AC question

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes they are an easy way to 'win' an argument. But when they are used to effectively hide complexities they detract from the debate, they don't add to it. It might seem clever from one's 'own' point of view since you essentially agree with the basic premise already, but imagine the other guy using similar imagery to describe your 'view' and you would soon find relatively useless.

In a an act of intended irony I'll use an analogy to illustrate: Imagine a neo-nazi using an analogy about weed in a flower bed to illustrate his racial politics. For him it makes perfect sense , for you it most likely hides some very complex issues and when he asks you 'Is weed a bad thing for the growth of healthy flowers?' you might find you don't want to answer that question or at the very least fight the analogy/try to get the debate back on specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why analogies are most often part of a larger argument or a larger debate. Analogies are useful tools for pointing out inconsistencies in a person's arguments/beliefs/etc. And obviously arguments by analogy work better when the analagous situatuon has as many salient features as the original situation as possible. But just because some analogies are *bad* (like the neo-nazi one you've provided) doesn't invalidate analogies as a whole (as some in this thread seem to think). In any case, part of the method if using analogies in debate is pointing out instances in which the supposedly 'analagous' situations are actually disanalagous, as I think would be easy to do the neo-nazi analogy.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes they are an easy way to 'win' an argument. But when they are used to effectively hide complexities they detract from the debate, they don't add to it. It might seem clever from one's 'own' point of view since you essentially agree with the basic premise already, but imagine the other guy using similar imagery to describe your 'view' and you would soon find relatively useless.

In a an act of intended irony I'll use an analogy to illustrate: Imagine a neo-nazi using an analogy about weed in a flower bed to illustrate his racial politics. <u>For him it makes perfect sense</u> , for you it most likely hides some very complex issues and when he asks you 'Is weed a bad thing for the growth of healthy flowers?' you might find you don't want to answer that question or at the very least fight the analogy/try to get the debate back on specifics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to control other people's speech. If I were to encounter such a situation (faced with a human equating other humans as weeds) I would make an assessment wheather or not it would be worth my time and effort to continue the discusssion. I may very well decide to continue if there is an impartial/undecided audience and I beleive that I am intellectually superior to him.

It is an intellectual challenge. I like those. I like to watch others engage in such discussions and learn from that. I also like to sometimes engage in such discussions myself.

If someone is being dishonest or skirting issues then bring htat to light. If someone is minimizing, bring that to light.

I get to control my own speech. I have no expectation that I should be able to, nor do I desire to, control the speech of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing I tried to illustrate was that analogies used in political debate will rarely reflect the views of both sides. They are chosen because they caricature the trait of some organization/ideal held by one of the parties. Analoging the state as a thief and then asking me if I like thieves is as useful as analoging AC corporations as extortionists and then ask you if you like extortionists.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that only be true if I wound up in conflict with others who have not removed the use of force as a means of conflict resolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, and if your process involved in hoping others you were in conflict with didn't resort to force, you'd really be exploitable.



[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying if person A (who does not use force, has removed it from their arsenal) and person B (who does not use force, and has removed it from their aresnal) encounter a dispute, I as person A am MORE exploitable?

I don't follow.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I already asked once, and got no answer:

What do you think "the topic and hand" is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Who the hell knows anymore, with as much stuff that has been thrown against the wall, and the unwillingness of anyone to stay on any given track.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell can you ask someone to "stick to it" if you don't even know what it is???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer either question?

[/ QUOTE ]

The last time I tried simply answering one of your questions, you flew off the handle in a rant because I had the nerve to actually answer you, when it was actually a normative rhetorical that wasn't supposed to be descriptively answered. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Pointing out that you're trying to wiggle out of answering the *intended* question on a technicality (what some people might call "semantical lawyering") is "flying off the handle."

We should start compling a list of your "debate" techniques.

#2: Anytime someone disagrees with you, try to make them look like a crazy, emotional basket-case.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you are getting upset that I am not answering your questions....sheesh man, make up your mind already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
But just because some analogies are *bad* (like the neo-nazi one you've provided) doesn't invalidate analogies as a whole (as some in this thread seem to think).


