The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > A two-fisted display

A two-fisted display

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 26
  7. 27
  8. 28
  9. Page 29
  10. 30
  11. All
I guess that on the evidence so far, I had no right to expect you to understand such a complex concept, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles:"Incidentally, that is not an example of "begging the question"." Of course it is: you made a statement with no grounds and expect that to stand as a given.<<

Let's take a look at that for a moment.

"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of 'reasoning' typically has the following form:

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: 'X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.'"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Now, think very carefully. Which aspect of my answer, "no", to your question ""do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones?", fits the above explanation of begging the question?

Do you always lead with your chin?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 4:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:"Which aspect of my answer, "no", to your question ""do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones?", fits the above explanation of begging the question?"

From Nizkor (one of my long-term favourite sites):
"1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true."

It meets both criteria.
The premises are implicit in the response, which makes it circular as well.

I'm sure you'll be able to grasp it with a bit of thought.

How are the feet going with all those holes you've shot into them? At least you've got Antiseptic close at hand.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 5:53:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baloney, Antiseptic.

>>The premises are implicit in the response, which makes it circular as well.<<

"No" is a stated premise?

Not on this planet.

Enjoy your blustering. It convinces no-one.

Not even yourself, probably.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 January 2012 12:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:""No" is a stated premise?"

"Implicit" means "unstated, but implied". Glad to have got that sorted out for you old chap. Why don'tyou tell me how I remind you of your brother again? None of your argument seems to be based on anything beyond that.

Now, we've eliminated the red herring of size and strength as an justification for your claim that women should be able to hit men whenever they feel a bit emotional, so what's left? What's your next feeble attempt to justify your Victorian view going to be: "Mum liked me better than my brother and anyway you're not a real man, so there"?

What I find irksome about your little performance here Pericles, is that it has derailed what could have been a serious discussion about the role of social conditioning around issues affecting the genders differently.

I think you're more comfortable discussing conspiracy theories and religion - both areas in which you can make a pronouncement knowing that the view of those on the other side of the issue is based on no more than "faith" or on implausible chains of reasoning, meaning that red herrings and endless arguments about nothing at all are the standard. It's a shame you struggle so much on more serious issues.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 26 January 2012 3:06:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are a fascinating study, Antiseptic.

You know perfectly well - or you should, at least - the the response "no" to a request for an opinion is just that, an offered opinion. Trying to disguise your lapse of concentration in using "begging the question" incorrectly with a whole lot of blarney, convinces no-one. Here's "Grammar Girl", to help you out:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/begs-the-question.aspx

A tip, that may help, is that my answer "no" cannot be incorrect. You asked my opinion. I gave you my opinion. You may disagree with my opinion, but my opinion does not require any level of "proof", since the concept of proof in this instance can only be whether it is my opinion or not.

Now, back to the topic in hand.

>>...your claim that women should be able to hit men whenever they feel a bit emotional<<

It happens. Women quite often react at a more emotional level than men. But at the level of "violence" described, it would appear to be entirely within the bounds of reasonable social interaction. You categorize it as "violence", and at one level, it clearly is. But my opinion is still that to turn a trivial incident into a federal case is entirely unnecessary.

>>"Mum liked me better than my brother and anyway you're not a real man, so there"?<<

That you should attempt to put those words into my mouth says a great deal about you, and your confidence in your argument..

>>What I find irksome about your little performance here Pericles, is that it has derailed what could have been a serious discussion about the role of social conditioning around issues affecting the genders differently.<<

And what I find irksome, as I may have mentioned previously, is that you have taken an incident, "reported" by a journalist for whom you appear to have little respect, and used it to push your anti-women barrow, ad nauseam.

Your struggle with your wife through the Court system has left you scarred, that is obvious. It doesn't however make you automatically the font of all reason on domestic violence.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 January 2012 8:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But at the level of "violence" described, it would appear to be entirely within the bounds of reasonable social interaction."

again for those who missed it the violence as described "Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud." and "Twenty slaps, like rolling thunder."

Perhaps it's not Antiseptic, Belly and myself who should change who we associate with if that's considered "reasonable social interaction".

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 26 January 2012 9:10:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 26
  7. 27
  8. 28
  9. Page 29
  10. 30
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy