or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage - Page 4

post #121 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

it's not a fact

 

How is it not?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #122 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's it? Not a word of comment on any of my other points. Just latch onto one that you can respond to ad hominem. I thought for a moment that you actually wanted a discussion.

 

No, not a word of comment on any of your other points.

 

You make such a statement ("I just cannot conceive of the level of naivety and ignorance of history necessary to imagine any other outcome") and I'm the one engaging in argumentum ad hominem? I'm the one who doesn't want a discussion?

 

We can converse until we're blue in the face (we've probably arrived at that point), but if you process everything I say and everything you read through the mindset reflected in that single statement, we're both wasting our time.

 

I was just being honest. And it is disingenuous to try to argue that I don't want a discussion when you look at the total content of my posts.

 

You should look up the definition of ad hominem too; by ad hominem one dismisses an opposing argument by attacking the opponent rather than the argument. Concluding that an opposing position is naive and ignorant based on the opponent's argument not ad hominem. On the other hand, dismissing my arguments because you don't like my "mindset" is ad hominem. Hopefully that helps.

 

Anyway - no problem if are done - you always seem to pick and choose which arguments to respond to, and ignore those that you (presumably) cannot answer, so I figured you would disengage sooner or later.

post #123 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

it's not a fact

 

How is it not?!

 

Are we still talking about the assertion that taxes are collected under the threat of violence? What violence would that be? Can you point to anything in tax law threatening violence? Are you confusing the IRS with the mafia? 

post #124 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Are we still talking about the assertion that taxes are collected under the threat of violence?

 

Yes. That was the context. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What violence would that be? Can you point to anything in tax law threatening violence?

 

What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Are you confusing the IRS with the mafia? 

 

You're not?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I was just being honest. And it is disingenuous to try to argue that I don't want a discussion when you look at the total content of my posts.

 

You should look up the definition of ad hominem too; by ad hominem one dismisses an opposing argument by attacking the opponent rather than the argument. Concluding that an opposing position is naive and ignorant based on the opponent's argument not ad hominem. On the other hand, dismissing my arguments because you don't like my "mindset" is ad hominem. Hopefully that helps.

 

Anyway - no problem if are done - you always seem to pick and choose which arguments to respond to, and ignore those that you (presumably) cannot answer, so I figured you would disengage sooner or later.

 

I am done because of your condescending tone and continued engagement in straw man fallacies and argumentum ad hominem. If you want to claim it's because I cannot answer, go right ahead.

 

Hopefully others with open minds will think about some of the things I've said and realize that - to paraphrase Bastiat - life, liberty, and property do not exist because men made laws. On the contrary, men made laws because those things existed in the first place.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #126 of 192
Muppetry explains why his statement was not ad hominem. Jazz responds by saying he's tired of all the ad hominem. There's some sort of filter that appears to prevent Jazz & MJ from accepting counterarguments. It's confirmation bias to the extreme.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #127 of 192

jazz, technically I think muppetry is right when he says:

 

Quote:
You should look up the definition of ad hominem too; by ad hominem one dismisses an opposing argument by attacking the opponent rather than the argument. Concluding that an opposing position is naive and ignorant based on the opponent's argument not ad hominem.

 

Declaring that your position is naive and ignorant is more like an appeal to ridicule/mockery (reductio ad ridiculum.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #128 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

jazz, technically I think muppetry is right when he says:

 

 

Declaring that your position is naive and ignorant is more like an appeal to ridicule/mockery (reductio ad ridiculum.)

 

I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. He declared that anyone who didn't arrive at the same conclusions as him was naive and ignorant. And, since he was conversing with me, the implication was obvious.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #129 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. He declared that anyone who didn't arrive at the same conclusions as him was naive and ignorant. And, since he was conversing with me, the implication was obvious.

 

I agree that might be a fine line, but I'd call it for appeal to mockery nonetheless. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him, nor does it do anything to logically support his "argument." This has actually become common among our friends of the leftist persuasion here. Tonton does it when he calls you (or me) "extremist" (using that word in the purely pejorative sense.) BR does it when he declares our views as "Utopian." Muppetry sorta did it when he asks "where di your oppression complex come from?" But that's really more like a loaded question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #130 of 192
The idea that if you home school your children you're not benefitting from the educational infrastructure of the government is asinine. Likewise with social security and welfare.

Like it or not, we are members of society. When society benefits, we benefit. Don't like the society to which you belong? Find another society. You are not powerless to do so!

What's that? You like your home? Well guess what? The niceties of your home exist in part because of the benefits of this society, too!
Edited by tonton - 2/28/13 at 4:00pm
post #131 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The idea that if you home school your children you're not benefitting from the educational infrastructure of the government is asinine. Likewise with social security and welfare.

 

Thank you for your opinion.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #132 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The idea that if you home school your children you're not benefitting from the educational infrastructure of the government is asinine. Likewise with social security and welfare.

Thank you for your opinion.
Yes I know it's of little value when faced with your brick wall of denial and the blinders over your eyes.
post #133 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. He declared that anyone who didn't arrive at the same conclusions as him was naive and ignorant. And, since he was conversing with me, the implication was obvious.

 

I agree that might be a fine line, but I'd call it for appeal to mockery nonetheless. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him, nor does it do anything to logically support his "argument." This has actually become common among our friends of the leftist persuasion here. Tonton does it when he calls you (or me) "extremist" (using that word in the purely pejorative sense.) BR does it when he declares our views as "Utopian." Muppetry sorta did it when he asks "where di your oppression complex come from?" But that's really more like a loaded question.

 

Oh for goodness sake - I retract the statement, OK. I was trying to convey my inability to imagine how one could come to those conclusions, and suggesting that the argument was naive and ignorant of history - but I admit that I could have phrased it differently. The implication that jazzguru refers to was not my intent, and I apologize if it gave that impression.

 

There's nothing wrong with a loaded question, by the way - it is not, in itself, a fallacy. That requires a constraint on the form of the answer.

post #134 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Are we still talking about the assertion that taxes are collected under the threat of violence?

 

Yes. That was the context. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What violence would that be? Can you point to anything in tax law threatening violence?

 

What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?

 

You ultimately risk prosecution for non-payment, risking financial penalties, and on refusal to pay those, potentially imprisonment. I'm still missing the violence.

post #135 of 192

jazz, see how tonton is continuing to do it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #136 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There's nothing wrong with a loaded question, by the way - it is not, in itself, a fallacy.

 

Wrong.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #137 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

jazz, technically I think muppetry is right when he says:

 

Quote:
You should look up the definition of ad hominem too; by ad hominem one dismisses an opposing argument by attacking the opponent rather than the argument. Concluding that an opposing position is naive and ignorant based on the opponent's argument not ad hominem.

 

Declaring that your position is naive and ignorant is more like an appeal to ridicule/mockery (reductio ad ridiculum.)

 

There was no element of mockery, so no, it's not that. More importantly, it was not even part of my argument - just an expression of disbelief.

post #138 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There's nothing wrong with a loaded question, by the way - it is not, in itself, a fallacy.

 

Wrong.

 

Straight back to monosyllabic naysaying, I see.

post #139 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Straight back to monosyllabic naysaying, I see.

 

Wrong.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #140 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There was no element of mockery, so no, it's not that.

 

You're right, calling someone (or their position) naive and ignorant is not mockery. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

More importantly, it was not even part of my argument - just an expression of disbelief.

 

This then is not fallacy and that's fine.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #141 of 192
Stating clearly and eloquently why you're wrong is not condescension. Muppetey has shown patience and respect in his approach. This very thread is evidence of the very same self-victimization that has led to hatred for government, hatred of social constructs, hatred of anyone in authority...
post #142 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This very thread is evidence of the very same self-victimization that has led to hatred for government, hatred of social constructs, hatred of anyone in authority...

 

And here we go again. Sheesh. This from the guy who claims to discuss with logic and reason. Let's see, we have at least two straw men, I think a third.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This very thread is evidence of the very same self-victimization that has led to hatred for government, hatred of social constructs, hatred of anyone in authority...

And here we go again. Sheesh. This from the guy who claims to discuss with logic and reason. Let's see, we have at least two straw men, I think a third.
And here we have a fallacy on your part. I never claim to restrict my argument to logic and reason. I don't have the patience for it. What I claim to do is to understand logic and reason.
post #144 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And here we have a fallacy on your part. I never claim to restrict my argument to logic and reason.

 

Fair enough. My error.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I don't have the patience for it.

 

That's clear.

 

It's much easier to accuse people of things that aren't really true (e.g., self-vicitimization, hatred of social constructs, hatred of anyone in authority.) because...well...it's a convenient diversion from the truth and saves the time of actually understanding the position of people you strongly disagree with.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What I claim to do is to understand logic and reason.

 

 

That is much less so.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Straight back to monosyllabic naysaying, I see.

 

Wrong.

 

That was actually amusing. Very clever. However, you will notice that the link you provided uses as its example a question that constrains the answer to yes or no, and that either answer is an admission of the presumption. That is the context-dependent element of the fallacy. My original question "Where did your oppression complex come from?", places no such constraints (not a yes/no question), and obviously allows, for example, the response "I have no oppression complex". It could, of course, be split into a suggestion "it looks like you have an oppression complex", followed by the question "where did that come from", but that does not change anything, and so would be a pointless adjustment.

post #146 of 192
True or false:

The non-aggression principle is not enforceable without violating the non-aggression principle.

Home-schooled children benefit from the constructs of society including public education.
post #147 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That was actually amusing. Very clever. However, you will notice that the link you provided uses as its example a question that constrains the answer to yes or no, and that either answer is an admission of the presumption. That is the context-dependent element of the fallacy. My original question "Where did your oppression complex come from?", places no such constraints (not a yes/no question), and obviously allows, for example, the response "I have no oppression complex". It could, of course, be split into a suggestion "it looks like you have an oppression complex", followed by the question "where did that come from", but that does not change anything, and so would be a pointless adjustment.

 

But this is no different than the situation when confronted with the "when did you stop beating your wife?" (loaded) question (the question-ee can easily respond similarly to that question.) The issue is less about the direct form of a yes/no question than the fact that it contains a built-in (assumed) premised. It is essentially begging the question in the form of a question. And, I suspect, you know this.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #148 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

True or false:

The non-aggression principle is not enforceable without violating the non-aggression principle.

 

False.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Home-schooled children benefit from the constructs of society including public education.

 

Is this an assertion or an additional true/false question?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #149 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

True or false:


The non-aggression principle is not enforceable without violating the non-aggression principle.

False.

Now, I can prove you 100% wrong on that using logic and reason.
post #150 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Home-schooled children benefit from the constructs of society including public education.

Is this an assertion or an additional true/false question?
The latter.
post #151 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Now, I can prove you 100% wrong on that using logic and reason.

 

Give it a try.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


The latter.

 

In my opinion it would depend on the children and the family. Frankly, the broadness of the question (all home-schooled children) makes this difficult to answer. But, more than that, no one has claimed that people do not benefit from stuff like government education. That's a straw man. The better questions are: a) Do people benefit on the net as compared to another approach, and b) would people benefit more using another approach, and c) would more people benefit using a different approach.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Now, I can prove you 100% wrong on that using logic and reason.

Give it a try.
Simple questions.

There has been a murder. There is a clear suspect, but guilt cannot be proven without trial. What do you do, under the non-aggression principle?
post #154 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Simple questions.

There has been a murder. There is a clear suspect, but guilt cannot be proven without trial. What do you do, under the non-aggression principle?

 

I would think, hold some kind of trial/review/inquest to establish actual guilt.

 

What would you do?


Edited by MJ1970 - 2/28/13 at 5:20pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That was actually amusing. Very clever. However, you will notice that the link you provided uses as its example a question that constrains the answer to yes or no, and that either answer is an admission of the presumption. That is the context-dependent element of the fallacy. My original question "Where did your oppression complex come from?", places no such constraints (not a yes/no question), and obviously allows, for example, the response "I have no oppression complex". It could, of course, be split into a suggestion "it looks like you have an oppression complex", followed by the question "where did that come from", but that does not change anything, and so would be a pointless adjustment.

