clarificaiton wanted, derail not wanted May 2, 2006 1:08 PM Subscribe
Looking for clarification for this comment by undule. Just trying to avoid a derail in the thread in question. [More inside]
This warrants a post ? Evidently today is Putting the Me into MetaTalk Day.
posted by y2karl at 1:13 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by y2karl at 1:13 PM on May 2, 2006
Wait, so tomorrow it'll stop?
posted by nebulawindphone at 1:16 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by nebulawindphone at 1:16 PM on May 2, 2006
y2karl, I was kind of worried about that aspect of it, and I expect I'll get very nicely roasted for it, but I really want to know just what kind of sophist I'm supposed to be, since I was citing things and defining terms and being otherwise very serious with the exception of one comment, which was pretty obviously not intended seriously (and included 'scarcasm' tags to boot).
On the other hand, maybe if I'm luck undule will answer the question and then matt can close the thread before I get roasted.
But that's probably wishful thinking, right?
posted by tiamat at 1:16 PM on May 2, 2006
On the other hand, maybe if I'm luck undule will answer the question and then matt can close the thread before I get roasted.
But that's probably wishful thinking, right?
posted by tiamat at 1:16 PM on May 2, 2006
Well, make one smart remark and people will come out of the woodwork wanting a piece of you. Film at 11. That was my point if I had a point.
posted by y2karl at 1:19 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by y2karl at 1:19 PM on May 2, 2006
There's a good chance undule is one of those users who doesn't come to metatalk...
posted by drezdn at 1:21 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by drezdn at 1:21 PM on May 2, 2006
You probably could have addressed this in thread, but:
From wikipedia: Today, a sophism generally refers to a particularly confusing, illogical and/or insincere argument used by someone to make a point; sophistry refers to the practice of using such arguments. In its modern meaning, "sophistry" is typically a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.
You said: Because I believe that the Western democracies will use nuclear weapons only as a last resort, and I believe the leaders of Iran would view nuclear weapons as a nigh-perfect weapon, and would use it in a war of aggression against Israel and/or the West.
Azaadistani very eloquently lists some very believable reasons why it is that Iran would be seeking nuclear weapons, that are completely different than what you posit.
You reply that he Godwinized the thread (which is ridiculous considering the topic is about Israel, Iran, and the West) and also state: And what part of that is supposed to make me think I (as a member of one of the above defined Western nations) will be safer once Iran has the bomb? For that matter, what part of this comment is supposed to address anything at all in regards to nuclear deterrence?
When, in fact, the nuclear deterrence he is discussing has absolutely nothing to do with making YOU feel safe. His point is that nuclear deterrence makes a country's INHABITANTS feel safe.
To completely argue his comment line by line without trying to understand his point of view does indeed make you a sophist, if not the worst kind of sophist.
posted by Roger Dodger at 1:21 PM on May 2, 2006
From wikipedia: Today, a sophism generally refers to a particularly confusing, illogical and/or insincere argument used by someone to make a point; sophistry refers to the practice of using such arguments. In its modern meaning, "sophistry" is typically a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.
You said: Because I believe that the Western democracies will use nuclear weapons only as a last resort, and I believe the leaders of Iran would view nuclear weapons as a nigh-perfect weapon, and would use it in a war of aggression against Israel and/or the West.
Azaadistani very eloquently lists some very believable reasons why it is that Iran would be seeking nuclear weapons, that are completely different than what you posit.
You reply that he Godwinized the thread (which is ridiculous considering the topic is about Israel, Iran, and the West) and also state: And what part of that is supposed to make me think I (as a member of one of the above defined Western nations) will be safer once Iran has the bomb? For that matter, what part of this comment is supposed to address anything at all in regards to nuclear deterrence?
When, in fact, the nuclear deterrence he is discussing has absolutely nothing to do with making YOU feel safe. His point is that nuclear deterrence makes a country's INHABITANTS feel safe.
To completely argue his comment line by line without trying to understand his point of view does indeed make you a sophist, if not the worst kind of sophist.
posted by Roger Dodger at 1:21 PM on May 2, 2006
y2karl, I pine for the good old days, when you were only a pretty bad sophist at one smart comment, and weren't considered the worst kind until at least 2 snarky comments using at least one swear word. Frankly, I think it's too easy for people to compete at this new, lower standard.
posted by tiamat at 1:23 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by tiamat at 1:23 PM on May 2, 2006
Tiamat, I respect your knowledge of such matters - -but it seemed you basically erected a niche on the conversation, and began hurling around invective based on any perceived derail from this area of your interest. Reading your response to Azaadistani was irritating -- tho I probably should refrain from name calling; but I think in this case it's rather tame, banal even.
Could be I'm out of line, but more likely I should just such things roll off my back. I'm really terrible about popping in with snarks because I pretty much read the blue at work and don't have a lot of time for elaboration. For that I apologize, I'm not sure it contributes much of anything to conversation as a whole.
I felt you dodged issue by rerouting it, semantically niggling it (popping in a bit of self-aggrandizing) and, lastly, dragging out the dreaded Godwin and impugning your opponent. Sophistry, in other words.
That said, reading back over the thread, it would seem I was more reactionary than rational.
posted by undule at 1:31 PM on May 2, 2006
Could be I'm out of line, but more likely I should just such things roll off my back. I'm really terrible about popping in with snarks because I pretty much read the blue at work and don't have a lot of time for elaboration. For that I apologize, I'm not sure it contributes much of anything to conversation as a whole.
I felt you dodged issue by rerouting it, semantically niggling it (popping in a bit of self-aggrandizing) and, lastly, dragging out the dreaded Godwin and impugning your opponent. Sophistry, in other words.
That said, reading back over the thread, it would seem I was more reactionary than rational.
posted by undule at 1:31 PM on May 2, 2006
To completely argue his comment line by line without trying to understand his point of view does indeed make you a sophist, if not the worst kind of sophist.
I felt you dodged issue by rerouting it, semantically niggling it (popping in a bit of self-aggrandizing) and, lastly, dragging out the dreaded Godwin and impugning your opponent. Sophistry, in other words.
Well, then--your question has been answered.
posted by y2karl at 1:32 PM on May 2, 2006
I felt you dodged issue by rerouting it, semantically niggling it (popping in a bit of self-aggrandizing) and, lastly, dragging out the dreaded Godwin and impugning your opponent. Sophistry, in other words.
Well, then--your question has been answered.
posted by y2karl at 1:32 PM on May 2, 2006
Damn, rodge dodger touched on my view much more eloquently --- gah
posted by undule at 1:33 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by undule at 1:33 PM on May 2, 2006
note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.
Seems like it was a bad idea from the start, undule.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:36 PM on May 2, 2006
Seems like it was a bad idea from the start, undule.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:36 PM on May 2, 2006
Roger Dodger, why do people keep thinking I think it's irrational for Iran to want to have the bomb? I don't. If I were running Iran I'd be doing exactly what they're doing, (which if I understand the news and open source intelligence correctly is to try to get the bomb as quickly as possible while denying it as much as possible).
I didn't disagree with some of Azaadistani points because I didn't disagree with some of Azaadistani points. I focused on our points of conflict because it was where we conflicted.
My comments were mainly directed at correcting his misinterpreations of my previous comment, which is why it looks as if I'm moving his arguments around. I'm defending my position, not the position he *thought* I'd taken.
This part of his comment
The Holocaust was a horrific event. But it in the past, and based on the fact that the world Jewry has worked hard to make sure that it is wealthy, well-connected and well-regarded in many of the world's important cities would certainly prevent another attempted Jewish extermination.
is one of the following:
1) racist [it's one word from saying the Jew's own the banks]
2) totally uninformed [Jews were pretty highly regarded in many cities before WWII, and it didn't do them much good then, why would it the next time around?]
3) both
Perhaps Godwin wasn't the right term, after all Azaadistani wasn't comparinig my arguments to those a nazi might make, but I stand by my position that this argument of his was, for lack of a ruder word, useless.
Also, I do not accept that any debate regarding anything to do with Israel will have to invove the Holocaust.
posted by tiamat at 1:41 PM on May 2, 2006
I didn't disagree with some of Azaadistani points because I didn't disagree with some of Azaadistani points. I focused on our points of conflict because it was where we conflicted.
My comments were mainly directed at correcting his misinterpreations of my previous comment, which is why it looks as if I'm moving his arguments around. I'm defending my position, not the position he *thought* I'd taken.
This part of his comment
The Holocaust was a horrific event. But it in the past, and based on the fact that the world Jewry has worked hard to make sure that it is wealthy, well-connected and well-regarded in many of the world's important cities would certainly prevent another attempted Jewish extermination.
is one of the following:
1) racist [it's one word from saying the Jew's own the banks]
2) totally uninformed [Jews were pretty highly regarded in many cities before WWII, and it didn't do them much good then, why would it the next time around?]
3) both
Perhaps Godwin wasn't the right term, after all Azaadistani wasn't comparinig my arguments to those a nazi might make, but I stand by my position that this argument of his was, for lack of a ruder word, useless.
Also, I do not accept that any debate regarding anything to do with Israel will have to invove the Holocaust.
posted by tiamat at 1:41 PM on May 2, 2006
Just to be clear, I didn't really mean this thread to be a complaint about undule's comment about me. I really did just want a clarification about what exactly it meant. Which I got, so now I'm no longer wondering.
posted by tiamat at 1:48 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by tiamat at 1:48 PM on May 2, 2006
Seems like it was a bad idea from the start, undule.
Indeed, it was. As I suggested above, it's best to let things roll on unless I'm prepared to elaborate my position beyond one line meta-sophistries. I honestly wonder how people find the time to engage in active conversations; I can only multi-slack for so long before I have to get back to business. But yes, you are correct.
On preview:
is one of the following:
1) racist [it's one word from saying the Jew's own the banks]
2) totally uninformed [Jews were pretty highly regarded in many cities before WWII, and it didn't do them much good then, why would it the next time around?]
3) both
This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts. Rather than engaging the micro-topic (That jews have worked hard to entrench themselves in power positions -- duh) Tiamat basically calls Azaadistani an ignorant racist.
posted by undule at 1:56 PM on May 2, 2006
Indeed, it was. As I suggested above, it's best to let things roll on unless I'm prepared to elaborate my position beyond one line meta-sophistries. I honestly wonder how people find the time to engage in active conversations; I can only multi-slack for so long before I have to get back to business. But yes, you are correct.
On preview:
is one of the following:
1) racist [it's one word from saying the Jew's own the banks]
2) totally uninformed [Jews were pretty highly regarded in many cities before WWII, and it didn't do them much good then, why would it the next time around?]
3) both
This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts. Rather than engaging the micro-topic (That jews have worked hard to entrench themselves in power positions -- duh) Tiamat basically calls Azaadistani an ignorant racist.
posted by undule at 1:56 PM on May 2, 2006
Let me be clear. In at least one of his (noted above) statements Azaadistani is either ignorant or racist or both.
Thus I do not deem the point worth refuting further, as I believe it is not necessary and gives attention to an offensive statement.
posted by tiamat at 2:02 PM on May 2, 2006
Thus I do not deem the point worth refuting further, as I believe it is not necessary and gives attention to an offensive statement.
posted by tiamat at 2:02 PM on May 2, 2006
You are so dead certain, a priori, of Azaadistani's perspective of the situation that you prefer declaring him ignorant and/or racist over actually engaging him on the subject and trying to understand what he means and why he holds that view?
posted by cortex at 2:23 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by cortex at 2:23 PM on May 2, 2006
1. I, too, find Azaadistani's viewpoint, as expressed, offensive.
2. I think it's one thing, however, to say "that feels pretty offensive. care to elaborate?" and another to say "you're clearly a racist, and you just godwined the thread."
3. a godwin is not ANY mention of wwii or the holocaust, but rather an unrelated comparison of one's opponent or opponent's argument to hitler or nazis.
3a. hence: "you think hitler was right? you must be an anti-semite." is not a godwin. "first they came for the linux devs, and I did nothing because I was not a linux dev..." on the other hand, IS a godwin.
4. that said, this thread has gone surprisingly well.
posted by shmegegge at 2:42 PM on May 2, 2006
2. I think it's one thing, however, to say "that feels pretty offensive. care to elaborate?" and another to say "you're clearly a racist, and you just godwined the thread."
3. a godwin is not ANY mention of wwii or the holocaust, but rather an unrelated comparison of one's opponent or opponent's argument to hitler or nazis.
3a. hence: "you think hitler was right? you must be an anti-semite." is not a godwin. "first they came for the linux devs, and I did nothing because I was not a linux dev..." on the other hand, IS a godwin.
4. that said, this thread has gone surprisingly well.
posted by shmegegge at 2:42 PM on May 2, 2006
Hear, hear cortex. He is completely unwilling to consider an alternate viewpoint, especially one representing Islam. While tiamat had no problem describing to us how an Islamic state would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive, aggressive strike, he calls his 'opponent' either ignorant or racist. Or both.
You asked for clarification on the sophistry comment. I merely presented the evidence supporting it. Undule regrets he made a comment in haste. If I wanted to argue about Israel vs. Iraq, I'd do it in the thread.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:46 PM on May 2, 2006
You asked for clarification on the sophistry comment. I merely presented the evidence supporting it. Undule regrets he made a comment in haste. If I wanted to argue about Israel vs. Iraq, I'd do it in the thread.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:46 PM on May 2, 2006
The only thing I learned was that this could have been avoided by having an email address listed in the profile.
posted by prostyle at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2006
posted by prostyle at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by tiamat at 1:09 PM on May 2, 2006