Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bogus debate tactics

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Stephen can send this to Justin, if he wants, because I think Justin has 
my messages going straight to /dev/null.  --Mike


On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, McNutt, Justin M. wrote:

> No, I surround myself with people who don't feel the need to resort to 
> these kinds of bullshit debate tactics.

I have to wonder again what I'm being accused of here.


> I have not found that I need to suffer fools in order to have an 
> intelligent conversation, and I find the notion that I should suffer 
> fools only results in the proliferation of fools, rather than 
> encouraging better behavior.

Isn't this saying that I'm a fool?


> Firstly, taking any argument to its logical extreme is rarely going to 
> work, so it's almost always a bullshit tactic.  Secondly, even if the 
> question were meant in a legitimate way, that's not how it's phrased. 
> Mike doesn't say, "So what if <extreme case>?"  NOOOO.  Mike says, "So 
> YOU'RE SAYING THAT <extreme case>."  He takes it to the extreme AND 
> ATTRIBUTES THAT NONSENSE TO YOU.

Is there an example of this here?...

http://mlug.missouri.edu/lists.php

I wouldn't attribute an idea to someone that I didn't think he held, or 
that I didn't see as a logical consequence of another idea they'd already 
presented.


> It's a bullshit tactic meant to discredit rather than present any real 
> argument.

I don't think so, but then again, I haven't seen any examples in my 
writing of the kind of thing you are talking about.  (And I hope that 
those of you who happen to agree with Justin for whatever reason will let 
him show me what he's talking about instead of making suggestions of your 
own -- but I am happy to read your suggestions either off list or after 
Justin has told me.)


> Keep in mind, I never said that Mike isn't intelligent.

But a fool?  Would this be an example of attributing to you an idea that 
you do not hold?  How else was I to interpret your earlier statement about 
suffering fools?


> If you choose to wade through his nonsense, sometimes he makes some good 
> points, and just because he's an ass doesn't make him wrong.

I think that what I write is never nonsense even if I might occasionally 
err and make a false statement.  I also don't think I'm an ass.

Some people are hypersensitive and overinterpret my statements.  For 
example, if I were to say "I don't understand your question."  That does 
not mean that doesn't mean anything except for exactly what it says.  I am 
not suggesting that there is some deep personal defect in the writer, just 
that I did not understand what was written.  Usually, if you look back at 
it, you will understand why I didn't get it, but that's up to you.

Also, I don't think that it is impolite to write a terse message.  Accept 
that for what it is.  We are all busy and I do get into a lot of different 
things.  If my response is short it probably means that I thought the 
issue was worth some attention but not a lot of attention, and there could 
be hundreds of reasons why, none of which are a personal reflection on the 
person I'm responding to.


> It's not his point of view, it's his delivery.

I believe that, but I'm surprised that you find it so bothersome.  There 
was probably some event, if we were to look back at the record of 
correspondence, where I said something that really pissed you off a lot.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion