Calavera

[midlifeaspie]

You think everything is irrelevant if you don't like the answer.

No, that's not what I think. You've been making so many strawman arguments lately in various threads.

Okay.  I am not going to say I have never done this in my time on I2.  I just want you to back up that I have been making "so many" and "lately".

[midlifeaspie]

So we are working from the same definition and this doesn't devolve into boring sematics:

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.

[midlifeaspie]

For consistency of timeline I should probably link to where you called me out without any evidence, then said you were going to bed, locked the thread and logged off.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18502.0.html

[midlifeaspie]

Edit:  Withdrawn as it was specious and unrelated

[midlifeaspie]

Logging off, probably for the weekend.  I have seen you in here, hope you are spending your time researching, and look forward to a spirited match upon my return. 

[Calavera]

Okay. I am not going to say I have never done this in my time on I2.

Yes, I can understand why you would not want to argue against this point.

Let's start with the thread about God and intuition/Occam's razor.

Thread is here for those who want to check and confirm.


1.
First strawman (or first set of strawmen depending on how one looks at it):

Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.

They have believed in Jesus for 2000 years so he must be real.
They have believed in Ra for 8000 years so he must be even more real? No, wait, that isn't it either.

Let's see what this was in response to:

Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).

This quote above is from me, giving my explanation for why many people from long days past have worshiped gods and goddesses and believed in various supernatural entities.

Instead of addressing the actual point of my post, MLA goes off about how the truth or validity of an ideology or belief is not dependent on how long it's lasted.

He adds sarcasm to his points about Jesus and Ra as if they actually serve to address what I personally said. I don't know what believers have actually made such arguments that he has to mention them here, but I don't recall ever claiming that the longer the belief, the more valid it is (or anything similar).


2.
Second strawman:

Absolutely not. One just is, the other requires the suspension of all logic and sense and to believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and has always been there and always will be and knows everything and can do everything and somehow still gives a shit about mundane details.

Note the emphasis above (underlined and in bold).

I'm a deist. So I don't believe God gives a shit about mundane details. MLA may not have been aware of the fact that I'm a deist at the time he posted the above, but his ignorance is no excuse for this second strawman in the same thread, especially since I've never made such an argument about God caring for us and for our "trivial" matters.


3.
Third strawman:

That you don't know if you believe in. He has a lot of defined characteristics for something you are on the fence about.

No excuse here. I've clearly stated that I don't know if what I believe in exists. Not that I don't know whether or not I believe in.

For example, here's what I said in the same thread before he said the above:

I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.

Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.

I then made it more clear in my next post:

I believe but without certainty whether it's true or not. There are deists/theists who will use logic and reasoning to argue for God's existence. I'm not that confident.

That's the third strawman in the same thread.


4.
Fourth strawman:

I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?

Funny how MLA is arguing that my response for this is a strawman even though the syntax of his quote suggests that the believers (as a whole) feel the need to convince others that God does exist.

The article "the" before "people" implies the inclusion of all believers. Odeon noted this universal implication, too. Not just me.

So my response was composed accordingly.

And if my response is indeed a strawman, then it's through no fault of my own. The wording of his quote was just simply not good enough to get his actual point across.

That's the fourth strawman in the same thread. This one is amusing since MLA is trying to wiggle himself out of it and putting the strawman blame on me.

Now for some questionable posts in that thread that aren't necessarily strawmen but are questionable nonetheless and deserve to be mentioned here:

True, but when I was drawn into this conversation that wasn't what the question was. You changed the title of your post 3 pages in, and in doing so tried to change the direction of the discussion.

Mixing between cause and effect here. I didn't try to change anything. I observed what responses in the thread were being made and realized I needed to change the title to go with the current flow of the topic (which was more interesting than the original subject).

This is misrepresenting, whether consciously, subconsciously, or unintentionally.

Next one:

All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it

It seems like MLA is implying that I'm asking him to share my belief. And if not me, nobody else in the thread has asked him to anyway. So I find this questionable given the context and flow of the thread.

***

Enough for now. That's four strawmen arguments in one thread. Will post a couple more about that other thread in next reply.
More than enough for me to have a case for it.

One strawman in a short period of time, understandable. Two, also understandable. More than that, and something's not right. Either I'm not making my points clear at all and my wording is terrible, or you're not paying enough attention to what I'm personally arguing.

I believe it's the latter. So make a good argument against it.

For consistency of timeline I should probably link to where you called me out without any evidence, then said you were going to bed, locked the thread and logged off.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18502.0.html

Right, to make things clear, I locked it after realizing you had already made a callout thread for us. That's why I also asked the admins to delete the thread, which it seems they did.

[midlifeaspie]

Ugh.  I didn't want to have a semantic argument but I guess that is what we are in for.  How boring.  I'll address each point and explain what I meant and how I wasn't actually using a strawman even though you interpret it that way, and then you will explain why you do interpret it that way, and we will eventually agree to disagree.  I have to admit I have no passion for this argument.

While I gather that up, will probably be tomorrow, I would like you to answer the more interesting (to me) question of why your response was written to me in the third person.  I am talking directly to me while you are talking to the audience.  Why is that?

[Calavera]

Ugh. I didn't want to have a semantic argument but I guess that is what we are in for. How boring. I'll address each point and explain what I meant and how I wasn't actually using a strawman even though you interpret it that way, and then you will explain why you do interpret it that way, and we will eventually agree to disagree. I have to admit I have no passion for this argument.

You asked for the callout.

If you think it's all just a semantic argument, then I'm all ears. Let's see tomorrow what you've got.

While I gather that up, will probably be tomorrow, I would like you to answer the more interesting (to me) question of why your response was written to me in the third person. I am talking directly to me while you are talking to the audience. Why is that?

I'm talking to both you and the audience. Note the "you" in there.

It's a public callout. And I feel like engaging the readers in a way.

[midlifeaspie]

Mostly you referred to me by name.   

Yeah, I did want the callout.  I haven't had anyone good in a while.  Wish I had better subject matter though.  I'll work on that, I'm sure it can go another way

[midlifeaspie]

Sorry for the delay.  I am up to my nipples in work and school right now but I don't want to leave this unattended.  Was sidetracked by Rod's portrayal of I2 and myself over on Facebook for a bit, but am trying to focus now.

To start with, I was not taking any of the conversation over in your Occam's razor thread seriously, so you shouldn't feel that I was actually debating you in any way.  I was being s smart-ass half the time and just making fun of religion the other half.  I really try not to take religious argument seriously because from my perspective it is pointless and fruitless and I really don't care what other people choose to delude themselves with.  I honestly wish I were of a weaker mind and could convince myself of fantasy as well as I can see how useful and comforting it can be during hard times and nearing death.  I am jealous, but we are getting off track again.

Accusing me of intentionally using a logical fallacy to debate you falls short simply because I wasn't debating you.  At some points I was mildly ribbing you, but that's as close as I came to actually making an argument. 

Strawman accusation #1 - I was not refuting your point but making one of my own.  It was entirely separate and was aimed more at Odeon than yourself as I felt we were commiserating.

Strawman accusation #2 - I don't see this refuting a point of yours either.  This was my personal explanation of why I don't believe in a god.  You might not like the point and you may feel that every response made in a thread you created needs to be either working for or against the argument you are putting forth, but as I said earlier I was not taking this argument very seriously. 

Strawman accusation #3 - I still don't even understand what your accusation is.  I pointed out that you call yourself agnostic but say you believe in god.  You explained that by saying you don't know if you believe in what you believe.  At that point it sounds like the kind of weird religion speak that I never have understood as a non-believer and I left it at that as it doesn't appear to me to follow any logic or sense.

Strawman #4 - I'll concede this one.  The explanation is lengthy and probably only half good.

So, you state that I am allowed one or two strawmen and after that "something's not right".  Go ahead and clarify what is "wrong" now.  And while you are at it, please explain why you take this so seriously.  And lastly, please do me the courtesy of addressing me directly so I don't feel like you are only engaging in this as some kind of show for the people watching.  That's not why I do these.

Thanks

[Calavera]

Ok, thanks for posting. I'm not going to act like I know your mind better than you do. But there are still some things to note related to the topic of this callout.

Be back soon.

[midlifeaspie]

This is far too fucking civil   

[Calavera]

To start with, I was not taking any of the conversation over in your Occam's razor thread seriously, so you shouldn't feel that I was actually debating you in any way.  I was being s smart-ass half the time and just making fun of religion the other half.  I really try not to take religious argument seriously because from my perspective it is pointless and fruitless and I really don't care what other people choose to delude themselves with.  I honestly wish I were of a weaker mind and could convince myself of fantasy as well as I can see how useful and comforting it can be during hard times and nearing death.  I am jealous, but we are getting off track again.

