tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3847490510875723661..comments2024-03-19T03:55:23.248-05:00Comments on Althouse: Why are people having so much trouble understanding rhetorical devices?Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80240022263154901672012-12-19T12:12:34.805-06:002012-12-19T12:12:34.805-06:00How about this one:
"Sane" people commi...How about this one:<br /><br />"Sane" people commit violent crimes at a rate of 5%.<br />Schizophrenics commit violent crimes at a rate of 8%.<br />If it is true that blacks commit violent crimes at a rate 4 to 8 times higher than that of whites; then blacks commit violent crimes at a rate of AT LEAST 12%.<br /><br />Given that Ann wants to imprison all mentally ill people based on their alleged propensity to commit violent crime; then, Ann must also want to IMPRISON FOR LIFE EVERY BLACK PERSON IN AMERICA -- WITHOUT RIGHTS, TRIAL, DEFENSE, PAROLE, OR ANY CHARGE OF A CRIME OTHER THAN BEING BLACK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16464524981432357102012-12-19T11:44:01.079-06:002012-12-19T11:44:01.079-06:00Here's a couple reductio ad absurdums for you....Here's a couple reductio ad absurdums for you.<br /> <br />Out of 100 schizophrenics. 8 of them will commit a violent crime.<br /> Out of 100 perfectly “normal” people. 5 of them will commit a violent crime.<br /> <br />Thus, the association of schizophrenia or other mental illness, with violent crime is FALSE. It is believed by many, based on the SPOTLIGHT fallacy. <br /><br />Hypothetically (assuming 100 to be the total number), if you permanently confined all schizophrenics, you would sentence 92 innocent people to LIFE IMPRISONMENT to prevent 8 violent crimes.<br /> <br />By the same token, if you permanently confined all “sane” people, you would sentence 95 innocent people to Life imprisonment, to prevent 5 violent crimes.<br /> <br />Why not, then, prevent ALL violent crime by putting everyone in prison? <br /> <br />----------------------------<br />Let's add that there is a much stronger correlation between schizophrenia and violence when substance abuse is added to the mix.<br />Further, there is a very strong correlation between “sane” people and violence when substance abuse is involved.<br /><br />Clearly, the only sensible solution is to permanently imprison everyone who EVER drinks alcohol or uses any “recreational” drug. That’s right, LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE; WITHOUT TRIAL; WITHOUT APPEAL; WITHOUT DEFENSE; WITHOUT CHARGE.<br /><br />-----------------------<br />How about those reductios, Ann?<br /><br />Don't like those, do ya?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74055694666105527112012-12-19T11:30:41.783-06:002012-12-19T11:30:41.783-06:00"As I said, murder was a bad example. But it ..."As I said, murder was a bad example. But it was not his only example. The rest of his argument still stands."<br /><br />We seem to have forgotten that in many times and places murder in and of itself wasn't a crime; but an economic transaction for which a "blood price" of some kind was paid. It's only our moral sense that made it purely a crime.mdgileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417311636210312912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50095471587007473782012-12-19T11:30:20.910-06:002012-12-19T11:30:20.910-06:00"As I said, murder was a bad example. But it ..."As I said, murder was a bad example. But it was not his only example. The rest of his argument still stands."<br /><br />We seem to have forgotten that in many times and places murder in and of itself wasn't a crime; but an economic transaction for which a "blood price" of some kind was paid. It's only our moral sense that made it purely a crime.mdgileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417311636210312912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45555118755003723582012-12-19T09:27:35.390-06:002012-12-19T09:27:35.390-06:00I'm only 40 but I was taught all this stuff. I...I'm only 40 but I was taught all this stuff. I had to take a logic class and a debate class... I also had a couple poly sci instructors who went over how to catch tricky wordplay arguments when people actually meant to connect unconnected events / deceive you... SHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01995326486815143436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17143831159696643162012-12-19T08:05:47.402-06:002012-12-19T08:05:47.402-06:00JRPTwo wrote:
We agree--that’s what I meant when s...JRPTwo wrote:<br />We agree--that’s what I meant when saying Scalia argues “we” can ban things. Scalia also uses “we” to refer to the legislature. So, I am not addressing his person views on sodomy, whatever they are<br /><br> the view on sodmomy ony is irrelevant. The issue is whether society can ban whatever is valid. And how the students objections to bans on things he wants to not be banned are not in act valid on the grounds ththe suggested.<br /><br />The student in question argued along absolutist grounds. They are clearly in the wrong. Of course society could restrict marriage to whatever, or it could make rules against sodomy, bestiality and incest. The question is SHOULD they. <br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62146798567830135402012-12-19T07:46:47.167-06:002012-12-19T07:46:47.167-06:00geoffrobinson & JRPtwo-
I stand corrected on ...geoffrobinson & JRPtwo-<br /><br />I stand corrected on the Reductio ad Absurdium.Ignorance is Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351664545145783244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57332090070539026262012-12-19T04:54:18.284-06:002012-12-19T04:54:18.284-06:00Thanks Ann.
