Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out.
Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right?
Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Oh I missed this back whenever, glad for the necro in this case
You left out a crucial point in your weak use of the slippery slop accusation: context. Informally one may use a slippery slop if enoug context is evident in the discussion. Of course it is a fallacy, sctrictly speaking, but in context, and in politics, when such things as precedent hold sway, ir certainly works.
Implied in the discussion is "if things do not change," and the the slippery slope works. What has changed that prevents the slippery slope? People here in this very thread proved the point, they said, you already gave your freedom in X, why not Y?
Thus, the frog analogy works. No slippery slop fallacy is evident.
I will concede that it the government said everyone needs to have an implanted micro chip in their head (frog in boiling water) it would go over like a lead balloon (frog jumps out of water). Now government put micro chips in debit cards, "eh, not a big deal" (frog in water, turn on heat) ...(this is what is missing the precedent that brings us to)... micro chip in your head (water boiling, frog cooked) .
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
I have not read anyone in this thread, at least none stand out and if I am wrong - which I hate to admit but I am occasionally - then please educate me thats why I read and partciapte in these discussions in the first place, that have drawn the connection between X and Y. I've read a lot about peoples fear of government control and the like, but that does not support the use of a Slippery Slope argument; again I think there is a lacking precedent.
Therefore, the frog analogy could work, but not at this time.
Since at least world war two, the government has been increasing its power over our lives, and people have been largely asleep. As we ask for more and more "safety," we have lost more and more freedom. The water is almost boiling. All it will take is for the government to cash in on a few more crises, and we'll be boiling.
Now, no one was MAKING AN ARGUMENT. It was an illustration of what has been happening. Therefore, since no argument was being made, the slippery slope accusation is quite simply crap.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
argumentum ad logicam?
Oh! What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Go back and reread, no argument was being made. An analogy was being drawn. One can't call an analogy fallacious.
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
i think your just a little bit paranoid..its just school, not a nazi death camp
The reason they want fingerprints is so that, should your child commit a crime, they will have his or her prints on file.
This is also the real reason behind the fingerprint drives at police stations, the ones where they want you to get your kids printed in case they go missing. Its a load of BS, they just want their prints on file.
Oh and yes, my experience was the same with ID. Hell I had to go around the entire school between classes fairly often, didn't have my card half the time, and was never questioned. I think the other poster was right, its just a technical they can get you on, if they want to. And to get the prints.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
This is mostly true by the way. The government does lock accounts or investigates them during certain situations. Cars already have/will have programming in them that shuts down the car entirely if you miss a payment. Micro chips implanted in the skin of pets and human beings is currently being practiced in the states. Police investigators already use cellphones for the same purpose as a micro-chip, to determine where you are or were at any given point in time.
Putting a little radiated tattoo or chip in people is absolutely inevitable and may be generally welcomed as the chip-implant was for children.
I don't understand what other people don't understand. I see exactly what he is talking about.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
This is mostly true by the way. The government does lock accounts or investigates them during certain situations. Cars already have/will have programming in them that shuts down the car entirely if you miss a payment. Micro chips implanted in the skin of pets and human beings is currently being practiced in the states. Police investigators already use cellphones for the same purpose as a micro-chip, to determine where you are or were at any given point in time.
Putting a little radiated tattoo or chip in people is absolutely inevitable and may be generally welcomed as the chip-implant was for children.
I don't understand what other people don't understand. I see exactly what he is talking about.
hmmm...
Not sure who would "generally welcome" things with radiation in it.
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
This is a gaming forum, and everyone who knows my posting record knows I started posting on this site concerning Star Wars Galaxies. It is the signature and avatar that I use on the Official Forums. Again, anyone who knows anything about me as a poster knows this. Much better than a toilet.
However, Darth Vader IS a poster boy for REDEMPTION, which is what I am all about.
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
This is a gaming forum, and everyone who knows my posting record knows I started posting on this site concerning Star Wars Galaxies. It is the signature and avatar that I use on the Official Forums. Again, anyone who knows anything about me as a poster knows this. Much better than a toilet.
However, Darth Vader IS a poster boy for REDEMPTION, which is what I am all about.
What reference does a toilet have?
You use it as a source of intimidation, that's a common theme in your posts, psychologically bully anyone who disagrees with you. You easily questions someones morals when it doesn't even pertain to the conversation. You've posted many times to what equates to "your opinion differs from mine thus your are a tyrant and seek to destroy America".
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
This is a gaming forum, and everyone who knows my posting record knows I started posting on this site concerning Star Wars Galaxies. It is the signature and avatar that I use on the Official Forums. Again, anyone who knows anything about me as a poster knows this. Much better than a toilet.
However, Darth Vader IS a poster boy for REDEMPTION, which is what I am all about.
What reference does a toilet have?
You use it as a source of intimidation, that's a common theme in your posts, psychologically bully anyone who disagrees with you. You easily questions someones morals when it doesn't even pertain to the conversation. You've posted many times to what equates to "your opinion differs from mine thus your are a tyrant and seek to destroy America".
Please let's see where I have ever intimidated or bullied anyone. I try to never question the morals of a person, merely question the morality and ethics of policy. I never call anyone a tyrant: I say what they believe in amounts to tyranny -- that is a completely different thing.
What I am always trying to do is, with equal doses of reason and passion, show the final results of the bankrupt philosophies they hold to. I NEVER attack the PERSON, always the idea. That's not bullying; that is merely holding fast to one's view.
At any rate, let's see you back up that accusation; show some evidence where I am attacking the person and not their views or their actions.
While I'm at it, let's take a look at Darth Vader, since I do use him for my avatar, and in that the OP was quoting the Dark Lord of the Sith in his post, it's not really a hijack.
Vader shows exactly how I feel about people who do evil and those who stand up for tyranny -- a SYMPATHETIC character. A good man gone wrong. each of us has this in us, including me. WE have the best of INTENTIONS. but somehow we are seduced to take the EASY path of coercion. No one, other than a very rare individual (like the Emperor) is evil for evil's sake. Most arewell-meaning people who are willing to do evil for good's sake.
I am here always telling people, debating people, trying to show them that their MEANS will lead to an evil end.
Take socialized medicine. It would be great if everyone had "free" health care -- but those who would force some people to provide it for others are, in my opinion, going down a dark path where they are using force in OFFENSE, not DEFENSE.
This is what Vader does, for peace, for order, and, if you use the newer theme added in the prequels, to save his beloved wife. Of course, he ends up destroying all, most notably himself.
That is my POINT here whenever I come out against using government force.
However, in the end, thanks to the love of his son, and years of pondering the emperor, he turns, and throws the damn bastard down a big hole, thus liberating all. In so doing he sacrfices himself, which is what is sometimes required to save others from the great evil we have enabled, through our own actions or our inaction.
That speaks to my beliefs as well. ANYONE can repent and be redeemed. No matter what bad ideas we have held to, no matter what evil acts we have committed, anyone at any time can turn and be saved; and in saving one's self, one, in one's own little way, adds to the glory of salvation.
Now for the quote: "I find your lack of faith disturbing..." This is when we see a perfect example of TOXIC religion. using one's faith to FORCE and harm others. To me, that's evil as well, and with my fellow believers, my goal is often to turn THEM from would-be tyrants into liberators, which I feel is the purpose God has set out for us.
This is why i think Vader is a great choice for everything i do on these forums. Much better than a toilet, certainly.
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
Thank you! Now this is a well reasoned presentation on this debate that is concise and fundemental in connecting the x to y. Of course it doesn't mean your right
Oh, by the by I only used the debit card in my post because this is what was stated in the post I quoted, RFID chip was not mentioned.
Since at least world war two, the government has been increasing its power over our lives, and people have been largely asleep. As we ask for more and more "safety," we have lost more and more freedom. The water is almost boiling. All it will take is for the government to cash in on a few more crises, and we'll be boiling. Now, no one was MAKING AN ARGUMENT. It was an illustration of what has been happening. Therefore, since no argument was being made, the slippery slope accusation is quite simply crap.
Bravo! Now this is a step in the right direction and something you can sink your teeth into.
Argument - debate - guess I missed that memo; I thought discussions on these forums often were debates on issues. I find your continued "hair splitting" and focus on arguing semantics just one more "red herring". LOL!! I am totally kidding about the last part But seriously, and I'm sure I am guilty of this to at times, you seem to quickly use semantics as part of your point when most of the time it boils down to an indvidual POV - I see many of these discussions as debates, discussions, arguments, etc. If you do not than thats fine with me.
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Go back and reread, no argument was being made. An analogy was being drawn. One can't call an analogy fallacious. But it can be used to draw a conclusion??
