1
   

"I disagree" vs "That's intellectually bankrupt"

 
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:54 pm
I understand your points, but I have another view of this:


Quote:

2)

"I do not think homosexuals should be allowed to live because their behavior is an abomination to nature and this can only lead to societal ruin."

"I disagree with that intellectually bankrupt position. Your argument employs only two fallacious premises with a naturalistic fallacy and a fallacious slippery slope argument."


As phrased it is simply an unsupported opinion. However, some people may rephrase or continue to argue that they believe it is an abomination to nature based on their religious views. For me, I wouldn't continue to agrue against it because it is impossible to argue with someone about their fundamental beliefs. If they believe in God, and follow the "rules" of their religion then it boils down to a faith issue. I'm not sure it's appropriate to call it intellectual bankrupt even though most strict followers don't rely on intellect but rather blind faith.

(just using religion and Catholic here as an example)

So I would ask - is this a "I disagree" or "intellectually bankrupt" or perhaps their is another choice? Just throwing it out there for suggestions. As for me, I find it easier to avoid such discussion altogether Wink
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:27 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven: I have identified it elsewhere as an argumentum ad connubium: a fallacy where one's lack of sexual satisfaction is regarded as a logical flaw.
The link found in that link about Godwin's Law was very interesting Joe... Thanks.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:39 pm
Is this thread not positing the choice as one between two alternatives, when in fact there are many? Or are you wanting a debate ONLY between disagree vs intellectually bankrupt? I am tending to read it as a debate about what is and isn't reasonable expression of position in a discussion...

As for using intellectually bankrupt - well, it comes down, I think, to how much you are happy to offend people as well as your view of their argument. Having their arguments called intellectually bankrupt will offend most - being disagreed with will offend few.

There certainly IS a difference in meaning between the two terms, and I accept your analyses of the difference. Intellectually bankrupt is, though, empirically speaking, a highly emtional term, which most people will read as an attack on them personally. Actually, I think it sophistry to argue that it is not, given both the emotive nature of the term, and the pretty common connection most of us will make between having our arguments described as such and an estimation of our intellect.

You are correct, logically speaking, if you say that you are critiqing the argument, not the person - and there is large variance between people's responses to such a comment - but it ain't a bell curve - there will be a very large cluster, I posit, at the "sensitive" end of the range. C'est la vie...

I suspect that terms like "fallacious" or "specious" and such applied to intellectually bankrupt arguments would still raise a fair few hackles - but they are less emotive, I think.

I guess it comes down to one's personal "hackles raised at one" threshold - and how strongly one believes the need to counter a particular argument is - and the phases of the moon, for all I know.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:57 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven: I have identified it elsewhere as an argumentum ad connubium: a fallacy where one's lack of sexual satisfaction is regarded as a logical flaw.


Yep, I remember that. That's where I learned that name for it.

Now if you could come up with names for the "ad humorum" and "ad no lifum" tactics that'd be sweet!

Sugar wrote:

As phrased it is simply an unsupported opinion.



I disagree. Mr. Green

Ok, that was a stretch, I really agree with a caveat. There is an attempt to support it being made.

Quote:
So I would ask - is this a "I disagree" or "intellectually bankrupt" or perhaps their is another choice? Just throwing it out there for suggestions. As for me, I find it easier to avoid such discussion altogether Wink


Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of other options. My point was that while avoiding the terms described might be more palatable/civil/polite there is, indeed, a difference between mere disagreement and pointing out intellectual dishonesty.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are reasonable disagreements and ones that are less than reasonable and that their descriptors aren't really interchangeable.

dlowan wrote:
Is this thread not positing the choice as one between two alternatives, when in fact there are many? Or are you wanting a debate ONLY between disagree vs intellectually bankrupt? I am tending to read it as a debate about what is and isn't reasonable expression of position in a discussion...


Actually I see this as more of a flower, that is blossoming in a starry night. But that's just because of my distain for metaphorical excess.

My point was a simple one.

Disagreement and intellectual dishonesty are not the same thing. There is a big difference between reasonable disagreement and disagreement due to intellectual dishonesty.

In the past someone chided me for not merely saying that I disagree when in fact I find the disagreement based on intellectual dishonesty.

What I'm saying here is that I understand the point made in terms of making the disagreement more palatable and polite but at the same time think there is a difference between the two and that the situations are not interchangeable.

A reasonable disagreement is not the same as a disagreement based on one person's intellectual dishonesty.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 04:10 pm
dlowan wrote:
As for using intellectually bankrupt - well, it comes down, I think, to how much you are happy to offend people as well as your view of their argument. Having their arguments called intellectually bankrupt will offend most - being disagreed with will offend few.


I agree, but on the flip side I think it can also be characterized as how willing you are to be bludgeoned by intellectual dishonesty and individual sensitivities.

Quote:
Intellectually bankrupt is, though, empirically speaking, a highly emtional term, which most people will read as an attack on them personally. Actually, I think it sophistry to argue that it is not, given both the emotive nature of the term, and the pretty common connection most of us will make between having our arguments described as such and an estimation of our intellect.


Said connection is intellectually bankrupt by my estimation. People seem unable to fathom the possibility that they can produce sheer idiocy without being an idiot.

I'm guilty of brainfarts and mental flatulence all the time. And I encourage people to call me on it (prepared, of course, to make their case). I certainly don't think I'm an idiot (perish the thought)

IMO, equating the estimation of one's position with the estimation accorded to the individual is intellectually bankrupt.

Note: I'm saying that to do so is, not that to recognize that many will do so is.

Quote:
You are correct, logically speaking, if you say that you are critiqing the argument, not the person - and there is large variance between people's responses to such a comment - but it ain't a bell curve - there will be a very large cluster, I posit, at the "sensitive" end of the range. C'est la vie...


I agree, and I wish those people would recognize their sensitivity as a matter of personal preference instead of thinking they have a moral high horse.

It's just enforced sensitivity. I agree with it but only because I see the majority as incapable of getting past the ego wounds and dealing on a strictly intellectual level.

Avoiding offense is laudable, I'm just making the case for intellectual honesty. Which is not related to civility as much as it is related to unemotional reason.

I'm all for avoiding offense, but it depends on the cost.

Because of the varying degrees of sensitivity sometimes mere disagreement expressed will cause offense. When I brainfart I want people to challenge it, dissect it and throw it back till I can come up with a better position or refute it.

I understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea and I avoid discussion with those who won't react well to it but here I'm just making the case for unemotional and rigorous exchange.

I still think it's important to appease the sensitive masses (you'll note that I've long gave up on avoiding elitist undertones in this thread, no matter how hard I try to avoid it it will be there so...) but I'd like to make the case for unemotional intellectual rigor.

It's stimulating and I wish individual sensitivities were more compatible with strident intellectual exchange.

Now, I am rambling. I've needed to go pee real bad!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 04:35 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Now if you could come up with names for the "ad humorum" and "ad no lifum" tactics that'd be sweet!

Argumentum ad vitam nullam: a fallacy where one's condition of having no life is regarded as a logical flaw. Example: "That's a stupid argument: you need to get a life!"

Argumentum ad facetiam penuriam: a fallacy where one's perceived lack of humor is regarded as a logical flaw. Example: "If you had a sense of humor you'd understand that it's a joke."

And let's not forget:

Argumentum ad urinam: a fallacy where one's need to pee is used as an excuse to exit a discussion.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 04:39 pm
You rock Joe! But you probably need a life. Mr. Green

Did you just coin them? Looks like it, and if so I want my ones to be their nicknames.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 04:49 pm
LOL Craven - we have had this exchange so often, the only fun left in it would be to change sides, which I am sure we could do with ease. It is like the numbered jokes joke - you know, "Number 22" - howls of laughter.

As you well know, I counter with No 5 - "it is illogical to discount emotions interfering with logic." To which you respond "Yes, but, it OUGHTN'T to be - human beings are ridiculous!"

And I know you dish nothing you are not prepared to take...(I think that is normally No 2, isn't it, after "what did you expect"?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 04:51 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
You rock Joe! But you probably need a life. Mr. Green

Did you just coin them? Looks like it, and if so I want my ones to be their nicknames.

I had to refer to a Latin-English Dictionary and a grammar book to make sure I got the noun endings correct.

I see no reason why these fallacies can't have both formal Latin names and informal nicknames (much as an ipse dixit can also be a "sez me"). I think the world is large enough for both an argumentum ad vitam nullam and an argumentum no lifum.

And yes, you're right: non habeo vitam.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 04:52 pm
Oh, I wanted the humourless one to be "the lugubrious fallacy" and the no-sex one to be "the lubricious fallacy". So it goes....
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 05:01 pm
dlowan wrote:
LOL Craven - we have had this exchange so often, the only fun left in it would be to change sides, which I am sure we could do with ease. It is like the numbered jokes joke - you know, "Number 22" - howls of laughter.


"Number 239!"

<raucous laughter>

"Number 1876!"

<silence>

"Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

Quote:
As you well know, I counter with No 5 - "it is illogical to discount emotions interfering with logic." To which you respond "Yes, but, it OUGHTN'T to be - human beings are ridiculous!"


Yeah, ultimately it does come down to criteria. And ultimately I agree that it's best to avoid the less palatable descriptors as far as the peace love and harmony angle is concerned.

Consider this tread a complaint that peace love and harmony must compromise logic so. That emotions are such an enemy of reason.

I hate emotions, I have none. And when I see others getting overemotional I feel really sad. Sad

Quote:
And I know you dish nothing you are not prepared to take...(I think that is normally No 2, isn't it, after "what did you expect"?


I actually agree with the "do unto others as they would have done unto them if you can" rather than the "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you".

I still think emotions are evil. Mr. Green

Emotional people make me very angry! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 05:03 pm
Oh, my - I NEVER get angry - you are SO emotional..........heehee...
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 05:58 pm
I am so not emotional!!! That's mean! You made me cry!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:15 pm
At last!!! At last!

My life is now complete....
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:16 pm
Craven,

Coming from the seemingly perpetual debate on nondualism I offer the biased support for the proposition that statements involving "I" may be "intellectually" bankrupt. Recognition of a potential "Russells Paradox" concerning this last statement yet attempting to transcend it IS the "intellectual level" that philosophers should perhaps strive for. ( Esoterically,,,"Where the self is, truth is not".... Krishnamurti)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:17 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

And let's not forget:

Argumentum ad urinam: a fallacy where one's need to pee is used as an excuse to exit a discussion.


ROTFLMAO

I just saw this now. It was an excuse for the lack of clarity though. A valid one too, for there was a pressing need.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:18 pm
I'm beginning to feel like a collection of soundbites = "chunking", "miswanting", "happiness set point", and "rapport/ report."

I think this last one applies, though.

I have had to do a lot of navigation between rapport talk and report talk on message boards. Rapport is typically held to be a female way of communicating. The point is the building of bridges and connections. "I think something..." "I think that too!" Rapport is built.

Report talk is much more information based. Words are not used to build relationships, per se, they are used to convey information. This is usually considered the more "male" way of communicating.

Part of figuring out interactions on a forum like this is figuring out what sort of communication style people use. I would feel very differently if Letty told me, "That's completely ridiculous" than if Craven did. With Craven, I would think hard and then come back with why I think it's NOT ridiculous, without being too personally bothered (usually). With Letty, I'd slump in my chair, clutch my heart, and wonder where on earth I went so very wrong. ;-)

So, while it is nice to say people shouldn't get emotional, yadda yadda, that ain't how it works, especially for people who are still figuring this stuff out. Craven made me way mad in a very personal way many times before I settled into an understanding that it had nothing to do with rapport talk.

But a lot of people go back and forth -- in a recent discussion with nimh I had a terrible time locating the right tone, since he is much more personal and emotional and rapport-y, while also containing the facts and figures and logical arguments of report mode. I do like to have pure logic battles, I just don't like to be surprised when I think there's more rapport going on. Context.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:27 pm
Rapport/report is a damn interesting way to put it. In tech support when I'm overloaded I'll usually post in staccato bursts.

I'm just trying to be clear and quick but sometimes it's taken as caustic.

At this point I have to switch into rapport mode to try to mend it.

The Letty example is another one, if I get Joe to tell me I'm stupid it'll probably be the highlight of my day. I'll either have learned something or have at least had a lot of fun arguing with him (he argues very well) and will probably at least learn the weaknesses or perceived weaknesses in my position. But if Letty were to tell me I'm stupid I would feel very very sad (don't you go and abuse this power Letty!).
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:37 pm
Quote:
I'm just trying to be clear and quick but sometimes it's taken as caustic.

At this point I have to switch into rapport mode to try to mend it.


So, what I believe that you are saying, is that in your attempt to be efficient and concise, you end up having to expend much more energy than if you had spent a bit more time attempting to be diplomatic, in the first place.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 06:50 pm
Not at all.

In those cases yes. On the whole most people are fine with impersonal tech support when it's free so in the long run I spend much less time than I would if I let rapport be a consideration in every tech support case.

The alternative is that they'd simply not get an answer. The tech support is something I see as a responsibility, building rapport while upholding the workload is what I consider a luxury.

In either case I give more personal and more speedy tech support than most commercial services. I'll not be made to feel guilty at all for the way I provide tech support. I think it delivers what it needs to deliver on a timely basis. And frankly it's damn loving compared to "read the effin manual" that is the staple of free tech support.

I would not allow rapport sensitivities to compromise the ability to deliver the goods. If it were a commercial support system I would have more resources to template in the rapport.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 05:17:48