Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Oh but that's an easy one. Why should I be bound by your premises? You'd have to assume you know my premises to be able to assert intellectual dishonesty.

... This is getting extremely ridiculous.

My point was simply that you cannot cherry-pick your premises and pretend that 1-3 premises exist in a logical vacuum when they do not. You're right that I cannot always assume what other premises the person does hold, but you also can't assume that no other premises exist that may be relevant.

And seriously, "the other person can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm being intellectually dishonest" is not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest, and even then, if I'm talking to someone and suspect that other premises they hold may contradict their argument, I can ask them if they hold those premises.

[Jerick]

So you'll agree that the superiority of logical debate is based on personal preferences rather than an external metric?

No the superiority of logical debate is based off the fact that it can produce the best solution for the situation because it examines many of the deeper issues of the situation.
With emotion headbutting many of the issues involved in the situation, what ever it may be, are ignored.
Instead the solution used is invented by who ever can shout the loudest.
Are you really trying to argue that that is as productive a cold logical discussion.
Which is the problem behind the whole thing really: Us "Elitists" try for productive debates and are annoyed when the fate of nations is decieded via unproductive clashes of emotions.

Fake edit:  So many replies, so quickly!

[Truean]

For you and me that is true. But that is not self-evident and that is my point (unless you want to claim there's a universal law to trip up people that follow their feelings?). You cannot assert that someone is stupid just because they use other methods.

Never said they were stupid based on methodology.

How is it not true for them? If it is not true for them, then why is it true for you and me?

Logic is the means to satisfy your feelings. Stating your feelings alone will not satisfy them.... True?

[Virex]

False. If I feel like stating my feelings, then doing so will satisfy them. An important factor in anti-intelectualism is that people value their feelings above logic and therefor they fulfill some of their desires by not using logic.

So you'll agree that the superiority of logical debate is based on personal preferences rather than an external metric?

No the superiority of logical debate is based off the fact that it can produce the best solution for the situation because it examines many of the deeper issues of the situation.
With emotion headbutting many of the issues involved in the situation, what ever it may be, are ignored.
Instead the solution used is invented by who ever can shout the loudest.
Are you really trying to argue that that is as productive a cold logical discussion.
Which is the problem behind the whole thing really: Us "Elitists" try for productive debates and are annoyed when the fate of nations is decieded via unproductive clashes of emotions.

Fake edit:  So many replies, so quickly!

No my problem goes deeper, namely the assumption that examining the deeper issues and the possibility to have a better result is more important than being able to debate how you feel like. Because while that may be self-evident for us, there are obviously many for whom this is not self-evident and there are many who value not having to adhere to logic above the potential benefits of using logic. Since this is a fundamental clash of values, calling them stupid while still claiming you're not elitist isn't internally consistent.

[Truean]

False. If I feel like stating my feelings, then doing so will satisfy them.

Only for that one feeling. All the others?

No my problem goes deeper, namely the assumption that examining the deeper issues and the possibility to have a better result is more important than being able to debate how you feel like. Because while that may be self-evident for us, there are obviously many for whom this is not self-evident and there are many who value not having to adhere to logic above the potential benefits of using logic. Since this is a fundamental clash of values, calling them stupid while still claiming you're not elitist isn't internally consistent.

Again, if you win you lose. If logic doesn't matter then who cares about internal consistency? How do you have a problem with that if it is someone's feelings? 

[Virex]

I should edit before I post instead of the other way around. But the answer to your question depends on the relative importance of my feelings of course.


And people who see logic as an important factor obviously adhere to logic. And that's the kind of people I'm arguing with.

[Truean]

I should edit before I post instead of the other way around. But the answer to your question depends on the relative importance of my feelings of course.

If you feel like doing anything other than merely stating your feelings, or not stating your feelings, then it doesn't? ["It" being the statement that merely stating your feelings doesn't satisfy them] If you have any feelings more complex than these, which you desire satisfaction of, then logic is required to satisfy them?

[Virex]

Who are you to make a judgement of the complexity and relative importance of someone's feelings. Also, note that it is not impossible to fulfill your desires by stating them loudly enough. We all know or have known that school bully who could get his way just by looking foul at someone. Logic just makes it easier.

[Truean]

Who are you to make a judgement of the complexity and relative importance of someone's feelings. Also, note that it is not impossible to fulfill your desires by stating them loudly enough. We all know or have known that school bully who could get his way just by looking foul at someone. Logic just makes it easier.

I'm not making a judgment of complexity and relative importance of someone's feelings. I'm saying if one has feelings other than stating one's feelings or not, that they would require logic to satisfy those feelings. Your example of the school bully shows the school bully using logic.

A.) If I look at someone foul, then they will give me what I want.
B.) There is someone.
C.) I will look at that someone with a foul look to get what I want....

The mere fact or statement that the bully wants something does not give it to him without the logic of threatening and the logic behind that threat of the possible use of force or other unpleasant duress/coercion.

[SalmonGod]

You cannot assert that someone is stupid just because they use other methods.

But I CAN when those methods involve defaulting to stupidity as a regular operational principle.

Take the case I mentioned of debating with people about the premises of our Iraq invasion.  The cultural group I'm criticizing here tends to justify that invasion based on statements they regard as truth.  Truth is a logical term that is subject to logical evaluation, in a way that I should point out that feelings are not.  When it's proven that those statements are in fact not true, and they continue to believe that they are true based on nothing but their feelings, then they are truly being stupid as defined by knowingly embracing falsehoods while claiming them not to be false.  It is the same as explaining to someone that 2+2 equals 4, not 1, and clearly demonstrating this truth to them.  When they scream that you're not being fair and that they refuse to believe you and don't care what you say that 2+2=1 not matter what until the end of time... I'm sorry but that's plain stupidity.

If they don't want to be stupid, they can own up to the fact that they are only basing their beliefs on what they feel -- i.e.  "I feel that invading Iraq was the right thing to do." not "I don't care about your liberal conspiracy evidence bullshit, even if it comes from the very same people I got these ideas from in the first place.  They had WMDs and are all a bunch of terrorists and therefore deserve whatever they get!"

[Nadaka]

That would actually be insanity.

Stupidity would be not being able to count to 4, so 2+2 can't be 4.

[Leafsnail]

One does however decide to be religious, as well as what religion one precisely belongs to. Now, I am all for anti-religious violence but something tells me that that position isn't really favored by the more moderate people here.

There is quite a big difference between being part of a religion with homophobic elements (presumably a part of it that isn't homophobic) and being part of a political party whose leaders are largely homophobic.  In the case of being part of the religion, you aren't giving any additional power to the homophobes in some other sect.  In the case of being part of the party, you are increasing the power of the homophobes by lending them your vote and your voice.

In essence, lending your support to the cause of damaging gay rights, even if you aren't particularly against them yourself, is bad.  One does not have to be generalizing to criticise a Republican for their support of anti-gay rights legislation.

[Virex]

That would actually be insanity.

Stupidity would be not being able to count to 4, so 2+2 can't be 4.

Except that calling someone who's stubbornly refusing to play by your rules insane is insulting to people with mental problems.


@ SalmonGod: Those are valid points if you don't care for the moral problems associated with calling someone stupid for not adhering to your premises, and berating you for doing so would obviously be useless. So I guess you've won the debate?

[Leafsnail]

I don't know if it's intentional Virex but you somehow manage to keep missing the point and kicking the argument into a completely unrelated issue.

[Aqizzar]

I have completely lost track of what's being argued about in here, except for a vague impression that Virex apparently believes that inserting logic into a debate turns people into murderous automatons or something.