Fish the first problem with my post, as I see it, was that I did not expound on why I was calling out the gentleman's post in question as being a slippery slope argument that did not carry the needed support to make its use valid and not fallacious. I thought I had clarified this already, but clearly I have not... In one of my later responses I stated that it is not the frog analogy on its own that I was challenging, but the later part if his post as being fallacious as it he had not supported the connection that was in question. It is my personal opinion that the analogy itself did not carry the weight of his statement.
FYI in any good debate when one calls out another for using a logical fallacy it it the burden of the one presenting the point in question to support their use of the logic(hence prove that their logic is sound or point is plausible) and not that of the one that challenges to prove its fallacious nature.
You use it as a source of intimidation, that's a common theme in your posts, psychologically bully anyone who disagrees with you. You easily questions someones morals when it doesn't even pertain to the conversation. You've posted many times to what equates to "your opinion differs from mine thus your are a tyrant and seek to destroy America".
Please let's see where I have ever intimidated or bullied anyone. I try to never question the morals of a person, merely question the morality and ethics of policy. I never call anyone a tyrant: I say what they believe in amounts to tyranny -- that is a completely different thing.
What I am always trying to do is, with equal doses of reason and passion, show the final results of the bankrupt philosophies they hold to. I NEVER attack the PERSON, always the idea. That's not bullying; that is merely holding fast to one's view.
At any rate, let's see you back up that accusation; show some evidence where I am attacking the person and not their views or their actions.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
.....
Much better than a toilet.
.....
I rather like my toilet. Sadly I chose the toilet as an avatar as it was of the few images I had on my laptop when I created my account - was a gif image I had when picking toilets for the house I was building. It has no deeper meaning then I found it funny and I did not want to be a shower stall or faucet.
An opinioned liberal communist troll maybe, but a fascist troll; that is highly unlikely.
Since at least world war two, the government has been increasing its power over our lives, and people have been largely asleep. As we ask for more and more "safety," we have lost more and more freedom. The water is almost boiling. All it will take is for the government to cash in on a few more crises, and we'll be boiling. Now, no one was MAKING AN ARGUMENT. It was an illustration of what has been happening. Therefore, since no argument was being made, the slippery slope accusation is quite simply crap.
Bravo! Now this is a step in the right direction and something you can sink your teeth into.
Argument - debate - guess I missed that memo; I thought discussions on these forums often were debates on issues. I find your continued "hair splitting" and focus on arguing semantics just one more "red herring". LOL!! I am totally kidding about the last part But seriously, and I'm sure I am guilty of this to at times, you seem to quickly use semantics as part of your point when most of the time it boils down to an indvidual POV - I see many of these discussions as debates, discussions, arguments, etc. If you do not than thats fine with me.
Okay, I can see how people can think that my view of the importance of semantics tedious, but what i am usually doing there is making the philosopher define his terms. i want to know exactly hat you mean when you say what you do, and sometimes, that might take a post or two.
At the same time, I define how I am using my terms for others as a matter of course; as philosophers this is what we are supposed to do -- at least that is as I was taught by my main professor David H. DeGrood, a long long time ago. I was taught that dictionaries are the START of one's definiton, but when using a word within a philosophical framework, one must go a bit further, thus we do not fall into equivocation.
Everything I express is my point of view, but I hold to a point of view I have thought fairly deeply about (otherwise I hold it as an "x"), and I think i am right about the things I hold to. I feel others may be right as well, I may hold,to an incomplete truth, and what they know may add to my knowledege (in fact I long to have someone add to my knowledge, such it the trade of ideas.).
Debate is fine, however, I contnually detect sarcasm and other points where it seems you are not really saying what you really feel and are on;y saying things to cause further argument. I call that a form of trolling. Now, if you state that you are doing this, in the context, then playing the devil's advocate is fine, or creating a hypothetical, but to PRETEND you believe something you do not just to start a debate or something, nah, I find that intellectually dishonest and trolling.
if you er not doing that, I apologize. I did however get that feeling from your posts.
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Go back and reread, no argument was being made. An analogy was being drawn. One can't call an analogy fallacious. But it can be used to draw a conclusion??
Fish the first problem with my post, as I see it, was that I did not expound on why I was calling out the gentleman's post in question as being a slippery slope argument that did not carry the needed support to make its use valid and not fallacious. I thought I had clarified this already, but clearly I have not... In one of my later responses I stated that it is not the frog analogy on its own that I was challenging, but the later part if his post as being fallacious as it he had not supported the connection that was in question. It is my personal opinion that the analogy itself did not carry the weight of his statement.
FYI in any good debate when one calls out another for using a logical fallacy it it the burden of the one presenting the point in question to support their use of the logic(hence prove that their logic is sound or point is plausible) and not that of the one that challenges to prove its fallacious nature.
Okay I can completely agree with you here; first -- it can't be used to draw a conclusion, but it can be used to illustrate a pattern which IS something i think we can see.
Oh and I totally agree when one calls out a fallacy, it is up to the other person to make his case. I do it all the time, and it pisses a whole lot of people off.
Either way we agree, slippery slope is a fallacy -- but as many fallacies, in informal logic it is useful to illustrate a point.
Thanks anyway, THIS is what I enjoy. Real debate and discussion, not mutual antagonism.
You use it as a source of intimidation, that's a common theme in your posts, psychologically bully anyone who disagrees with you. You easily questions someones morals when it doesn't even pertain to the conversation. You've posted many times to what equates to "your opinion differs from mine thus your are a tyrant and seek to destroy America".
Please let's see where I have ever intimidated or bullied anyone. I try to never question the morals of a person, merely question the morality and ethics of policy. I never call anyone a tyrant: I say what they believe in amounts to tyranny -- that is a completely different thing.
What I am always trying to do is, with equal doses of reason and passion, show the final results of the bankrupt philosophies they hold to. I NEVER attack the PERSON, always the idea. That's not bullying; that is merely holding fast to one's view.
At any rate, let's see you back up that accusation; show some evidence where I am attacking the person and not their views or their actions.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
.....
Much better than a toilet.
.....
I rather like my toilet. Sadly I chose the toilet as an avatar as it was of the few images I had on my laptop when I created my account - was a gif image I had when picking toilets for the house I was building. It has no deeper meaning then I found it funny and I did not want to be a shower stall or faucet.
An opinioned liberal communist troll maybe, but a fascist troll; that is highly unlikely.
What reference does a toilet have?
Note very carefully how I am attacking your behavior, NOT YOU. This is what I always try to do, and sadly, it pisses a lot of people off.
Well, modern liberalism is usually expressed as fascism, at least in economics. Fascism, as I am using it, is when TITLE (ownership) is held in private hands, but that property controlled by the state.
VERY FEW modern liberals are communists; most are fascists.
However I didn't call you either; what I said was I felt you were defending fascism. I didn't use your action to define you, merely criticized your action.
To me, the reference of a toilet was that you were telling us you are full of shit. I see am wrong, and thankfully so.
Comments
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Oh I missed this back whenever, glad for the necro in this case
You left out a crucial point in your weak use of the slippery slop accusation: context. Informally one may use a slippery slop if enoug context is evident in the discussion. Of course it is a fallacy, sctrictly speaking, but in context, and in politics, when such things as precedent hold sway, ir certainly works.
Implied in the discussion is "if things do not change," and the the slippery slope works. What has changed that prevents the slippery slope? People here in this very thread proved the point, they said, you already gave your freedom in X, why not Y?
Thus, the frog analogy works. No slippery slop fallacy is evident.
I will concede that it the government said everyone needs to have an implanted micro chip in their head (frog in boiling water) it would go over like a lead balloon (frog jumps out of water). Now government put micro chips in debit cards, "eh, not a big deal" (frog in water, turn on heat) ...(this is what is missing the precedent that brings us to)... micro chip in your head (water boiling, frog cooked) .
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
I have not read anyone in this thread, at least none stand out and if I am wrong - which I hate to admit but I am occasionally - then please educate me thats why I read and partciapte in these discussions in the first place, that have drawn the connection between X and Y. I've read a lot about peoples fear of government control and the like, but that does not support the use of a Slippery Slope argument; again I think there is a lacking precedent.
Therefore, the frog analogy could work, but not at this time.
Since at least world war two, the government has been increasing its power over our lives, and people have been largely asleep. As we ask for more and more "safety," we have lost more and more freedom. The water is almost boiling. All it will take is for the government to cash in on a few more crises, and we'll be boiling.
Now, no one was MAKING AN ARGUMENT. It was an illustration of what has been happening. Therefore, since no argument was being made, the slippery slope accusation is quite simply crap.
fishermage.blogspot.com
argumentum ad logicam?
