How to argue, PPR style

Page 2 of 2 [ 29 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Feb 2010, 1:03 am

greenblue wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The short version of how to argue PPR style is,
(1) If someone disagrees with me, then they are my opponent.
(2) If they are my opponent, then they must be wrong.
(3) If they are wrong, then they deserve to be treated like crap.

Or more like this:
My own opinion is the "obvious fact".
If you see it differently, you are an idiot for not seeing the "obvious".
And you deserve to be treated like crap.

Quite possibly the main problem would be a form of empiricism hybridized with solipsism. IDK, but it does seem to be like how you describe with the notion of the "obvious fact".

There's a similar thing of,

(1) If you only knew this, then you would agree with me.
(2) you don't agree with me
(3) so you must not know this.
(4) since you do not know this, then you are ignorant.
(5) since you are ignorant of this, then I will tell you that you are and make myself feel better...

On and on and on and on, ad naseum!

greenblue wrote:

I mean, many people seem to be like that (generally speaking), but meh.....
However, I do agree with WorldsEdge, on WP's PPR doesn't seem to happen that much compared to other sites, so things may be ok here in that area I suppose.

PPR is certainly less like hell now as compared to how it was back in 2007 and 2008. Still some elements of speaking without listening, getting angry at things one imagines their debate opponent would say, and general triumphalisms and corprologisms. But it is better now than it was before.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Feb 2010, 12:12 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Perhaps it isn't such a fallacy, but rather just an outdated usage. Though the statement of "if Hitler tried it, it might be a bad idea" still has some humor value, it is rather old.

More properly, and generally, such a thing could be stated as,

(1) This dictator has little or no regard for human life.
(2) If this person performed an action based on their valuation of human life, then it might be a bad idea to try it.
(3) this person performed euthanasia of those he considered to be unfit.
(4) it might be a bad idea to try euthanasia.

Not just due to association, but due to their regard for human life. I'm probably stating this poorly though, as I am quite tired.

You are probably way too tired. I don't think an argument structure of this form has validity, except maybe inductive validity. Now of course, inductive validity is weak enough that it allows evidence such as "majority of scientists", "that man is looking funny at me", and so on and so forth, so I don't think you tend to be a person who likes stuff that is only inductively valid.

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

13 Feb 2010, 2:45 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The short version of how to argue PPR style is,

(1) Assume your opponent is wrong.
(2) Act accordingly.

This also very well described the Republican Party throughout 2009; hopefully the bipartisanship will kick in as 2010 progresses. Handing the President a booklet entitled "Our Better Ideas" (or similar) was a pretty poor start.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Feb 2010, 4:54 am

NeantHumain wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The short version of how to argue PPR style is,

(1) Assume your opponent is wrong.
(2) Act accordingly.

Politics has been pretty fiercely not bipartisan for a pretty long time. Don't hold your breath.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Feb 2010, 5:55 am

Sand wrote:

NeantHumain wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The short version of how to argue PPR style is,

(1) Assume your opponent is wrong.
(2) Act accordingly.

Politics has been pretty fiercely not bipartisan for a pretty long time. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah, there is more crap in politics than there is water in the ocean...

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

13 Feb 2010, 11:47 am

Sand wrote:

NeantHumain wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The short version of how to argue PPR style is,

(1) Assume your opponent is wrong.
(2) Act accordingly.

Politics has been pretty fiercely not bipartisan for a pretty long time. Don't hold your breath.

The annoying thing about U.S. politics is that there are only two viable parties, so people end up voting for the lesser of two evils most of the time. The Democratic Party isn't great, but as a whole, I consider it the lesser of two evils. I just can't vote for a Republican for anything important because of Republicans' socially and religious conservative stances on things like religious freedom and separation of church and state, sexual freedom and privacy, their positions on torture and war, and just they way they've behaved during the Bush administration and now during the Obama administration as the party out of power. I found the rhetoric towards people who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq quite offensive, and I find the support of torture also quite offensive. The Republicans' lies and distortions during the healthcare debate and their rude behavior during when President Obama speaks (e.g., "You lie!") shows an arrogance and just a general contempt of those who disagree with them.

NOBS
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 304
Location: Alaska

13 Feb 2010, 3:25 pm

NeantHumain wrote:

As a paleo-conservative, I just hate it when a Democrat speaks the truth! This is true to the point that I even voted for Obama. When the Republican party returns to their roots, and rediscovers the substance and wisdom of their platform, in both voice and deed, that is when they stand a chance of regaining any substantial power in D.C. Failing that, they relegate themselves to political pandering to the lowest common intelligence of our electorate.

Thank you Karl Rove. NOT!! !

TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

15 Feb 2010, 4:51 pm

Iamnotaparakeet is being ironic, right? :lol:

Quote:

(1) If you only knew this, then you would agree with me.
(2) you don't agree with me
(3) so you must not know this.
(4) since you do not know this, then you are ignorant.
(5) since you are ignorant of this, then I will tell you that you are and make myself feel better...

Quote:

Yes it is insane, and even more so if they consciously acknowledged God, but they fill their minds with every philosophical excuse possible so as to attempt to drive Him from their minds.

CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

16 Feb 2010, 9:14 pm

TheOddGoat wrote:

Iamnotaparakeet is being ironic, right? :lol:

Quote:

Yes it is insane, and even more so if they consciously acknowledged God, but they fill their minds with every philosophical excuse possible so as to attempt to drive Him from their minds.

No. That quote there isn't exactly calling anybody ignorant of anything. At least not by itself. I don't know where you got that, so context might make a difference.

TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

17 Feb 2010, 7:16 pm

CaptainTrips222 wrote:

TheOddGoat wrote:

Iamnotaparakeet is being ironic, right? :lol:

Quote:

Yes it is insane, and even more so if they consciously acknowledged God, but they fill their minds with every philosophical excuse possible so as to attempt to drive Him from their minds.

No. That quote there isn't exactly calling anybody ignorant of anything. At least not by itself. I don't know where you got that, so context might make a difference.

Its saying god is definitely real and obvious but people deliberately ignore it.

Saitorosan
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: The Bronx, NY

18 Feb 2010, 4:05 pm

Perhaps the problem is not that everyone assumes they're opponent is wrong, but that they assume they are right, that they could possibly have enough information on anything to completely prove it or indeed that they have any information at all.

It is the hubris of man to assume that we can accurately interpret the universe through the paltry and inadequate methods of observation we have available to us. I doubt if many of you are considered "experts" in any field, let alone all the topics discussed on this board, and even if you were, obviously that has little effect on my point. Why do we trust in science so? Why do we think we can predict the effects of economic/political decisions that affect millions or billions of individual minds and lives? We can't even guess the weather accurately. It's all based off of the arrogance of the men who came before you, which they inherited from their predecessors and so on.

_________________
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

18 Feb 2010, 4:31 pm

Saitorosan wrote:

We can either try our best, or simply not try our best. I don't mind you sitting down and waiting for the end if thats what makes you comfortable.

_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."

pat2rome
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,819
Location: Georgia

22 Feb 2010, 3:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The short version of how to argue PPR style is,

(1) Assume your opponent is wrong.
(2) Act accordingly.

The longer version is,

(1) If someone disagrees with me, then they are my opponent.
(2) If they are my opponent, then they must be wrong.
(3) If they are wrong, then they deserve to be treated like crap.

WHAT? That makes no sense at all, are you braindead???

:lol:

Am I doing it right?

_________________
I'm never gonna dance again, Aspie feet have got no rhythm.

Page 2 of 2 [ 29 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

How to argue, PPR style Post Reply New Topic

How to argue, PPR style