I am glad I geld my penny worth or les...Thanks Ann.<br />I am glad I geld my penny worth or less in duking it out with the like of AF and garage and Inga.......DEEBEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16235176776968497303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84569373488604304402012-12-19T00:35:16.779-06:002012-12-19T00:35:16.779-06:00Was this my comment:
"Comment deleted
This ...Was this my comment: <br /><br />"Comment deleted<br />This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.<br /><br />12/18/12 4:53 PM"<br /><br />I posted absolutely nothing in this thread that would justify a deletion. But the intolerance to free speech is noted. BULLSHIT! LoafingOafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398399168775034527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9330534932824089102012-12-19T00:28:45.480-06:002012-12-19T00:28:45.480-06:00I'd love to answer the people who asked me que...I'd love to answer the people who asked me questions, but since my original comment has been wiped out what is the point? I'd like to know what happened to my comment. LoafingOafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398399168775034527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57623649921421589702012-12-19T00:26:41.860-06:002012-12-19T00:26:41.860-06:00Tim, I'd love your question to me, but the com...Tim, I'd love your question to me, but the comment I posted in this thread has flat-out vanished. No trace of it anymore except the couple of people who quoted from it. I'm not going to post a reply until I can figure out what happened to my original post. LoafingOafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398399168775034527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91279342904498578992012-12-19T00:23:53.361-06:002012-12-19T00:23:53.361-06:00Weird. I put a comment in this thread, and I see a...Weird. I put a comment in this thread, and I see a few people quoted some text from it in reply, asking me questions. But I can't find the comment I posted. Where is it? LoafingOafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398399168775034527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28742966035397816942012-12-18T22:59:25.229-06:002012-12-18T22:59:25.229-06:00Ignorance is Bliss, thanks for the reasoned engage...Ignorance is Bliss, thanks for the reasoned engagement. A couple of points:<br /><br /><i>Scalia’s argument is not reduction to the absurd . . . . </i><br /><br />Well, that’s how Scalia labeled his argument, according to the New York Daily News Article:<br />"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"<br /><br /><i>Scalia is not saying they should be illegal because he believes they are wrong. He is saying that state legislatures have the power to make things illegal based on morality.</i><br /><br />We agree--that’s what I meant when saying Scalia argues “we” can ban things. Scalia also uses “we” to refer to the legislature. So, I am not addressing his person views on sodomy, whatever they are.<br /><br />We also agree on my main point, that murder was a bad analogy. <br /><br />And, we agree that sodomy falls in the same category as other laws involving private consensual sexual conduct. Scalia as well lumps them together. He lamented in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent that moral feeling alone seems to have little force to sustain bans on human sexual activity in light of the court striking down the Texas sodomy statute. Prostitution and buying alcohol on Sundays are interesting counterexamples. Perhaps they suggest that moral feeling plus commerce are sufficient to permit legislative action. But then, it’s not moral feeling alone, is it.<br /><br />I’m still curious what “moral feeling alone” means. We all agree it’s wrong? We the legislature voted for it? It’s been considered wrong historically? It’s icky? It’s what my religion tells me? And, if we say it’s what all criminal laws are based on, then it’s circular. The activity can be made illegal because it’s immoral and we know it’s immoral because it’s illegal. And how are we to balance these conclusory reasons against, say, a privacy interest? To me, if moral feeling is the best you can do, I suspect your argument is very thin and your proposed law is intrusive.JRPtwohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06270966907645030080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6533586823467164222012-12-18T22:46:24.012-06:002012-12-18T22:46:24.012-06:00"There is nothing absurd about saying we base..."There is nothing absurd about saying we base our law against murder on morality."<br /><br />I don't think you understand what is being reduced to absurd in this type of argument. It's not a particular topic. It's the logic of an argument you are countering.<br /><br />Argument A: You can't base laws on morality.<br />Counter-Argument B: If I use your logic, I can't ban murder. (showing the logic of Argument A to be absurd, not that Sunday blue laws and murder are equivalent)<br /><br />So this is the heart of the matter and one of the reasons people don't understand the <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> form of argumentation.geoffrobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14949411893531888555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8659956731796189522012-12-18T22:17:56.906-06:002012-12-18T22:17:56.906-06:00No one gets reductio ad absurdum any more. Nor sat...No one gets reductio ad absurdum any more. Nor satire, really. You end up being deemed the kind of lout you're trying to trash with rhetorical devices -- blamed for holding what you impugn. It's bizarre. In all seriousness, Idiocracy is not fiction.rasqualhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157841290344353993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36572719165643813632012-12-18T22:01:59.783-06:002012-12-18T22:01:59.783-06:00Wow. I've been thinking about this since Santo...Wow. I've been thinking about this since Santorum got in trouble for drawing out the consequences of Lawrence v. Texas.<br /><br />My personal belief is that people just aren't smart.geoffrobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14949411893531888555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59935658117534715282012-12-18T21:05:48.271-06:002012-12-18T21:05:48.271-06:00In most cases, the proper response to those who us...In most cases, the proper response to those who use the "offended" position to shut you down is that THEY have a problem of not being able to participate a discussion; it's their problem, not yours.Martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09200151743636191423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19718631532137503202012-12-18T20:03:32.301-06:002012-12-18T20:03:32.301-06:00JRPtwo said...
Let’s paraphrase Scalia’s argu...JRPtwo said...<br /><br /><i> Let’s paraphrase Scalia’s argument with the Princeton student:<br /><br /> Scalia: We can outlaw sodomy based on moral feelings.<br /><br /> Student: These moral feelings are offensive; and, they’re not a good enough reason.<br /><br /> Scalia: Sure, they are. We can outlaw murder based on moral feelings, right? Are you suggesting we can’t outlaw murder? This is a reduction to the absurd argument. I’m surprised you weren’t persuaded.<br /></i><br /><br />Scalia's argument here is not reduction to the absurd. There is nothing absurd about saying we base our law against murder on morality. Scalia's argument is more of a slippery-slope argument; if we can't outlaw sodomy based on morals, than we can't outlaw incest, bestiality, or murder for the same reason.<br /><br />I do think that Scalia really weakens his case when he includes murder. That can easily be outlawed based on harm-to-others. <br /><br />But what is the justification for outlawing incest between consenting adults? How about bestiality with a consenting animal? ( anyone who says an animal can't consent had never had a dog humping their leg. ) <br /><br /><br /><i>The flaws here in Scalia’s argument seem pretty obvious. What are these moral feelings? Is he saying we can ban these things “because we all know they are wrong”? Yes, we all know murder is wrong, but not sodomy. Is it “because murder and gay sex are icky? They both upset his stomach? Perhaps Scalia means some things are wrong and “I know it when I see it.”</i><br /><br />Scalia is not saying they should be illegal because he believes they are wrong. He is saying that state legislatures have the power to make things illegal based on morality. That's clearly been the case since our country was founded, was the understanding when the constitution was ratified, and is still true today. ( for example, there are places where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays. Prostitution is illegal in most states. etc. )<br /><br />You could argue that some other, unenumerated right prohibits the government from outlawing sodomy. But its silly to argue that, in general, morality is not a valid reason for a law.<br /><br /> <i>What about moral feelings against contraception? Premarital sex? What about lying—we all know that’s wrong, is that good enough to criminalize it?</i><br /><br />Yes, yes, and no ( 1st amendment )<br /><br /><i>Perhaps Scalia’s “moral feeling” is more like a conclusion than a reason. Society figured out long ago that murder is wrong; and, it was such an easy conclusion that we’ve forgotten all the reasons. Easy cases make bad law because the conclusion is so obvious, it’s easy to rely on the wrong reason. Scalia has picked the easiest case of all, murder. It shouldn’t be a surprise that he makes bad law.</i><br /><br />As I said, murder was a bad example. But it was not his only example. The rest of his argument still stands.<br /><br />Also note, he is not saying sodomy should be illegal, just that the constitution does not prohibit such a law. And since his argument is not based on his opinion of sodomy, any counter-argument should address his argument, not what you believe to be his personal opinion about sodomy.Ignorance is Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351664545145783244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18723558796168674532012-12-18T19:44:09.143-06:002012-12-18T19:44:09.143-06:00My favorite response to the "I'm outraged...My favorite response to the "I'm outraged!" tactic is to simply say "Yes, you're outraged. And therefore... what?"<br /><br />Force them to make their implications plain, for all to see. If you want to try to bully me with rhetoric, you're going to have to be brazen about it. I'm not going to help you through it by supplying my own inferences and then reacting to them on your behalf.VekTorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884547607158702582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62425950906842090582012-12-18T19:33:41.368-06:002012-12-18T19:33:41.368-06:00Another tactic is to complain that they don't ...Another tactic is to complain that they don't understand what you said; this is supposed to make you want to defend your own coherence. I've just learned to say "thank you for proving my point" and carry on...richard mcenroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659450906647134430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37903046964540424392012-12-18T19:25:20.506-06:002012-12-18T19:25:20.506-06:00@Vektor, Don't try teaching at Princeton -- if...@Vektor, Don't try teaching at Princeton -- if they kids had enough brains to be able to follow your logic their high school counselors would have routed them off to state schools.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4418858839065014492012-12-18T18:38:29.899-06:002012-12-18T18:38:29.899-06:00"AF said...
