On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

[Brian Smith 0]

The subject here is the moral status and practices of public schools, not what is wrong with other posters. As moderator, I will delete any further posts not focusing on public schools as off-topic.

I am confused. Who has attacked a poster here or gone off topic? Since this warning follows my post, is the claim here that pointing out the lack of support for assertions a poster makes about the morality of public schools is somehow off limits on The Forum?

[Brian Smith 0]

The subject here is what is true or false about capital punishment, not what is wrong with other posters. As moderator, I will delete any further posts not focusing on capital punishment as off-topic.

I am confused here. Is the claim that some attack has been made on a poster? Or is The Forum now enforcing a strict no-tangent policy (ie questions about the nature of guilt/innocence, which would have a bearing on capital punishment but are not explicitly about capital punishment)?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The subject here is the moral status and practices of public schools, not what is wrong with other posters. As moderator, I will delete any further posts not focusing on public schools as off-topic.

I am confused. Who has attacked a poster here or gone off topic? Since this warning follows my post, is the claim here that pointing out the lack of support for assertions a poster makes about the morality of public schools is somehow off limits on The Forum?

Off topic: "You did not support your assertion" -- the subject is the poster and what he did or did not do.

On topic: "Why did you say ____ about public schools?" -- the subject is public schools.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The subject here is what is true or false about capital punishment, not what is wrong with other posters. As moderator, I will delete any further posts not focusing on capital punishment as off-topic.

I am confused here. Is the claim that some attack has been made on a poster?

Yes, sir!

Off topic:

If you had indeed meant to ask about the DC sniper case specifically, you should simply have asked: "What if the DC Sniper was innocent and lied about his confession?

In your statement, you explicitly indicate you supposedly already know he did not commit the crime. So the evidence which pointed to him is no longer relevant - and therefore bringing it up is, at best, meaningless.

Thus EITHER your statement switches context - or it is completely meaningless. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and concluded a context switch. But either way, the statement is invalid.

-- the subject is the poster and what he did or did not do or should or should not have done.

On topic: "What should happen when a confesser is lying and you know it? When you don't know it?"-- the subject is an issue related to capital punishment.

[Brian Smith 0]

The subject here is the moral status and practices of public schools, not what is wrong with other posters. As moderator, I will delete any further posts not focusing on public schools as off-topic.

I am confused. Who has attacked a poster here or gone off topic? Since this warning follows my post, is the claim here that pointing out the lack of support for assertions a poster makes about the morality of public schools is somehow off limits on The Forum?

Off topic: "You did not support your assertion" -- the subject is the poster and what he did or did not do.

On topic: "Why did you say ____ about public schools?" -- the subject is public schools.

An English scholar on The Forum may correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand the "on topic" example, the subject is still the poster - ie "you". A gross breakdown of the sentence would look something like this:

subject: you

predicate: say "x" about public schools

A more detailed breakdown would looks something like this:

subject: you

verb: say

direct object: "x"

prepositional phrase: about public schools

(This might be not be perfect since it has been some time since I have had to diagram a sentence, but it should be accurate enough for our purposes here)

As such, the subject is not what actually distinguishes that which you claim qualifies a sentence to be "on" topic and "off" topic. Given that even the moderator is having difficulty making this distinction, I question the standards of this requirement for posting.

Now, since this post is definitely "off topic" - ie relates to rules of The Forum and not 'public schooling' in any way, shape or form - I would suggest a separate topic be opened in whatever is an appropriate category for further discussion.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

On topic: "Why did you say ____ about public schools?" -- the subject is public schools.

An English scholar on The Forum may correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand the "on topic" example, the subject is still the poster - ie "you".

The actual meaning of "why" is "what are the reasons or causes for" something. Thus, when someone asks "Why did you say ____ ...," he's really asking "What are the reasons you said ____ ...."

Fellow Forum members often say strange, puzzling, or absolutely false things. Asking for an explanation the way I suggest keeps the focus on the reasons and not the poster.

[Brian Smith 0]

The subject here is what is true or false about capital punishment, not what is wrong with other posters. As moderator, I will delete any further posts not focusing on capital punishment as off-topic.

I am confused here. Is the claim that some attack has been made on a poster?

Yes, sir!

Disagreement with a poster is now an attack upon a poster? I must object to such a claim.

Off topic:

If you had indeed meant to ask about the DC sniper case specifically, you should simply have asked: "What if the DC Sniper was innocent and lied about his confession?

The poster asked a question which contradicted itself and was thus invalid. Is it now a Forum rule that we should ignore such questions? Is it now a Forum rule that we may not identify what is wrong with such questions? Is it a Forum rule that we may not identify a non-contradictory way to ask the intended on-topic question? Or are we supposed to open a new thread each time we identify such errors?

In your statement, you explicitly indicate you supposedly already know he did not commit the crime. So the evidence which pointed to him is no longer relevant - and therefore bringing it up is, at best, meaningless.

Thus EITHER your statement switches context - or it is completely meaningless. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and concluded a context switch. But either way, the statement is invalid.

-- the subject is the poster and what he did or did not do or should or should not have done.

On topic: "What should happen when a confesser is lying and you know it? When you don't know it?"-- the subject is an issue related to capital punishment.

So the Forum rule is now - don't identify an error in an argument - because that is somehow off topic?

[Brian Smith 0]

The actual meaning of "why" is "what are the reasons or causes for" something. Thus, when someone asks "Why did you say ____ ...," he's really asking "What are the reasons you said ____ ...."

Your above expansion of the sentence still leaves "you" as the subject and "say" as the verb. In other words, this doesn't change the point I made. The subject is neither "public school" nor "reasons" and thus the subject is not what distinguishes what you have identified as 'on topic' from 'off topic'.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The poster asked a question which contradicted itself and was thus invalid.

I know you see an invalid contradiction in the question but, based on the evidence I see and, especially, the posters who claim you are misreading them, this may be your error.

It is much better to state what ideas seem to be in conflict and politely ask for clarification. If the poster is wrong, it gives him an opportunity to correct himself. If you have misinterpreted what was written or it was written ambiguously, your misunderstanding or confusion can be cleared up.

Is it now a Forum rule that we should ignore such questions? Is it now a Forum rule that we may not identify what is wrong with such questions? Is it a Forum rule that we may not identify a non-contradictory way to ask the intended on-topic question? Or are we supposed to open a new thread each time we identify such errors?

Perhaps the best alternative, as I have suggested, is to politely request a clarification. If the poster says something dead wrong, present the facts that prove he's wrong. That's on-topic. Making an issue of the fact that he said it or getting into the personal reasons that caused his error is off-topic for almost all threads (except maybe ones like this thread).

So the Forum rule is now - don't identify an error in an argument - because that is somehow off topic?

Identifying factual errors is fine. Identifying logical errors is problematic. What seems to be a logical error may simply be an error of knowledge or an honest oversight. It's usually hard to tell. But even if you could know, making an issue of a poster's logical errors makes the issue about the poster and not the factual matters under discussion.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The poster asked a question which contradicted itself and was thus invalid.

I know you see an invalid contradiction in the question but, based on the evidence I see and, especially, the posters who claim you are misreading them, this may be your error.

It is much better to state what ideas seem to be in conflict and politely ask for clarification. If the poster is wrong, it gives him an opportunity to correct himself. If you have misinterpreted what was written or it was written ambiguously, your misunderstanding or confusion can be cleared up.

Is it now a Forum rule that we should ignore such questions? Is it now a Forum rule that we may not identify what is wrong with such questions? Is it a Forum rule that we may not identify a non-contradictory way to ask the intended on-topic question? Or are we supposed to open a new thread each time we identify such errors?

Perhaps the best alternative, as I have suggested, is to politely request a clarification. If the poster says something dead wrong, present the facts that prove he's wrong. That's on-topic. Making an issue of the fact that he said it or getting into the personal reasons that caused his error is off-topic for almost all threads (except maybe ones like this thread).

So the Forum rule is now - don't identify an error in an argument - because that is somehow off topic?

Identifying factual errors is fine. Identifying logical errors is problematic. What seems to be a logical error may simply be an error of knowledge or an honest oversight. It's usually hard to tell. But even if you could know, making an issue of a poster's logical errors makes the issue about the poster and not the factual matters under discussion.

[Brian Smith 0]

I know you see an invalid contradiction in the question but, based on the evidence I see and, especially, the posters who claim you are misreading them, this may be your error.

The statement is a contradiction. And I identified in what way. Now, one is free to disagree and provide support for that disagreement if one can. But to to prohibit one from making the claim because one 'might' be wrong is EXACTLY the error I pointed out in that thread.

It is much better to state what ideas seem to be in conflict and politely ask for clarification.

Since I was the one accused of making assumptions, I think you should aim this suggestion in another direction. I simply pointed out that I did not make an assumption in my assertion and explained why. That such explanations are somehow considered improper here is very troubling.

If the poster says something dead wrong, present the facts that prove he's wrong. That's on-topic.

I did that.

Making an issue of the fact that he said it...

Speaking directly to the person is not "making an issue" of anything about them. It is called conversation.

...getting into the personal reasons that caused his error is off-topic for almost all threads (except maybe ones like this thread).

Please identify where "personal" anything has been delved into here.

When one states: Your argument is in error, here is why - one is not being personal. The same is true when one says: You are in error, here is why. There is NO difference. In both the subject is the "argument" (to claim otherwise is to drop the context in which the statement is made - ie to commit a logical fallacy). As such, neither is "personal" and it is a very big error to claim otherwise, especially when one prohibits posts based on it.

So the Forum rule is now - don't identify an error in an argument - because that is somehow off topic?

Identifying factual errors is fine. Identifying logical errors is problematic.

One is no more difficult than the other.

What seems to be a logical error may simply be an error of knowledge or an honest oversight.

The REASON for the error in logic does not change the FACT of the error. As such, it is perfectly valid to identify the error, regardless of its reason. (Of course the violation of logic could be purposeful and not an error at all. However I presume innocence unless proven guilty, and thus stick to the term 'error' in most cases.)

It's usually hard to tell.

One does not need to "tell" the reason for the error at all (though if one can, it certainly could be helpful). One simply has to identify the fact of the particular type of contradiction in the statement.

But even if you could know, making an issue of a poster's logical errors makes the issue about the poster and not the factual matters under discussion.

That is simply not true. Pointing out that Bob has committed a logical fallacy in his argument neither makes an issue of the fact that HE did it, nor makes the issue about HIM. Attribution does not make the person the subject of a statement.

As I state above, if one says: Bob's statement is wrong, the subject is of that sentence is the argument. And if one says Bob is wrong, the subject is STILL the argument, because one is contextually referencing something he has said (ie his STATEMENT). That is the "meaning" of that statement. So the continuing assertion that speaking about an error in a person's statement is somehow inappropriately "personal" is simply false.

In other words, the subject in my posts is ALWAYS about what has been said. It is always about the ARGUMENT - NOT about the person. I both dispute and resent the claim to the contrary.

[Arnold 0]

In my opinion this question comes down to the method of making one's points. It is one thing to have a discussion, and another to consider the other in an adversarial way. Aggressive argumentation does become personal, not directly in what one says, but in the manner of saying it.

Now it is difficult to prove logically that one is guilty the above, and almost impossible for the one doing it to accept. Perhaps the only fact that may help, is to ask others what their impression is, and take it from there.

[Brian Smith 0]

Now it is difficult to prove logically that one is guilty the above, and almost impossible for the one doing it to accept.

There is no rational way to respond to such assertions.

[Arnold 0]

Now it is difficult to prove logically that one is guilty the above, and almost impossible for the one doing it to accept.

There is no rational way to respond to such assertions.

Yes there is; just ask those whom you have discussions with, if they find you belligerent? For what it's worth I myself have often been taken to task for my manner of argument. I accepted what they felt, as a fact I needed to consider.

[Brian Smith 0]

Now it is difficult to prove logically that one is guilty the above, and almost impossible for the one doing it to accept.

There is no rational way to respond to such assertions.

Yes there is

You misunderstand. I am not saying the suggestions you make cannot be performed. I am saying the assertions you made are like the old chestnut: "Are you still beating your wife." There is no rational way to respond to that assertion, any more than there is to respond to assertions which claim X really can't be proved and besides you won't believe it anyway. Any attempt to dispute such assertions simply seems to confirm the accusation. So one simply has to identify that fact and then walk away from the assertions.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I know you see an invalid contradiction in the question but, based on the evidence I see and, especially, the posters who claim you are misreading them, this may be your error.

The statement is a contradiction. And I identified in what way.

Yes you did. The problem was the posters believe, and so do I, that you misidentified their premises and there was, in fact, no contradiction.

As a general practice, give a poster the benefit of the doubt and what he writes the most charitable reading. If you still see a contradiction, it's a good idea to check your premises. Ask the poster, "Did you really mean ....?" If he did, and the premise is factually wrong, you can present the facts that prove it is wrong. If he didn't mean what you thought he did, there's no contradiction after all.

Making an issue of the fact that he said it...

Speaking directly to the person is not "making an issue" of anything about them. It is called conversation.

Which fine, one-on-one. Public postings and discussions to a wider audience are a different context. The other people are reading the thread because they are interested in the topic.

When one states: Your argument is in error, here is why - one is not being personal. The same is true when one says: You are in error, here is why. There is NO difference.

Not true. Saying "You are in error," can only be justified if you can show what facts contradict his actual (not assumed) position. Saying "Here is why," when you are talking about his error, is off-topic and often wrong. If his conclusion is wrong, there are dozens of reasons why it could have happened and you cannot tell for sure which one applies without mind-reading. Even if you did know, it is off-topic and not a concern to all the other people reading or posting on the thread. They just want to know what's right and why. The "whos" and the "hows" of other posters' thinking is almost never their concern.

So the Forum rule is now - don't identify an error in an argument - because that is somehow off topic?

Identifying factual errors is fine. Identifying logical errors is problematic.

One is no more difficult than the other.

For non-mind-readers like me it is!

(For mind-readers who can identify other people's logical errors easily, the difficulty tends to be doing it correctly. ).

What seems to be a logical error may simply be an error of knowledge or an honest oversight.

The REASON for the error in logic does not change the FACT of the error. As such, it is perfectly valid to identify the error, regardless of its reason. (Of course the violation of logic could be purposeful and not an error at all. However I presume innocence unless proven guilty, and thus stick to the term 'error' in most cases.)

In that case, indicating contrary facts will suffice. Trying to identify which logical and psycho-epistemological errors caused the factual error is off-topic.

But even if you could know, making an issue of a poster's logical errors makes the issue about the poster and not the factual matters under discussion.

That is simply not true. Pointing out that Bob has committed a logical fallacy in his argument neither makes an issue of the fact that HE did it, nor makes the issue about HIM. Attribution does not make the person the subject of a statement.

It certainly doesn't make the topic under discussion the subject. That's my main objection.

In other words, the subject in my posts is ALWAYS about what has been said. It is always about the ARGUMENT - NOT about the person. I both dispute and resent the claim to the contrary.

It should be about public schools, or the death penalty, or whatever the topic was. To argue about the argument is off-topic.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Now it is difficult to prove logically that one is guilty the above, and almost impossible for the one doing it to accept.

There is no rational way to respond to such assertions.

Yes there is

You misunderstand. I am not saying the suggestions you make cannot be performed. I am saying the assertions you made are like the old chestnut: "Are you still beating your wife." There is no rational way to respond to that assertion, any more than there is to respond to assertions which claim X really can't be proved and besides you won't believe it anyway. Any attempt to dispute such assertions simply seems to confirm the accusation.

However, what if you ARE beating your wife? And by refusing to ask yourself such a question, you never end up having to confront it? No one here is presupposing you are "beating your wife", i.e. being belligerent. However, if you, and I, and all of the posters, from time to time ask ourselves if we are perceived of as being belligerent, the Forum will be the better for it.

[Brian Smith 0]

The problem was the posters believe, and so do I, that you misidentified their premises and there was, in fact, no contradiction.

Then prove it. If my identification is wrong, I learn from it. And if my identification is right, everyone else learns from it. But do not prohibit the identification - no one learns anything that way. Not only that, but such prohibition assumes error on the part of those with whom you disagree - and prohibits them from defending themselves against such assumptions.

That is neither just nor rational.

I will note the above identified "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with attacks or being 'off-topic'. it is claimed the "problem" is that I supposedly came to a wrong conclusion. Is the rule on the Forum now that if the moderators do not agree with the conclusion of a poster, then it cannot be expressed? The assertions above are that I a wrong and should have done something to avoid being wrong. Yet nowhere has ANY support for this supposed error been provided.

If the claim is that such conflicts would EASILY be resolved or even avoided if only a "polite" question or two were asked, then it should be simple for you to identify and explain the supposed error (the "misidentification") I have made. So identify it and support it. But, at the very least, stop making the arbitrary assertion that my conclusion was wrong.

As a general practice, give a poster the benefit of the doubt and what he writes the most charitable reading.

