View Single Post
Old 02-18-2007, 08:55 PM   #33
Spider AL
@Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
Spider AL's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

As usual, al, you're mistaken. I got the point he was making and disagreed with it. I understood exactly where he was going and demonstrated as much.
Actually Tot, I wasn't mistaken, you DIDN'T get the point ET was making, you didn't even ADDRESS it much less disagree with it, and all you have demonstrated is that you're unwilling to read and absorb what people post.

Let's re-iterate what I said earlier, as you completely failed to address it:

In his initial post in this thread, post #9, ET used the perfectly applicable analogy of a subjective like or dislike of tomatoes to highlight the irrelevance and unimportance of sexual likes or dislikes. He stated: The thing I find interesting is we care so much about what it is that makes people "gay" or "not gay" but we don't seem to care so much about what it is that makes people like or dislike tomatoes. It seems like just about as pertinent a thing to care about."

You responded in your initial post, post #14, with this: "Reducto ad absurdium. I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, then we can put it in the same category." Essentially saying "ha! that's nonsense, because sexual orientation is regarded as important by society, and tomato-orientation isn't!"

Which clearly shows that you missed the point ET was making completely. ET was pointing out that preference for a particular sexual act is in reality no more or less important or intrinsically meaningful than preferences for particular foods, regardless of how society looks upon such things. So ET was and is correct when he notes that you missed his point.

Secondly, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that "reductio ad absurdum" is the name of a logical fallacy. It isn't. It's a legitimate method of logical argument historically used by major philosophers to show absurdity in the assertions of others, and I encourage you to go and look it up to gain a better understanding of it.

ET's point was that society shouldn't make such a big deal about sexual preferences. Your response boils down to "But society makes a big deal out of sexual preferences!" That's not disagreeing with ET's point, it's not even addressing ET's point. It is and was a wierd irrelevance.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

He was trivializing the issue with his "challenge". If you don't understand that.....
You are the one who is misunderstanding a key point, Tot: ET wasn't "trivialising" anything, he was demonstrating the inherent trivality of something, namely the national obsession with sex and sexual preferences in the US. You can't "trivialise" something that's already inherently trivial.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Yet again, you're mistaken (I sense a pattern here). First of all, I never say whether it's a good or bad thing.
You stated in post #28: "You view things through a much more liberal lens than most of the population on this issue. Your unwillingness to think or feel that the issue matters reflects your more hedonistic or libertine outlook on matters of sex."

So of course it was a fallacious appeal to popularity, (irrelevantly citing the fact that most of the population disagrees with ET) and furthermore it was a value judgement as well, as you state that ET has the outlook of a comparitive "libertine" and a "hedonist". Ludicrous fare, Tot. You really should use reasonable non-fallacious arguments instead of stuff like this. But then of course, you'd have to agree with your adversaries.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

"I'm more liberal.., I'm more conservative.." Which is it?
It's both, Tot. I both believe in the so-called "classically conservative" non-ideological principle of slow and measured social reforms/changes, and the ideals of individual rights, the free market, no governmental interference in business and of course a mild preference for a meritocracy.

I also support so-called "liberal" ideals like the safety net of a welfare system for the disenfranchised, the ideal of pure democracy and international law and institutions.

But frankly all these things are just common sense. The core principles of classical conservatism are not necessarily incompatible with many ideas which have become known as "left-wing". And what we know as "conservatives" these days, are NOT conservatives. In fact I think that old fashioned conservatives would be spinning in their graves if they knew what state-capitalist, financially reckless things were being done in the name of "conservatism" by the neo-cons these days.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

al, do everyone a favor and quit confusing your personal positions as being unimpeachable. From your philosophical pov, you may feel they are. That, unfortunately for you, does not make them so. end of story.
My "personal positions" are based on reason and logic. You've consistently failed to find any logical argument to counter mine... in pretty much EVERY thread we've debated in. So you can erroneously bluster that my positions are incorrect all you like, but until you actually SHOW that they're incorrect, you're just blowing hot air.

[FW] Spider AL
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: