I do it and then point it out, you ask? I think I'm clever.)

Here is a topic consisting of thirty-eight posts that only single-word emphasized twice.
http://www.cogonline.net/threads.15069

The single-word emphases(?) were not essential in making their points.

"TALKING LIKE THIS", is the only way to show emphasis when there is no other way to show a inflection in voice, since this is the internet after all.

Fallacy: Straw Man
I never said that we shouldn't use caps for emphasis. I said that we should be careful when we emphasize words.

Hmmm, I'm afraid I'm of the opinion that caps offer emphasis and tonality where they otherwise might not be inferred. I use them all the time, but I don't think I've EVER used them in an inAppropriate context.

Reply: as above.

Anyway, again, it is hard to moderate something that is one person's opinion, and may not be the true feeling expressed.

To confirm:
1) You read the page?
2) You refer to the logical fallacies by "something"?

It's not a simple matter of opinion whether or not something is a fallacy. It's objective fact, which is why I ask for an objective debate moderator. The only thing subject to opinion is how strong the fallacy is.

"I afraid that is something that simply CANNOT be done." is less aggressive in its tonality. Although I woul resierve a phrase like this for someone who has failed to express that he understands that it cannot be done after much discussion about it. In real life, this part of my tonality and expression. Without it, a lot of points would be completely lost

And would you use that tone with someone the first time you explain it? In one way of thinking, it's yelling to get your point across, only not as strong as simple yelling.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I just don't see the use of caps as grave a you o. I've run into it all the tim and I belive that more can be gleaned from the persons overall post then from the few capital letters he thrws in for emphasis. A persons intent means more to me, I guess.

As far as the tone I belive I said I would reserve it for when emphasis was needed, nt the first time. But then I can't truley say I would never ever do it the first time. As with all things, it depends on the context of the moment.

I like the Logic and Falacies document for the educational insight it provides, but somehow the "debate moderator" your suggesting takes away something that has little to do with logic and flacies. And thats fun. You have to be cautious of how far you want to take order. Just like anything else in life, if indulged in excess, it can consume you and defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.

Not that it's a bad idea. Just that, well... it feels ... inAppropriate.

 

[Raijinili]

Your keyboard is crying.

 

[Jason_C]

Your keyboard is crying.

I must admit, I haven't bothered to read the entire site you pointed out. Forgive me, please, sometimes I tend to get easily distracted and have difficulty reading long things. But I don't need to read it all to know that, somewhere in there, there is something about a fallacy wherein one mocks his opponent's form of communication rather than counter the argument.

Everyone knows DJ can't type. Neither can I when I haven't had enough soda. But pointing that out does not counter DJ's point at all.

State what you mean by "tonality". Because I'm talking about single-word emphasis.

Ah, yes. "My bad," as it were. Hem-hem: "Intonation". Is that closer to what we're debating?

State what you mean by "conversation". Because I'm talking about a debate.

Is a debate not a kind of conversation? And, come to think of it, do not the rules of basic conversation also apply to a debate?

Note the above statements. They're slightly aggressive.

Opinion: No, they're not. The first one is factual. The second one is just irritating. Nothing about them is aggressive. Although, again, you do indeed miss the intended point of my message.

Raij, missing someone's point because it's legitimate doesn't get your point across. To be perfectly honest, I'd be willing to NOT TALK LIKE THIS just to humour you ( <-- I spell British sometimes, get used to it ) if you would actually attempt to counter my arguments. But if all you intend to do is play that age-old game with me where you nitpick at my exact words rather than argue with the point, then I have no intention of changing my habits.

Not trying to insult you here. Just saying that if you want someone else to change what they're doing for you, you ought to not bother them with little details like "tonality" vs "intonation" and spelling errors.

 

[masterwoo0]

The important thing here is, you cant moderate what you cant see or feel, as it would only be an opinion based upon your own impression of what the writer is trying to convey. Without asking them directly, you border on the fringe of unchecked "censorship".

They removed the "Three Little Pigs" from School Libraries because Censors felt 3 Pigs dancing and singing around a black kettle rejoicing over their victory with the Big Bad Wolf, was more along the lines of Witchcraft, Chanting and Black Art Rituals involving sacrifices.

How ridiculous is that? But yet, that was an opinion, based upon what someone else interpreted after reading a "Children's Story".

The only moderation there should be is when a particular party feels as though they are being personally attacked and respectfully ask the "offending" individual to "back off". You cant have a Third Party intervene on their behalf as they may not see the same side of the statement as it was originally intended.