 

But this is no different than the situation when confronted with the "when did you stop beating your wife?" (loaded) question (the question-ee can easily respond similarly to that question.) The issue is less about the direct form of a yes/no question than the fact that it contains a built-in (assumed) premised. It is essentially begging the question in the form of a question. And, I suspect, you know this.

 

No - you are mis-remembering I think. The classic question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" And the entire point, again, is the attempt to constrain to a yes/no answer, both of which admit the presumption, and it becomes the fallacy of many questions. It is a common error to mis-characterize any loaded question as that fallacy.

 

And it is not begging the question, because in that fallacy the argument contains its conclusion as an assumption - entirely different.

post #156 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - you are mis-remembering I think. The classic question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" And the entire point, again, is the attempt to constrain to a yes/no answer, both of which admit the presumption, and it becomes the fallacy of many questions. It is a common error to mis-characterize any loaded question as that fallacy.

 

But both contain the same built-in presumption.

 

How is "When did you stop beating you're wife?" fundamentally different from "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The issue is less about the constraint of the yes/no answer than it is about the built in presumption. What you're saying is true if the questioner will only accept the constrained set of implied answers. For example:

 

In "When did you stop beating you're wife?" and the questioner will only accept a date as an answer it is not fundamentally different from the question phrased as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and the questioner constraining the answer to yes or no. Both of these questions can be dealt with by rejected the in-built presupposition (that he has been beating his wife) by answering "I have never beat my wife."

 

But none of this changes the fundamentally loaded nature of the question to begin with.

 

When you ask "Where did your oppression complex come from?" there is a built-in assumption that the recipient of this question has an "oppression complex" and built-in implication that the acceptable answers are either a) a source of this "oppression complex", or b) "nowhere" which does not entirely (or even at all) reject the built-in assumption that the question recipient does have an "oppression complex." Again, the recipient can answer by rejecting this assumption outright by saying "I don't have an oppression complex." This differs in no significant way from the beating your wife example.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #157 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Now, I can prove you 100% wrong on that using logic and reason.

Give it a try.
Simple questions.

There has been a murder. There is a clear suspect, but guilt cannot be proven without trial. What do you do, under the non-aggression principle?

 

Just an observation - NAP is so plagued by conflicting definitions, exemptions, and contradictions that you are very unlikely to nail this argument.

post #158 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Just an observation - NAP is so plagued by conflicting definitions, exemptions, and contradictions...

 

Please do share.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - you are mis-remembering I think. The classic question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" And the entire point, again, is the attempt to constrain to a yes/no answer, both of which admit the presumption, and it becomes the fallacy of many questions. It is a common error to mis-characterize any loaded question as that fallacy.

 

But both contain the same built-in presumption.

 

How is "When did you stop beating you're wife?" fundamentally different from "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The issue is less about the constraint of the yes/no answer than it is about the built in presumption. What you're saying is true if the questioner will only accept the constrained set of implied answers. For example:

 

In "When did you stop beating you're wife?" and the questioner will only accept a date as an answer it is not fundamentally different from the question phrased as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and the questioner constraining the answer to yes or no. Both of these questions can be dealt with by rejected the in-built presupposition (that he has been beating his wife) by answering "I have never beat my wife."

 

But none of this changes the fundamentally loaded nature of the question to begin with.

 

When you ask "Where did your oppression complex come from?" there is a built-in assumption that the recipient of this question has an "oppression complex" and built-in implication that the acceptable answers are either a) a source of this "oppression complex", or b) "nowhere" which does not entirely (or even at all) reject the built-in assumption that the question recipient does have an "oppression complex." Again, the recipient can answer by rejecting this assumption outright by saying "I don't have an oppression complex." This differs in no significant way from the beating your wife example.

 

You are still missing or ignoring my point. I completely agree that it is a loaded question. My point is that it is not an informal fallacy. I cannot find a way to state that more clearly, but the distinction, while subtle, is precise, and carries significant implications. If your argument is that it does not change the "fundamental" nature of the question (i.e. they kind of mean the same thing), and so you are unable to distinguish between those classes of question, then we will have to agree to differ.

post #160 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You are still missing or ignoring my point. I completely agree that it is a loaded question. My point is that it is not an informal fallacy.

 

And I believe you're wrong. So, yes, I guess will have to agree to differ on this (et al.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage