Author
|
Topic: Argument styles (Read 541 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.27
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Argument styles
« on: 2004-06-02 08:46:56 » |
 |
You may have heard of Al Gore's (yes, the boring one) speech last week.
The most dishonest president since Nixon
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
Here are some of the "counter-arguments" offered recently. If you take the trouble to read them, I would like to hear:
- First, what do you think about the rational standing of these arguments?
- Second, do you think that with this kind of arguments the average reader of these media gets to be a part of a particular "wink-wink" coherence group?
- Third, do you think the experience from Soviet Union and elsewhere with putting medical science to good use in politics may be of some use after all?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/right_hook/2004/06/02/gore/print.html
Barbara Comstock, National Review Online:
"Al Gore is proving to be the most irrelevant, comically absurd former vice president since Spiro Agnew"
"This blustering 'Saturday Night Live' caricature is no longer a serious political figure."
"Outside of MoveOn.org, the biggest cheers for Gore must have been coming from caves in Afghanistan and diehards in Fallujah."
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post:
"It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."
David Frum, National Review:
"Maybe a National Psychological Council would be a good idea after all ... [Gore] ought to seek out for his own good a cool and quiet darkened room."
John Podhoretz, New York Post:
"It is now clear that Al Gore is insane. I don't mean that his policy ideas are insane, though many of them are ... there is every reason to believe that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely... Gore's speech is the single craziest political performance of my lifetime ... A man who was very, very nearly president of the United States has been reduced to sounding like one of those people in Times Square with a megaphone screaming about God's justice."
Oliver North, Fox News:
"Somebody needs to check this guy's medication. This guy has got a problem."
Sean Hannity, Fox News:
"He's really nuts."
Mark R. Levin, Fox News:
"Half the country thinks he's a mental patient ... They think he should go back to the dayroom he came out of."
Dennis Miller, CNBC
"At one point I respected Al Gore, but I think he's lost his mind... I think he's gone daft because he's a sad little man now."
Michael Savage (who also said that the U.S. should murder thousands of Iraqi prisoners and nuke a random Arab city):
"We are all sitting here asking ourselves, was there lead in Al Gore's silver spoon, because of the obvious tilt across the river of sanity. He has definitely pulled his raft across the river of sanity, or he has taken the side of the enemy, there's no other explanation for what he has been doing."
Dr. Henry Miller, National Review Online
"John is not a physician, but he's half right. Al Gore appears to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is not treatable with medications."
"pervasive pattern of grandiosity," "lacks empathy," "requires excessive admiration"
"patronizing, apocalyptic, and overwrought ... manifests many of the diagnostic criteria listed above, offering disturbing insights into its disturbed author"
"Gore's Narcissistic Personality Disorder is one good reason that I wouldn't want him to be president -- or to live next door to me."
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.25
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Argument styles
« Reply #1 on: 2004-06-02 11:33:09 » |
|
Sometimes people say such stupid or crazy things , one does not even bother
to argue against their "points", one simply comments on their lunacy.
That aside, I do not have time to deconstruct Gore's tirade today. Just the
first three paragraphs is all I have time to discuss, but let me show you
how substantively one can disagree with this speech:
"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has
brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world."
Incorrect. The United States is not humiliated anywhere. Unlike Spain, which
was truly humbled, the USA continues to assert itself as it sees fit. As
recently pointed out on USS Clueless, "Mice really think that cats should
wear bells. But who shall give the order to the cat? And what shall they do
if the cat refuses?"
"He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead,
he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation
as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon."
This is Gore's *opinion* and precisely the sort of unsupported ad hominem
that you appear to be complaining about.
"Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention."
This is manifestly false. Where the Geneva Convention applies it is applied.
The evidence for this is the punishing of troops who violated those
conventions.
"Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the
opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what
Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind.""
Honor the United Nations? Is this a joke? He is the president of the United
States of America and he is bound to protect the best interests of his
nation not some unelected crowd of utterly corrupt bureaucrats. What
International Treaties has Bush violated? He has withdrawn from outdated or
deleterious agreements - which is both rationale and completely justified.
Where is the dishonour? What is more, Congress was consulted and approved
ever step of Bush's foreign policy actions. He built up a massive coalition
of allies and consulted with them. The UK is but one example of 37 nations.
Finally, the "opinion of mankind" in Jefferson's day is not what it is
today. Utter savages have equal billing with the civilized. A violent and
primitive fascist memplexe is widely feared and respected, with the world's
most enlightened societies scrabbling to accommodate its brutality and
backwardness. All this is played out in real time on an utterly
unaccountable mass media who shape that opinion to their ends.
In short, world opinion, like its cousins popular opinion and majority
opinion, is bunk.
"He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military
leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our
fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their
flag-draped coffins.""
His generals planned and executed the stunningly successful invasion. As for
attending every funeral, not even Clinton, a president in peacetime,
attended every fallen soldier's funeral. Did Gore attend those funerals? Did
he attend them when he was vice president?
This speech was a Deanesque tirade. Heavy on sophistry, light on truth. The
rage of the beaten opponent.
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
rhinoceros
Sent: 02 June 2004 13:47
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Argument styles
You may have heard of Al Gore's (yes, the boring one) speech last week.
The most dishonest president since Nixon
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
Here are some of the "counter-arguments" offered recently. If you take the
trouble to read them, I would like to hear:
- First, what do you think about the rational standing of these arguments?
- Second, do you think this kind of arguments make the average reader of
these media gets to be a part of a particular "wink-wink" coherence group?
- Third, do you think the experience from Soviet Union and elsewhere with
putting medical science to good use in politics may be of some use after
all?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/right_hook/2004/06/02/gore/print.html
Barbara Comstock, National Review Online:
"Al Gore is proving to be the most irrelevant, comically absurd former vice
president since Spiro Agnew"
"This blustering 'Saturday Night Live' caricature is no longer a serious
political figure."
"Outside of MoveOn.org, the biggest cheers for Gore must have been coming
from caves in Afghanistan and diehards in Fallujah."
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post:
"It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."
David Frum, National Review:
"Maybe a National Psychological Council would be a good idea after all ...
[Gore] ought to seek out for his own good a cool and quiet darkened room."
John Podhoretz, New York Post:
"It is now clear that Al Gore is insane. I don't mean that his policy ideas
are insane, though many of them are ... there is every reason to believe
that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication,
and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust
it or change it entirely... Gore's speech is the single craziest political
performance of my lifetime ... A man who was very, very nearly president of
the United States has been reduced to sounding like one of those people in
Times Square with a megaphone screaming about God's justice."
Oliver North, Fox News:
"Somebody needs to check this guy's medication. This guy has got a problem."
Sean Hannity, Fox News:
"He's really nuts."
Mark R. Levin, Fox News:
"Half the country thinks he's a mental patient ... They think he should go
back to the dayroom he came out of."
Dennis Miller, CNBC
"At one point I respected Al Gore, but I think he's lost his mind... I think
he's gone daft because he's a sad little man now."
Michael Savage (who also said that the U.S. should murder thousands of Iraqi
prisoners and nuke a random Arab city):
"We are all sitting here asking ourselves, was there lead in Al Gore's
silver spoon, because of the obvious tilt across the river of sanity. He has
definitely pulled his raft across the river of sanity, or he has taken the
side of the enemy, there's no other explanation for what he has been doing."
Dr. Henry Miller, National Review Online "John is not a physician, but he's
half right. Al Gore appears to suffer from Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, which is not treatable with medications."
"pervasive pattern of grandiosity," "lacks empathy," "requires excessive
admiration"
"patronizing, apocalyptic, and overwrought ... manifests many of the
diagnostic criteria listed above, offering disturbing insights into its
disturbed author"
"Gore's Narcissistic Personality Disorder is one good reason that I wouldn't
want him to be president -- or to live next door to me."
----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2004 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=304
15>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Argument styles
« Reply #2 on: 2004-06-02 15:18:48 » |
|
rhinoceros
Sent: 02 June 2004 02:47 PM
You may have heard of Al Gore's (yes, the boring one) speech last week.
The most dishonest president since Nixon
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
Here are some of the "counter-arguments" offered recently. If you take the
trouble to read them, I would like to hear:
- First, what do you think about the rational standing of these arguments?
- Second, do you think this kind of arguments make the average reader of
these media gets to be a part of a particular "wink-wink" coherence group?
- Third, do you think the experience from Soviet Union and elsewhere with
putting medical science to good use in politics may be of some use after
all?
[Blunderov]Yes. This is what I mean - the logical fallacies should be
learned by children in the same way that they learn the multiplication
tables. Otherwise they grow up and produce this kind of rubbish and then go
on to elect leaders who are just as mentally handicapped as they are.
Which is not to say that the world would be come a perfect place of course.
But gosh, imagine a democracy in which the electorate was empowered to make
a competent and informed decision about its choice of leaders!
Utopian, I know.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Argument styles
« Reply #4 on: 2004-06-02 17:57:22 » |
|
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 02 June 2004 05:33 PM
[Limbic]
Sometimes people say such stupid or crazy things , one does not even bother
to argue against their "points", one simply comments on their lunacy.
[Blunderov] A completely inadmissible tactic unless you intend to prove your
accusation of lunacy.
[Limbic]
That aside, I do not have time to deconstruct Gore's tirade today. Just the
first three paragraphs is all I have time to discuss, but let me show you
how substantively one can disagree with this speech:
"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has
brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world."
Incorrect. The United States is not humiliated anywhere. Unlike Spain, which
was truly humbled, the USA continues to assert itself as it sees fit. As
recently pointed out on USS Clueless, "Mice really think that cats should
wear bells. But who shall give the order to the cat? And what shall they do
if the cat refuses?"
[Blunderov] A central meaning of 'humble' is 'to destroy the power,
independence or prestige of..." Note prestige.
(al Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p04s01-usfp.html
<excerpt>
On the anniversary of the war in Iraq, world opinion of the US and its
policies is in many countries worse than its already low levels of a year
ago. Opinion of the US in France and Germany is at least as negative as at
the war's conclusion, the survey finds. More marked is the plummet
registered in British views. Last year 61 percent of Britons supported
joining the US in the war in Iraq - today 43 percent support the war.
</excerpt>
[Limbic]
"He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead,
he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation
as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon."
This is Gore's *opinion* and precisely the sort of unsupported ad hominem
that you appear to be complaining about.
[Blunderov] There is plenty of support for this position, so much so that it
is common knowledge and public record; for instance:
http://commonwealthcommonsense.typepad.com/commonwealthcommonsense/2004/03/b
ush_dishonesty.html
<excerpts>
Bush Dishonesty, Chapter 4,859 (or thereabouts)
The GAO is investigating the Bush administrations "video news releases" that
have actors portraying government officials and Washington reporters hyping
the Bush Medicare bill. The GAO is trying to determine if they are "illegal
covert propaganda....
You'll remember earlier this week it was reported that the top Medicare
actuary claimed he was threatened with dismissal if he revealed the true
cost of the Medicare bill before the vote." </excerpts>
Or:
http://discussions.brucespringsteen.net/thread.jsp?forum=61&thread=103499&me
ssage=2775107
<excerpt>
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African
state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation
in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the
BBC.
On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that
the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the
president's State of the Union speech in January.
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already
established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had
been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well
before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech. </excerpt>
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/21/120.html
The al Moscow Times reported
<excerpt>
In April, Bush quietly gave a mining conglomerate larded with his top
contributors a little gift: $155 million worth of federal land, the Denver
Post reports. Invoking an obscure 1872 law designed to help frontier
prospectors gain title to their small mining claims, Bush turned over a
swathe of prime Colorado mountaintop property to the firm of Dodge Phelps,
whose board is packed with oil men, military contractors and official Bush
"Pioneers": corporate fat cats who've strongarmed at least $100,000 from
their friends -- and employees -- for Bush campaign coffers.
Because the never-updated 1872 law requires that federal mining land be sold
for $5 per acre, Bush's bagmen only had to pony up $875 for the whole spread
-- in an area where land is worth a staggering $1 million per acre. The idea
is to build an elite ski playground on the looted public property -- even
though the law requires that such land sales be used for actual mining.
</excerpt>
In fact the examples of Bush dishonesty are so legion that I'm astonished
you are willing to take on the impossible task of disputing it.
[Limbic]
"Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention."
This is manifestly false. Where the Geneva Convention applies it is applied.
The evidence for this is the punishing of troops who violated those
conventions.
[Blunderov] This is manifestly true. Waging an illegal war of aggression.
Using illegal munitions. Systematic torture, rape, and murder of civilians.
All of these are against the Geneva Convention.
Unilaterally declaring the convention to be inapplicable does not change
this at all and is itself specifically forbidden by the Convention.
[Limbic]
"Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the
opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what
Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind.""
Honor the United Nations? Is this a joke? He is the president of the United
States of America and he is bound to protect the best interests of his
nation not some unelected crowd of utterly corrupt bureaucrats. What
International Treaties has Bush violated? He has withdrawn from outdated or
deleterious agreements - which is both rationale and completely justified.
Where is the dishonour? What is more, Congress was consulted and approved
ever step of Bush's foreign policy actions. He built up a massive coalition
of allies and consulted with them. The UK is but one example of 37 nations.
Finally, the "opinion of mankind" in Jefferson's day is not what it is
today. Utter savages have equal billing with the civilized. A violent and
primitive fascist memplexe is widely feared and respected, with the world's
most enlightened societies scrabbling to accommodate its brutality and
backwardness. All this is played out in real time on an utterly
unaccountable mass media who shape that opinion to their ends.
In short, world opinion, like its cousins popular opinion and majority
opinion, is bunk.
[Blunderov] Democracy is bunk?
But I do agree that "Utter savages have equal billing with the civilized. A
violent and primitive fascist memeplex is widely feared and respected, with
the world's most enlightened societies scrabbling to accommodate its
brutality and backwardness." - a perfect description of Bush's USA. Couldn't
have put it better myself.
[Limbic]
"He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military
leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our
fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their
flag-draped coffins.""
His generals planned and executed the stunningly successful invasion. As for
attending every funeral, not even Clinton, a president in peacetime,
attended every fallen soldier's funeral. Did Gore attend those funerals? Did
he attend them when he was vice president?
[Blunderov] True, the invasion was stunningly successful. The fact that the
USA has sustained more casualties after the invasion than it did during it
is a wonderful testimony to the clockwork precision of the planning and
execution of the operation.
With regard to the funerals, call me sentimental, but I would have thought
that a wartime president might find time to attend a funeral or two.
Probably it is no more strenuous than posing with firemen. Or landing on
aircraft carriers.
But I will give Bush this; seemingly he much prefers to give his 'public'
speeches to military audiences.
[Limbic]
This speech was a Deanesque tirade. Heavy on sophistry, light on truth. The
rage of the beaten opponent.
[Blunderov] I detected no sophistry in his speech. Nothing he said seemed to
me to be even remotely dubious. And if rage there was, it was the perfectly
justified rage of a decent American. I hope there are lots more just like
him.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Re:Argument styles
« Reply #5 on: 2004-06-02 18:53:49 » |
|
Joe Dees
Sent: 02 June 2004 11:29 PM
Which is why I support the mandatory teaching of logic in middle or high
school. Teaching children facts, but not teaching them the tools with which
to employ them or to pull sound and valid conclusions out of those facts
employed as premises, is doing only half the job.
----
[Blunderov] Completely agree.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
LenKen
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 94
Reputation: 8.22
Rate LenKen
Mi caca es su caca.
|
|
Re:Argument styles
« Reply #6 on: 2004-06-03 00:35:16 » |
|
I know I’m not really going out on much of a limb here—I can’t imagine too many Virions saying that reason has no place in America’s schools—but I, too, agree with Joe Dees and Blunderov: Kids need to be taught informal logic and critical thinking in schools. There’s not much of a point to being an informed citizen if you don’t know what to do with that information—how to separate the wheat from the chaff, if you will.
It never ceases to amuse me how so many people seem to think that they really have no need to justify their assertions. They don’t seem to realize that appeals to authority and appeals to faith are somewhat less than adequate.
And, just by chance, I happen to have written a primer on the art and science of argumentation . . . a primer that’s geared to the younger demographic, who have been reared on—how you say?—infotainment: Just Because a Guy’s an Ass and a Fucker, That Doesn’t Mean He’s an Assfucker: An Informal Guide to Informal Logic and Logical Fallacies.
|
One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream. 
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.25
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Argument styles
« Reply #7 on: 2004-06-04 04:55:13 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 02 June 2004 22:57
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Argument styles
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 02 June 2004 05:33 PM
[Limbic]
Sometimes people say such stupid or crazy things , one does not even bother
to argue against their "points", one simply comments on their lunacy.
[Blunderov] A completely inadmissible tactic unless you intend to prove your
accusation of lunacy.
SNIP
[Jonathan 2]
Hi B,
Just back from a day off yesterday and heavily behind myself.
I see you have spent lots of time with you excellent reply, so I need to
ask: Do you want me to reply comprehensively?
This is not a trick question, it is just that I am short of time and I feel
I owe you a proper response but I only want to put in the effort if you
think it will be worthwhile and this discussion fruitful. If not then I will
leave it. My position regarding your last post is "Mostly disagree".
Need more?
Kind regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Argument styles
« Reply #8 on: 2004-06-04 07:34:12 » |
|
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 04 June 2004 10:55 AM
Hi B,
Just back from a day off yesterday and heavily behind myself.
I see you have spent lots of time with you excellent reply, so I need to
ask: Do you want me to reply comprehensively?
This is not a trick question, it is just that I am short of time and I feel
I owe you a proper response but I only want to put in the effort if you
think it will be worthwhile and this discussion fruitful. If not then I will
leave it. My position regarding your last post is "Mostly disagree".
Need more?
[Blunderov] Thx, position noted. No need to pursue it any further I concur.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