Professor Althouse, I notice..."AF said...<br /><br /> Professor Althouse, I notice you didn't quote my actual point, which was that the analogy is offensive because it assumes that guns are to killing people as gays are to raping boys."<br /><br />No, the analogy does "assume that". You simply chose to infer that it does. I'll try to provide a far more reasonable breakdown of the real analogy. Please try to follow it, in the hopes that you can abandon this continued misrepresentation of the point.<br /><br />There is a "gun community", made up of a wide variety of individuals with interests in guns. The massive majority of these individuals engage in activities with their guns in a fully legal and ethical manner, including target shooting.<br /><br />A tiny fraction of people use guns in truly horrific and immoral ways, as we've seen recently at Sandy Hook. A despicable individual used guns to commit an atrocity. He turned children into targets, transforming a legitimate act into a monstrosity.<br /><br />There is a "gay community" made up of a wide variety of individuals with interests in homosexual activity. The massive majority of these individuals engage in sexual activities in a fully legal and ethical manner, including males having consensual anal sex with other males.<br /><br />A tiny fraction of people use sexual activity in truly horrific and immoral ways, as we've seen recently at Penn State. A despicable individual used his sexual activity to commit an atrocity. He turned male children into unwilling recipients of anal sex from another male, transforming a legitimate/legal act into a monstrosity.<br /> <br />The Sandy Hook shooter using guns to commit his atrocity upon children does not imply that he is a representative member of the "gun community", and those who have an interest in legal uses of guns should not be held ethically responsible for his misbehavior.<br /><br />Jerry Sandusky using male-on-male anal sex to commit his atrocity upon children does not imply that he is a representative member of the "gay community", and those who have an interest in legal uses of male-on-male anal sex should not be held ethically responsible for his misbehavior.<br /><br />Employing the rhetorical device of asking "What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?" is fallacious, because it implies that the "gun community" bears some responsibility for the outrageous acts of an individual, because of some passing similarity (both sets include the repeated firing of guns by some members of the set).<br /><br />Employing the rhetorical device of asking "I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?” uses the same fallacious reasoning: it implies that the "gay community" bears some responsibility for the outrageous acts of an individual, because of some passing similarity (both sets involve male-on-male anal sex by some members of the set).<br /><br />Therefore, the second rhetorical device is analogous to the first. QED.VekTorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884547607158702582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41045501078806928382012-12-18T18:16:20.354-06:002012-12-18T18:16:20.354-06:00"Why are people having so much trouble unders...<i>"Why are people having so much trouble understanding rhetorical devices?"</i><br /><br />Because people are getting dumber, that's why.Methadrashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828014989470539375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71553076109733937172012-12-18T18:02:46.560-06:002012-12-18T18:02:46.560-06:00"But I am open to some added forms of gun con...<i>"But I am open to some added forms of gun control and it's a bit odd how some people think their right to have easy access to military style weapons is more important than the rights of the rest of society."</i><br /><br />Explain, if you can, 1) the functional difference of "military style weapons" from a semi-automatic hunting rifle that makes it, in reality, a more dangerous firearm than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and 2) how access to the "military style weapons" is more dangerous to "the rights of the rest of society."<br /><br />In full disclosure, you should know this is a test of knowledge and intelligence.<br /><br />Proceed.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08248882642756619950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7100101950402753932012-12-18T17:55:04.926-06:002012-12-18T17:55:04.926-06:00"More people are ignorant of logic and proper..."More people are ignorant of logic and proper argument . . . "<br /><br />Especially "liberals," modern American "liberalism" being a branch of the Cult of the State. Cults are impervious to logic.<br /><br /> Bilwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12264809254712506094noreply@blogger.com