Oh! What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Go back and reread, no argument was being made. An analogy was being drawn. One can't call an analogy fallacious.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
The reason they want fingerprints is so that, should your child commit a crime, they will have his or her prints on file.
This is also the real reason behind the fingerprint drives at police stations, the ones where they want you to get your kids printed in case they go missing. Its a load of BS, they just want their prints on file.
Oh and yes, my experience was the same with ID. Hell I had to go around the entire school between classes fairly often, didn't have my card half the time, and was never questioned. I think the other poster was right, its just a technical they can get you on, if they want to. And to get the prints.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
This is mostly true by the way. The government does lock accounts or investigates them during certain situations. Cars already have/will have programming in them that shuts down the car entirely if you miss a payment. Micro chips implanted in the skin of pets and human beings is currently being practiced in the states. Police investigators already use cellphones for the same purpose as a micro-chip, to determine where you are or were at any given point in time.
Putting a little radiated tattoo or chip in people is absolutely inevitable and may be generally welcomed as the chip-implant was for children.
I don't understand what other people don't understand. I see exactly what he is talking about.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Not sure who would "generally welcome" things with radiation in it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
This is a gaming forum, and everyone who knows my posting record knows I started posting on this site concerning Star Wars Galaxies. It is the signature and avatar that I use on the Official Forums. Again, anyone who knows anything about me as a poster knows this. Much better than a toilet.
However, Darth Vader IS a poster boy for REDEMPTION, which is what I am all about.
What reference does a toilet have?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
This is a gaming forum, and everyone who knows my posting record knows I started posting on this site concerning Star Wars Galaxies. It is the signature and avatar that I use on the Official Forums. Again, anyone who knows anything about me as a poster knows this. Much better than a toilet.
However, Darth Vader IS a poster boy for REDEMPTION, which is what I am all about.
What reference does a toilet have?
You use it as a source of intimidation, that's a common theme in your posts, psychologically bully anyone who disagrees with you. You easily questions someones morals when it doesn't even pertain to the conversation. You've posted many times to what equates to "your opinion differs from mine thus your are a tyrant and seek to destroy America".
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
Ya know, Darth Vader isn't exactly the poster boy for freedom and democracy so I wouldn't throw any stones about anyone's avatar if I were you.
This is a gaming forum, and everyone who knows my posting record knows I started posting on this site concerning Star Wars Galaxies. It is the signature and avatar that I use on the Official Forums. Again, anyone who knows anything about me as a poster knows this. Much better than a toilet.
However, Darth Vader IS a poster boy for REDEMPTION, which is what I am all about.
What reference does a toilet have?
You use it as a source of intimidation, that's a common theme in your posts, psychologically bully anyone who disagrees with you. You easily questions someones morals when it doesn't even pertain to the conversation. You've posted many times to what equates to "your opinion differs from mine thus your are a tyrant and seek to destroy America".
Please let's see where I have ever intimidated or bullied anyone. I try to never question the morals of a person, merely question the morality and ethics of policy. I never call anyone a tyrant: I say what they believe in amounts to tyranny -- that is a completely different thing.
What I am always trying to do is, with equal doses of reason and passion, show the final results of the bankrupt philosophies they hold to. I NEVER attack the PERSON, always the idea. That's not bullying; that is merely holding fast to one's view.
At any rate, let's see you back up that accusation; show some evidence where I am attacking the person and not their views or their actions.
fishermage.blogspot.com
While I'm at it, let's take a look at Darth Vader, since I do use him for my avatar, and in that the OP was quoting the Dark Lord of the Sith in his post, it's not really a hijack.
Vader shows exactly how I feel about people who do evil and those who stand up for tyranny -- a SYMPATHETIC character. A good man gone wrong. each of us has this in us, including me. WE have the best of INTENTIONS. but somehow we are seduced to take the EASY path of coercion. No one, other than a very rare individual (like the Emperor) is evil for evil's sake. Most arewell-meaning people who are willing to do evil for good's sake.
I am here always telling people, debating people, trying to show them that their MEANS will lead to an evil end.
Take socialized medicine. It would be great if everyone had "free" health care -- but those who would force some people to provide it for others are, in my opinion, going down a dark path where they are using force in OFFENSE, not DEFENSE.
This is what Vader does, for peace, for order, and, if you use the newer theme added in the prequels, to save his beloved wife. Of course, he ends up destroying all, most notably himself.