 

[Raijinili]

Raij, missing someone's point because it's legitimate doesn't get your point across. To be perfectly honest, I'd be willing to NOT TALK LIKE THIS just to humour you ( <-- I spell British sometimes, get used to it ) if you would actually attempt to counter my arguments. But if all you intend to do is play that age-old game with me where you nitpick at my exact words rather than argue with the point, then I have no intention of changing my habits.

I posted a link to a thread that used only two non-vital instances of single-word emphasis, and you did not even notice it. I didn't miss your point, you just ignored the response.

Opinion: No, they're not. The first one is factual. The second one is just irritating. Nothing about them is aggressive.

I used a slightly condenscending tone to show disdain, as if you were too stupid to be assumed to understand my stance.

masterwoo0
Your basic point: You can't moderate opinion.
My counter-point: Logical fallacies aren't judged through opinion.
Your response: You can't moderate opinion.

You understand that this makes it very hard for me to respond, no?

The important thing here is, you cant moderate what you cant see or feel, as it would only be an opinion based upon your own impression of what the writer is trying to convey.

That's like saying you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion because they're not words on a screen, but phrases.

 

[Jason_C]

you just ignored the response.

Wouldn't that be ad hominem?

I used a slightly condenscending tone to show disdain, as if you were too stupid to be assumed to understand my stance.

There's a big difference between "I'm smarter than you" and "You are f___ing b____ and I will slit your throat, so be very afraid!"

masterwoo0
Your basic point: You can't moderate opinion.
My counter-point: Logical fallacies aren't judged through opinion.
Your response: You can't moderate opinion.

To some extent. But I believe master and you may be talking cross-ways. What I mean by that is your views aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You can both be somewhat correct.

If I say "God doesn't exist because there's no proof" then that is a blatant and undeniable, factual logical fallacy. (Did I use enough adjectives in that sentence, or should I call it pretty and thin as well?). However, things like ad hominem and other "fallacies" are not necessarily always so blatant. Opinion is in involved in some cases. What you consider aggressive or insulting or a fallacy could be different from what I do. As per our little debate over the "condescending / aggressive vs factual / irritating" statements you made about me.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Logical fallacies aren't judged through opinion.

Um, who decide that? As the page says: "logical Reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe" but neither is the Reasoning of the website itself. It's a wonderful examination of the what is and isn't logical Reasoning. But in the end merely examination. Reading through some of there interpretaions of what is and isn't logic, I find I don't agree with all of it.

And yes, the irony of this debate is not lost on me.

 

[Raijinili]

Wouldn't that be ad hominem?

I'm not discrediting your point, so no. And calling me on it instead of responding to my point is ad hominem.

There's a big difference between "I'm smarter than you" and "You are f___ing b____ and I will slit your throat, so be very afraid!"

"Aggressive" doesn't always imply violence.

If I say "God doesn't exist because there's no proof" then that is a blatant and undeniable, factual logical fallacy. (Did I use enough adjectives in that sentence, or should I call it pretty and thin as well?). However, things like ad hominem and other "fallacies" are not necessarily always so blatant. Opinion is in involved in some cases. What you consider aggressive or insulting or a fallacy could be different from what I do. As per our little debate over the "condescending / aggressive vs factual / irritating" statements you made about me.

The only place where opinion comes into play is severity. And perhaps intention.

Um, who decide that? As the page says: "logical Reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe" but neither is the Reasoning of the website itself. It's a wonderful examination of the what is and isn't logical Reasoning. But in the end merely examination. Reading through some of there interpretaions of what is and isn't logic, I find I don't agree with all of it.

"Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe" = you can't make all your choices based on logical Reasoning. It's not saying that logic rules aren't absolute.

Also, there are sites and textbooks with much of the same rules for logic, only with different names. What exactly don't you agree on?

And yes, the irony of this debate is not lost on me.

Haha. Should've known you'd be the first to catch on.

 

[masterwoo0]

He's not the first. I just made the choice to stop feeding into the "debate".

 

[Jason_C]

Haha. Should've known you'd be the first to catch on.

The irony of this debate has been irritating me since before the thread started. The debate isn't new, even if it is more pronounced now than it was before. The debate is old; the irony is blatant; I'm done.

 

[squid]

Um, who decide that? As the page says: "logical Reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe" but neither is the Reasoning of the website itself. It's a wonderful examination of the what is and isn't logical Reasoning. But in the end merely examination. Reading through some of there interpretaions of what is and isn't logic, I find I don't agree with all of it.

And yes, the irony of this debate is not lost on me.

Thank god for that, because in its own way, this thread is an intellectual Monty Python skit.

Who decides? Each individual reader.

Both the person typing an argument and the person reading the same statement have a responsibility to themselves to disassociate themselves from the words, and even the context of the words in order to simply address the facts presented.

Masterwoo0 (Im picking on you purely for example) mentioned that his posts have frequently been misinterpreted as being aggressive and hostile by some members, where as his intention is purely factual. However it would be difficult for someone to be able to identify this trait in Woo0 when the only means of communication available is the written word. The use of alternative fonts, bold, underlining, italicizing, ect does help to emphasize portions that the poster feels are important to their position.

But since the poster cannot automatically determine how those points of emphasis are interpreted by each different reader, it becomes more imperative for additional written statements to be added so that the intention is literally spelled out for everyone.

Yes, Jason. Debate is a form of conversation. But it is a form of conversation in which the viewpoints of individuals are often oppositional. When a person writes a statement and uses CAPS, bolds, quotations, ect, they are essentially using a shorthand form of communication, rather than writing out a more lengthy explanation. They are depending upon the reader to successfully interpret the intended meaning without any assurance that everyone is identifying with the argument in the first place.

If the viewpoints on a subject are already in opposition (meaning that one person believes one thing, another person believes differently) then there is a likelyhood that the perceived interpretation of the reader will be antagonistic to whatever is said.

Is that going to be consistent? No. None of us can possibly claim that everyone is going to interpret THIS in the same manner. I could easily look back on my own sentence and interpret the capitalized "this" as a somewhat aggressive manuever. In order to avoid that mis interpretation, I expand on my statement by clarifying how my use of the capitalized "this" was only used as an example, and not a means of tonality.

Intonation is very dependent upon the reader, not upon the writer. Any statement that uses emphasis on the internet can be interpreted in one of several ways. Now, I have attempted to state what I believe is the responsibility of the writer (to clarify after using emphasis) on the internet.

However, there also remains the responsibility of the reader, each and every reader, to remain impassive; to disassociate their emotions from the dialogue. The reader has to be aware that their interpretation of any statement may be clouded by the very fact that the poster has not fully made clear their intended meaning.

Rather than making assumptions, there are multitudes of ways that a person can respond that ask for clarification, rather than simply trying to force the conversation/debate forward, without having a clear understanding of the viewpoint put forward by the other person.

Just looking at this post in its entirety should make it somewhat obvious why people use Bold, Italics, underlining, CAPS, and quotations. Otherwise you have to write a book.

But if you don't want to explain yourself thoroughly, then you should at least realize that you are simply throwing your words to the wind and hoping that they land on receptive ears.

Language is a tool and a weapon. Tools can inadvertently cause damage. Weapons, purposely do so. In a debate upon topics such as rulings (or, like this, a topic of how to regulate such discussions) I personally feel that it is the duty of the community as a whole, each and every person contributing and participating, to remind themselves (and occasionally others) that ambiguity can be interpreted wrongly, and should therefore not be the basis for anyone carrying a banner to start censoring dialogue.

Raijinili himself has frequently been the target, and the cause, of some debates that degenerated into uselessness because the intended purpose of his argument has been warped by overly sensitive ears, and his own mistaken interpretation of how some other members have responded to him.

Its very understandable how if Rai sees my post and interprets me as being aggressive or dismissive of him, that he will respond in kind. I, in turn, could escalate the matter by my own misinterpretation. Neither person, and both people, are guilty in such a situation. Both of us could avoid problems when we divorce ourselves from personal statements. Rai can ask what my intention was in bringing up his name and my comments. I can attempt to elaborate here beforehand, so that Rai (or any of the others reading this) do not accidentally fall into the trap of thinking I said one thing when I thought you were thinking that I was thinking something Im not really thinking. (why does that sound like a TV show?)

Anyways, interpret that as you will. Put bluntly and with little explanation afterwards, I think that advocating a specific moderator or board of inquiry to censor and monitor any such activity is not conducive to discussion. It only promotes more suspicion and fear about anything posted.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Point taken. It's much easier to sound aggresive in written form then it is to sound polite. For some reason, the default reaction is to assume that it was not stated in a kind tone. Why? I have no idea. I think it's just part of the 21st century nature of man. But thats another discussion. Suffice it to say, the only way to remove any amountpercived aggresion from a post is s-p-e-l-l it out in long hand. And who of us want's to do that on a regular basis?

But we musn't forget, we know each other quite well around here. We know each other's nature from repeated discussions on varied topics. There is very little room for misinterpretation with people we've all known for so long. Yes, sometimes I read a post and think "Gee, woo0 was mad" Then I remember who woo0 is and how well he get's along with everyone on this forum and realize, I read that wrong. (Yes, I was just using woo0 as an example too. Sorry Woo0)

Just like life there are more things to be considered then the intellectual aspects of a thing. There's the humanity of a thing to be considered as well.

Well, thats my Yoda impression for the day.