What you described above is an issue with religion. I don't think I was trying to have a religious debate in that thread.

Now if you have a problem with the concept of God, you're free to feel that way.

What I have a problem with you is that, for some weirdass reason, you counter points and arguments I've never made even when you quote me and, therefore, make it seem like you're addressing points I myself have made. This is a bit misleading, don't you think?

Tell me what believing in God for comfort and such has to do with what I believe and why. If it has nothing to do with what I personally believe (and why I do so), then why even mention it in the first place?

Remember you're interacting with me, a deist, not a religious believer who seeks God for comfort. As a deist, I don't seek God for comfort. To me, it's a hypothesis that helps me explain certain things in this universe (regardless of whether I'm right or wrong).

When you interact with me, then interact with me and don't bring up positions that I've never argued for without making it clear that they're not my positions.

Do note that strawmen are strawmen regardless of whether you took the debate seriously or not.

Now you may not believe you've made as many strawmen as I believe you've done, and I'm not going to deny your intent behind any of those posts I mentioned ... so I'll try a different approach and show you how those posts could've been worded without giving others the wrong impression and, therefore, misleading them.

Accusing me of intentionally using a logical fallacy to debate you falls short simply because I wasn't debating you.  At some points I was mildly ribbing you, but that's as close as I came to actually making an argument.

Nice one. So if you hide behind that word "intentionally", it means that if you did commit strawmen, they weren't intentional, am I right?

Regardless of whether or not this is what you're arguing, let me ask you this.

When a creationist argues that humans could not have evolved from monkeys, that's a strawman. Do you think it matters whether he did it intentionally or not? Maybe he's just fucking around and doesn't take what he argued seriously.

But this still would tick the evolutionist off because, regardless of the intent, it's still a misrepresentation of what the evolutionist believes.

I think you'd be ticked off if I said that, deep inside, you do believe in God but you just don't want to admit to it. And for a fucking good reason. It's a misrepresentation of what you truly believe. And nobody I know of likes to have his position misrepresented especially when it's done more than once or twice or three times in a short period of time.

Strawman accusation #1 - I was not refuting your point but making one of my own.  It was entirely separate and was aimed more at Odeon than yourself as I felt we were commiserating.

And yet, you quoted me. Not to mention that I can't honestly see how you were commiserating with Odeon with such a point. It'd be great if you could elaborate on that and provide the connection.

Anyhow, here's how I would've worded this first controversial post according to your own explanation:

Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.

Not saying that Calavera himself argues as such, but it does make me wonder why many people do.

They have believed in Jesus for 2000 years so he must be real.
They have believed in Ra for 8000 years so he must be even more real? No, wait, that isn't it either.

Bold added by me. What do you think?

Ok, next one:

Strawman accusation #2 - I don't see this refuting a point of yours either.  This was my personal explanation of why I don't believe in a god.  You might not like the point and you may feel that every response made in a thread you created needs to be either working for or against the argument you are putting forth, but as I said earlier I was not taking this argument very seriously.

Very well. Here's how this could've been worded better to avoid the strawman impression:

Absolutely not. One just is, the other requires the suspension of all logic and sense and to believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and has always been there and always will be and knows everything and can do everything and somehow still gives a shit about mundane details. Ok, maybe that's not what you (Calavera) believe exactly about God, but I think you get my point.

Bold added by me. See where I'm getting at with this?

Next one:

Strawman accusation #3 - I still don't even understand what your accusation is.  I pointed out that you call yourself agnostic but say you believe in god.  You explained that by saying you don't know if you believe in what you believe.  At that point it sounds like the kind of weird religion speak that I never have understood as a non-believer and I left it at that as it doesn't appear to me to follow any logic or sense.

Because I know what I believe in. I know I believe in God. I just don't know if he exists or not. Knowledge of one's belief is not the same as knowing whether one's belief is true or not.

Jack understood it. So I don't think it's an issue with my wording.

Honestly, I do believe you when you say it's not intentional. I'm guessing it may have to do with having very different perspectives on certain things.

Regardless, let's see how I would've worded this based on what I myself said:

That you don't know whether or not he exists. He has a lot of defined characteristics for something you are on the fence about.

Original phrase replaced with bold.

It's good to make a better effort at understanding one's points regardless of how ridiculous you may think them to be.