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, on the whole, but bad analogies are still bad.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, part of the method if using analogies in debate is pointing out instances in which the supposedly 'analagous' situations are actually disanalagous, as I think would be easy to do the neo-nazi analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd think it'd be that easy, and then in practice you ultimately spend 27 posts back and forth in semantical arguments with particular people defending their malformed analogy to the death....meanwhile the original discussion is so derailed and off-topic that it becomes pointless....and then they construct a second bad analogy to support the use of their 1st bad analogy, rinse and repeat.

In fact, I've seen some folks employ bad a bad analogy, which was countered, an ensuing semantical argument breaks out, and then the orignal bad analogy offender points out that he is "right" in regards to the original topic as no one has bothered to address it effectively, and they only focus on arguing against his bad analogy. (Suicide by Strawman...fwiw)

For the sake of avoiding these situations with people who are fond of such tactics, it would be much simpler to just avoid analogy altogether and stay on track.

From what I've seen, the disingenuous use of analogy for the purpose of setting up a strawman is far more common on this forum than anything else.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So lots of conflicts are resolved without the use of any force whatsoever. Lots, and lots, and lots of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]

Therefore force is not necessary to resolve conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right, regarding certain individual examples.

But it *is* essential to the overall conflict resolution process.

If you remove it, your conflict resolution process is extermely exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, conflicts DO get resolved *even* in situations where there is NO OPTION for either party to use force (and both parties are aware of that). Therefore, it cannot be essential to conflict resolution.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The skillful use of analogies (at which pvn IMO is an absolute artist) are powerful means of communication.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're telling me you don't see the potential misuse of analogy by crafting specific situations that oversimplify a persons argument into a simple analogy, which then can be attacked and easily defeated?

It's a classic example of a straw man, and is well known logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there's the potential for misuse. That doesn't mean you can reasonably dismiss out-of-hand any analogie someone uses.

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, it's rather easy to do, if someone chooses to be disingenious, and if everyone here chose to go that route, the forum would further degenerate into absolute sillines.

Thankfully, most folks don't take that route, and just stick to discussing whatever it is they are discussing at the moment, rather than resort to analogy in place of the actual topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

To use an analogy, we can see that if everyone decided to shoot other people in the head, the world would degenerate into absolute chaos. Therefore, we should forcibly disarm everyone. Because obviously, if you have a gun, you're going to shoot someone in the head AMIRITE?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And make no mistake, this isn't to the detriment of AC, if anything, it is a positive for it, as the de-regulation of the force monopoly the state enjoys would spread power relatively equal among the masses....theoretically evening the playing field and making the use of unnecessary force a less appealing option.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesnt. AC makes it more unequal because deep pockets rule. At least under statism there is the potential for neutral application of laws that have been developed over centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

But under AC you don't *have* to interact with anyone.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
How the hell can you ask someone to "stick to it" if you don't even know what it is???


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you've zigged and zagged so many times, it's hard keeping track of how many times it has changed....pick one already and let's stick to it... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out that you're trying to wiggle out of answering the *intended* question on a technicality (what some people might call "semantical lawyering") is "flying off the handle."

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked "Might makes right?", and I replied "Practically."

But if you want to call a direct, one word, simple response as "wiggling and semantical lawyering"....so much so...next time I'll make it even simpler, maybe post a picture or something.

[ QUOTE ]

#2: Anytime someone disagrees with you, try to make them look like a crazy, emotional basket-case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, other than your semantical nits and rampant use of strawmen...what have we actually disagreed on of any actual substance?

We actually share similar views on many things, but your too busy focusing on irrelevant semantics to notice.
Deleted

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
However, conflicts DO get resolved *even* in situations where there is NO OPTION for either party to use force (and both parties are aware of that).


[/ QUOTE ]

That's great that in some examples they are able to resolve their conflict through agreement.

But, I wasn't addressing the cases where agreement works.

What if one of the parties refuses any agreement, and neither party has the option of force...how is the conflict resolved?

Are you telling me that it isn't allowed to happen, and they HAVE to agree, in the abscence of an option of force, in order to resolve their conflict? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Or are you telling me that the conflict just doesn't get resolved?


[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, it cannot be essential to conflict resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the "process" part. My assertion is that force is essential to the conflict resolution <u>process</u>.

It obviously isn't employed in each and every conflict ever resolved, but it is part of the process, and the option exists, whether you realize it or not, and whether or not the people involved even realize it.