That is my POINT here whenever I come out against using government force.
However, in the end, thanks to the love of his son, and years of pondering the emperor, he turns, and throws the damn bastard down a big hole, thus liberating all. In so doing he sacrfices himself, which is what is sometimes required to save others from the great evil we have enabled, through our own actions or our inaction.
That speaks to my beliefs as well. ANYONE can repent and be redeemed. No matter what bad ideas we have held to, no matter what evil acts we have committed, anyone at any time can turn and be saved; and in saving one's self, one, in one's own little way, adds to the glory of salvation.
Now for the quote: "I find your lack of faith disturbing..." This is when we see a perfect example of TOXIC religion. using one's faith to FORCE and harm others. To me, that's evil as well, and with my fellow believers, my goal is often to turn THEM from would-be tyrants into liberators, which I feel is the purpose God has set out for us.
This is why i think Vader is a great choice for everything i do on these forums. Much better than a toilet, certainly.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
The RFID chip isn't for a credit card. It's for a national I.D. card that you are to have on you at all times. With enough scanners around, you could be tracked pretty much anywhere you go. Get rid of cash and use it as a debit card, and every single transaction you make can be tracked, too. And then maybe government accuses you of something, you disagree, and while you are disagreeing your money account gets locked. Fun times.
And then they hook up one extra wire to your car's diagnostic system, and now your car can be checked for speeding (ticket), emissions problems (ticket), or maybe, say, brought to a stop by lowering your rev limit.
At the end of the day, the point is for government and institutions to have more control over you and your life.
Thank you! Now this is a well reasoned presentation on this debate that is concise and fundemental in connecting the x to y. Of course it doesn't mean your right
Oh, by the by I only used the debit card in my post because this is what was stated in the post I quoted, RFID chip was not mentioned.
Bravo! Now this is a step in the right direction and something you can sink your teeth into.
Argument - debate - guess I missed that memo; I thought discussions on these forums often were debates on issues. I find your continued "hair splitting" and focus on arguing semantics just one more "red herring". LOL!! I am totally kidding about the last part
But seriously, and I'm sure I am guilty of this to at times, you seem to quickly use semantics as part of your point when most of the time it boils down to an indvidual POV - I see many of these discussions as debates, discussions, arguments, etc. If you do not than thats fine with me.
i dont see the problem with an ID cards but fingure print scanners is kinda dodgy
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Go back and reread, no argument was being made. An analogy was being drawn. One can't call an analogy fallacious. But it can be used to draw a conclusion??
Fish the first problem with my post, as I see it, was that I did not expound on why I was calling out the gentleman's post in question as being a slippery slope argument that did not carry the needed support to make its use valid and not fallacious. I thought I had clarified this already, but clearly I have not... In one of my later responses I stated that it is not the frog analogy on its own that I was challenging, but the later part if his post as being fallacious as it he had not supported the connection that was in question. It is my personal opinion that the analogy itself did not carry the weight of his statement.
FYI in any good debate when one calls out another for using a logical fallacy it it the burden of the one presenting the point in question to support their use of the logic(hence prove that their logic is sound or point is plausible) and not that of the one that challenges to prove its fallacious nature.
Removed and added to post below.
Please let's see where I have ever intimidated or bullied anyone. I try to never question the morals of a person, merely question the morality and ethics of policy. I never call anyone a tyrant: I say what they believe in amounts to tyranny -- that is a completely different thing.
What I am always trying to do is, with equal doses of reason and passion, show the final results of the bankrupt philosophies they hold to. I NEVER attack the PERSON, always the idea. That's not bullying; that is merely holding fast to one's view.
At any rate, let's see you back up that accusation; show some evidence where I am attacking the person and not their views or their actions.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
.....
Much better than a toilet.
.....
I rather like my toilet. Sadly I chose the toilet as an avatar as it was of the few images I had on my laptop when I created my account - was a gif image I had when picking toilets for the house I was building. It has no deeper meaning then I found it funny and I did not want to be a shower stall or faucet.
An opinioned liberal communist troll maybe, but a fascist troll; that is highly unlikely.
What reference does a toilet have?
Bravo! Now this is a step in the right direction and something you can sink your teeth into.
Argument - debate - guess I missed that memo; I thought discussions on these forums often were debates on issues. I find your continued "hair splitting" and focus on arguing semantics just one more "red herring". LOL!! I am totally kidding about the last part
But seriously, and I'm sure I am guilty of this to at times, you seem to quickly use semantics as part of your point when most of the time it boils down to an indvidual POV - I see many of these discussions as debates, discussions, arguments, etc. If you do not than thats fine with me.