Last one:

Strawman #4 - I'll concede this one.  The explanation is lengthy and probably only half good.

Concession noted.

Here's how I would've worded it:

I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet many people who do believe (not including you, Calavera) think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?

Bold is mine.

Isn't it more refreshing when you don't end up misrepresenting someone even if it's not intentional?

I think it indicates respect for your opponent in a debate, or anyone you're having a discussion with, when you make an effort to argue things based on what he himself says.

That said, I do understand we're only humans and we all make mistakes (especially me). But it's good to acknowledge the mistakes we do when we do them (regardless of this case we're currently discussing).

So, you state that I am allowed one or two strawmen and after that "something's not right".  Go ahead and clarify what is "wrong" now.

What's wrong is that these were all perceived as strawmen or misrepresentations of my position/arguments.

I said I would do another thread in which I perceived at least one strawman from you. For example, that post you quoted in the OP is quoting what I perceive as a strawman. But that doesn't matter now because I think I've made my points very clear by now.

What I like about what both Jack and Butterflies did in the thread about God is that they asked me to clarify some of the points I made in there. I appreciate that because it shows they respected me enough not to say something that may misrepresent my position.

I also showed you enough respect when I said, in my interaction with Odeon, that you should correct me if I misrepresented your own argument about things not happening for any reason.

And while you are at it, please explain why you take this so seriously.

While I do take this seriously, I don't take this so seriously to the point that I had to decide there should be a callout on this. You yourself asked for it in that other thread and I accepted and have responded.

But yes, this is serious to me, especially when I'm being misrepresented several times by the same person in a short period of time (regardless of your intent and motive). And I think some may understand why it matters.

To me, it's a matter of principle and respect.

[midlifeaspie]

But this still would tick the evolutionist off because, regardless of the intent, it's still a misrepresentation of what the evolutionist believes.

I think you'd be ticked off if I said that, deep inside, you do believe in God but you just don't want to admit to it. And for a fucking good reason. It's a misrepresentation of what you truly believe. And nobody I know of likes to have his position misrepresented especially when it's done more than once or twice or three times in a short period of time. 

I learned a long time ago not to get upset about things people say to me on the internet.

Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.

Not saying that Calavera himself argues as such, but it does make me wonder why many people do.

They have believed in Jesus for 2000 years so he must be real.
They have believed in Ra for 8000 years so he must be even more real? No, wait, that isn't it either.

Bold added by me. What do you think?

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to find common ground, have an actual debate, or protect your feelings.  If I am ever in a situation in the future where I am trying to do one of the above I will take your point under advisement as it is very nicely worded.

Honestly, I do believe you when you say it's not intentional. I'm guessing it may have to do with having very different perspectives on certain things.

I'm sure that plays a very big role.  I was raised Mormon and rejected that like a bad kidney when I turned 12.

It's good to make a better effort at understanding one's points regardless of how ridiculous you may think them to be.

I'm an Aspie, please explain why this is important.  In 35 years of living I have heard this described to me many times, and have yet to find any actual use in this idea.

Isn't it more refreshing when you don't end up misrepresenting someone even if it's not intentional?

Not when piss-taking on the internet    I'm not working on a point system here.

I think it indicates respect for your opponent in a debate, or anyone you're having a discussion with, when you make an effort to argue things based on what he himself says.

Would it shock you if I told you that I have very little respect for beliefs in gods and fairies and vampires and other fantasy creatures?

That said, I do understand we're only humans and we all make mistakes (especially me). But it's good to acknowledge the mistakes we do when we do them (regardless of this case we're currently discussing).

I don't accept your premise that making a logical fallacy on the internet while giving someone shit for a belief that you don't respect is a "mistake".

What I like about what both Jack and Butterflies did in the thread about God is that they asked me to clarify some of the points I made in there. I appreciate that because it shows they respected me enough not to say something that may misrepresent my position.

I will be the first to admit that they do a FAR better job at seeing both sides of an issue, or at least wanting to, than I ever will

I also showed you enough respect when I said, in my interaction with Odeon, that you should correct me if I misrepresented your own argument about things not happening for any reason.

I appreciate that.  I am curious though, do you respect my opinion that there is no god or fairies or angels or demons or centaurs or talking snakes or 900 year old men making babies?  If so, it must be much easier for you to be accommodating like that.

