(no subject)
Aug. 13th, 2006 11:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mangosteenThere are any number of times that people who like to argue (but aren't really into the whole 'informed discussion' thing) roll out the same tired arguments or phrasings when talking about current events. Everyone likes to have something to say, even if they don't have anything to contribute. Ordinarily, I'd just point people at any number of listings of logical fallacies, but sometimes more concrete answers are necessary. As such, I'd like to list several of the more content-free utterances, along with appropriate responses. I invite others to leave additional instances in the comments. So, without further ado....
List: Annoying debate tactics I have known and loathed.
"If you knew what I knew..."
- But I don't, and you haven't given me any reason to believe you. Try again.
"Tell that to $person_something_bad_happened_to, [...]"
- Well it's a good thing that we're not talking about $person, then. Please state your counterexamples in the form of substantiated facts. Thanks.
"All $disadvantaged_minorty has to do is $vague_task."
- Anything is possible for someone who doesn't have to do it, good sir.
"Why are you hiding behind a dictionary? We should use the real meaning."
- Because if we can't agree on a meaning, then spatula egg martian woodchipper, by which I mean "your wankery flusters me".
"We haven't had any $event since $date. Obviously, $policy works."
- Actually, I think it's because I forgot to brush my teeth on $date. Prove me wrong.
"Well I have a cousin who did $thing"
- Well, I have a cousin who didn't do $thing. We're even. Can we get back to the topic?
"$assertion now more than ever."
- Like anyone could know that.
"So you would rather that $bad_thing happened?"
- Nice strawman. Glad you got it out of your system. Try again.
Finally, for one that's specifically on a topic:
"Give me ONE example of how YOUR civil rights have been violated since 9/11."
- They're ALL OF OUR civil rights, so an attack on one person's is an attack on all. If you can't figure that out, Pastor Niemoller has a poem for you. My one example is José Padilla. Next question.
List: Annoying debate tactics I have known and loathed.
"If you knew what I knew..."
- But I don't, and you haven't given me any reason to believe you. Try again.
"Tell that to $person_something_bad_happened_to, [...]"
- Well it's a good thing that we're not talking about $person, then. Please state your counterexamples in the form of substantiated facts. Thanks.
"All $disadvantaged_minorty has to do is $vague_task."
- Anything is possible for someone who doesn't have to do it, good sir.
"Why are you hiding behind a dictionary? We should use the real meaning."
- Because if we can't agree on a meaning, then spatula egg martian woodchipper, by which I mean "your wankery flusters me".
"We haven't had any $event since $date. Obviously, $policy works."
- Actually, I think it's because I forgot to brush my teeth on $date. Prove me wrong.
"Well I have a cousin who did $thing"
- Well, I have a cousin who didn't do $thing. We're even. Can we get back to the topic?
"$assertion now more than ever."
- Like anyone could know that.
"So you would rather that $bad_thing happened?"
- Nice strawman. Glad you got it out of your system. Try again.
Finally, for one that's specifically on a topic:
"Give me ONE example of how YOUR civil rights have been violated since 9/11."
- They're ALL OF OUR civil rights, so an attack on one person's is an attack on all. If you can't figure that out, Pastor Niemoller has a poem for you. My one example is José Padilla. Next question.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 11:57 pm (UTC)"I object to the misuse of lots of terms, including "Conservative" and "Liberal" - To whit: "pro-choice" can't be a "liberal" philosophy because choice is the law of the land - the desire to change the law of the land is, by definition, liberal. Anti-choice people are liberal, pro-choice people are conservative. "
When challenged, he then gave me the M-W definitions
Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
And now, his argument:
"Once something is the law of the land, it is "an existing ... situation," and therefore (by definition) preferred by someone who is "conservative," and opposed by someone who is "liberal."
That's how the words work. A person can go on believing that they're "conservative," and still be anti-choice, but they're wrong. They're really a liberal, and become one the day the law changed and they failed to support it. Political views may change, but language is beautiful and constant.
Only by changing the definition of the word can they keep from changing sides of the isle, and in order to change the word, they would have to be liberal in their use of language, proving me right."
That's the point where I wrote back "ROTFLMAO" since it was obvious that he was trying to be clever and "provocative" and didn't actually have an argument, but was just DAing for the sake of it.