Okay, I can see how people can think that my view of the importance of semantics tedious, but what i am usually doing there is making the philosopher define his terms. i want to know exactly hat you mean when you say what you do, and sometimes, that might take a post or two.
At the same time, I define how I am using my terms for others as a matter of course; as philosophers this is what we are supposed to do -- at least that is as I was taught by my main professor David H. DeGrood, a long long time ago. I was taught that dictionaries are the START of one's definiton, but when using a word within a philosophical framework, one must go a bit further, thus we do not fall into equivocation.
Everything I express is my point of view, but I hold to a point of view I have thought fairly deeply about (otherwise I hold it as an "x"), and I think i am right about the things I hold to. I feel others may be right as well, I may hold,to an incomplete truth, and what they know may add to my knowledege (in fact I long to have someone add to my knowledge, such it the trade of ideas.).
Debate is fine, however, I contnually detect sarcasm and other points where it seems you are not really saying what you really feel and are on;y saying things to cause further argument. I call that a form of trolling. Now, if you state that you are doing this, in the context, then playing the devil's advocate is fine, or creating a hypothetical, but to PRETEND you believe something you do not just to start a debate or something, nah, I find that intellectually dishonest and trolling.
if you er not doing that, I apologize. I did however get that feeling from your posts.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Go back and reread, no argument was being made. An analogy was being drawn. One can't call an analogy fallacious. But it can be used to draw a conclusion??
Fish the first problem with my post, as I see it, was that I did not expound on why I was calling out the gentleman's post in question as being a slippery slope argument that did not carry the needed support to make its use valid and not fallacious. I thought I had clarified this already, but clearly I have not... In one of my later responses I stated that it is not the frog analogy on its own that I was challenging, but the later part if his post as being fallacious as it he had not supported the connection that was in question. It is my personal opinion that the analogy itself did not carry the weight of his statement.
FYI in any good debate when one calls out another for using a logical fallacy it it the burden of the one presenting the point in question to support their use of the logic(hence prove that their logic is sound or point is plausible) and not that of the one that challenges to prove its fallacious nature.
Okay I can completely agree with you here; first -- it can't be used to draw a conclusion, but it can be used to illustrate a pattern which IS something i think we can see.
Oh and I totally agree when one calls out a fallacy, it is up to the other person to make his case. I do it all the time, and it pisses a whole lot of people off.
Either way we agree, slippery slope is a fallacy -- but as many fallacies, in informal logic it is useful to illustrate a point.
Thanks anyway, THIS is what I enjoy. Real debate and discussion, not mutual antagonism.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please let's see where I have ever intimidated or bullied anyone. I try to never question the morals of a person, merely question the morality and ethics of policy. I never call anyone a tyrant: I say what they believe in amounts to tyranny -- that is a completely different thing.
What I am always trying to do is, with equal doses of reason and passion, show the final results of the bankrupt philosophies they hold to. I NEVER attack the PERSON, always the idea. That's not bullying; that is merely holding fast to one's view.
At any rate, let's see you back up that accusation; show some evidence where I am attacking the person and not their views or their actions.
After reading his posts, I'm beginning to think he is just taking the fascist side of things to troll.
EDIT: His choice of avatar tells the story.
.....
Much better than a toilet.
.....
I rather like my toilet. Sadly I chose the toilet as an avatar as it was of the few images I had on my laptop when I created my account - was a gif image I had when picking toilets for the house I was building. It has no deeper meaning then I found it funny and I did not want to be a shower stall or faucet.
An opinioned liberal communist troll maybe, but a fascist troll; that is highly unlikely.
What reference does a toilet have?
Note very carefully how I am attacking your behavior, NOT YOU. This is what I always try to do, and sadly, it pisses a lot of people off.
Well, modern liberalism is usually expressed as fascism, at least in economics. Fascism, as I am using it, is when TITLE (ownership) is held in private hands, but that property controlled by the state.
VERY FEW modern liberals are communists; most are fascists.
However I didn't call you either; what I said was I felt you were defending fascism. I didn't use your action to define you, merely criticized your action.
To me, the reference of a toilet was that you were telling us you are full of shit. I see am wrong, and thankfully so.
fishermage.blogspot.com