But yes, this is serious to me, especially when I'm being misrepresented several times by the same person in a short period of time (regardless of your intent and motive). And I think some may understand why it matters.

To me, it's a matter of principle and respect.

Well, I apologize then Calavera.  While I do not respect your beliefs, I do respect you as a person and a member of this site and I did not intend to cause you undue distress by my actions.  I believe my actions were misinterpreted, and that you use the term "strawman" a touch liberally, but that doesn't excuse the fact that I have hurt your feelings.  I didn't want to do that.

[Calavera]

I learned a long time ago not to get upset about things people say to me on the internet.

It wasn't too long ago when you've expressed frustration at members complaining to you back during your days as a mod on WP.

You're a human being with feelings and emotions. Regardless of what one learns, when something ticks one off, he's going to be ticked off and react.

You reacted to my strawman accusations. I don't think you're so upset about it, but it does seem to have bothered you. I may be wrong, though. Maybe this is all just purely a game to you, but that doesn't seem likely.

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to find common ground, have an actual debate, or protect your feelings.  If I am ever in a situation in the future where I am trying to do one of the above I will take your point under advisement as it is very nicely worded.

Ok, you're free to do whatever you feel like doing. But if I spot a strawman or any logical fallacy that I feel should be pointed out, then I should be free to do so.

So do what you're comfortable doing, but be prepared to have the other side point out what may be perceived as logical fallacies especially when you're participating in a debate regardless of motive.

I'm sure that plays a very big role. I was raised Mormon and rejected that like a bad kidney when I turned 12.

Good for you.

It's good to make a better effort at understanding one's points regardless of how ridiculous you may think them to be.

I'm an Aspie, please explain why this is important. In 35 years of living I have heard this described to me many times, and have yet to find any actual use in this idea.

Because when you're debating someone's belief or religion or position or whatever, in order to debate it properly, you'd have to understand what it's all about exactly.

If you can't be prepared to understand exactly what the other believes, then you're going to fall into some major intellectual traps in the debate - traps not set up by your opponent but by yourself.

Now if you're just trying to give shit to your opponent, then it's not so important. But as I said before, beware the logical fallacies galore.

Not when piss-taking on the internet    I'm not working on a point system here.

Ok, good. You wanna piss-take, do piss-take. I'm just addressing your points and answering your questions. After all, you do want me to explain what I find wrong about this, right? Or is this also piss-taking?

Would it shock you if I told you that I have very little respect for beliefs in gods and fairies and vampires and other fantasy creatures?

Not at all. You're entitled to your lack of belief in any of such creatures, and I think it's a very reasonable position to take.

I don't have much respect myself for religious beliefs anyway.

I don't accept your premise that making a logical fallacy on the internet while giving someone shit for a belief that you don't respect is a "mistake".

Nobody's forcing you to accept it.

I was being generous with the word "mistake", but since you admit that these logical fallacies were not mistakes, so be it.

I will be the first to admit that they do a FAR better job at seeing both sides of an issue, or at least wanting to, than I ever will

I think it's an admirable trait. I try to do it myself when debating even fundamentalist Christians and others.

I appreciate that. I am curious though, do you respect my opinion that there is no god or fairies or angels or demons or centaurs or talking snakes or 900 year old men making babies? If so, it must be much easier for you to be accommodating like that.

Yes, I respect your lack of belief because I can "empathize" with it. Atheism and skepticism is not an enemy to my mind.

It's religious beliefs and conspiracy theories that I have no respect for.

Regardless, I'm not asking you to respect my beliefs. Nor am I forcing you to represent me properly. But when you do misrepresent me, I'll react. And when you ask for a callout, I'll respond if I accept.

Well, I apologize then Calavera.  While I do not respect your beliefs, I do respect you as a person and a member of this site and I did not intend to cause you undue distress by my actions.  I believe my actions were misinterpreted, and that you use the term "strawman" a touch liberally, but that doesn't excuse the fact that I have hurt your feelings.  I didn't want to do that.

While I appreciate the apology, I didn't ask for it. My feelings are my own. I'm responsible for them. If I didn't understand that, then I wouldn't be here.

You believe I misinterpreted your actions, that's fine. So you were just piss-taking and not taking it seriously. I can live with that.

I respect you as a fellow member also, and as a previous WP mod, and I've expressed this, I believe, elsewhere. But answering and responding to accepted callouts even made by you is something I don't mind doing.

I'll let you have the last word now.