The 'charity' that I give - the benevolence I act upon - is the presumption that the individual did not in fact intend to state a contradiction. Thus if I see one, I point it out so that it may be amended, corrected, or context provided (either for myself or for the speaker). That this is taken as somehow 'uncharitable' (or hostile, or belligerent, etc etc ad nauseum) is, frankly, bizarre.

Making an issue of the fact that he said it...

Speaking directly to the person is not "making an issue" of anything about them. It is called conversation.

Which fine, one-on-one. Public postings and discussions to a wider audience are a different context. The other people are reading the thread because they are interested in the topic.

So speaking directly to the person (ie addressing them directly) is now prohibited on The Forum?

Wow.

When one states: Your argument is in error, here is why - one is not being personal. The same is true when one says: You are in error, here is why. There is NO difference.

Not true.

Yes, true. There is no difference. When one states Bob is wrong, to what is one refering? Bob's clothes are wrong? His car is wrong? His face is wrong? NO. His STATEMENT is wrong. To claim otherwise is to DROP the entire context in which the claim of error is made - and that is a major violation of logic.

If his conclusion is wrong, there are dozens of reasons why it could have happened and you cannot tell for sure which one applies without mind-reading.

I would suggest you extend to me the same "charitable reading" you claim is supposed to be the rule on the Forum - especially since I explicitly stated in my post, one does not have to know why another person has made a statement with a contradiction in it. The "why" I referenced above is the "why" one has come to the conclusion a contradiction exists in the first place - ie the justification for that conclusion. Without it, one is simply making arbitrary assertions. And, although I am severely questioning the standards of the rules of the Forum, I do not yet believe it supports the idea that one cannot, let alone should not, rationally identify the reasons one disagrees with someone else's assertions.

Even if you did know, it is off-topic and not a concern to all the other people reading or posting on the thread. They just want to know what's right and why.

So identifying what is wrong and why is now "off topic" on The Forum? People here can only talk about what is right and why?

Wow again.

Identifying factual errors is fine. Identifying logical errors is problematic.

One is no more difficult than the other.

For non-mind-readers like me it is!

Identifying contradictions in people's arguments does not require mind reading. If it did, you could not claim I am in error here (unless of course you claim TO be reading my mind. Do I need to get some tin foil? ).

What seems to be a logical error may simply be an error of knowledge or an honest oversight.

The REASON for the error in logic does not change the FACT of the error. As such, it is perfectly valid to identify the error, regardless of its reason. (Of course the violation of logic could be purposeful and not an error at all. However I presume innocence unless proven guilty, and thus stick to the term 'error' in most cases.)

In that case, indicating contrary facts will suffice.

So one is now prohibited from identifying errors in statements made on the forum. One is only allowed to provide contrary facts? In other words, one cannot explicitly identify contradictions - identify errors? One can only try to implicitly reveal them?

Wow a third time.

But even if you could know, making an issue of a poster's logical errors makes the issue about the poster and not the factual matters under discussion.

That is simply not true. Pointing out that Bob has committed a logical fallacy in his argument neither makes an issue of the fact that HE did it, nor makes the issue about HIM. Attribution does not make the person the subject of a statement.

It certainly doesn't make the topic under discussion the subject. That's my main objection.

Then you have NO objection at all. As has already been established, the subject in the sentence IS the other person's "argument" (ie his claims about public schools or whatever else). Identifying WHOSE argument it is does NOT somehow change this fact. It doesn't magically make that person the subject of one's statements

This is basic grammar.

In other words, the subject in my posts is ALWAYS about what has been said. It is always about the ARGUMENT - NOT about the person. I both dispute and resent the claim to the contrary.

It should be about public schools, or the death penalty, or whatever the topic was. To argue about the argument is off-topic.

So now we CAN'T talk about whether someone's argument is X or Y or whether there is a difference between argument X or Y, etc etc? So much for all the advice about clarification. Or is the principle: you can ask for identification of an argument, but do not identify an argument on your own?!

[Brian Smith 0]

However, what if you ARE beating your wife?

Then you PROVE it. But don't claim it can't be proved and you won't believe it anyway. As I said, that is not a statement deserving of response from a rational individual.

[Paul's Here 0]

However, what if you ARE beating your wife?

Then you PROVE it. But don't claim it can't be proved and you won't believe it anyway. As I said, that is not a statement deserving of response from a rational individual.

It most certainly does is if you are beating your wife and if you had beat your wife in the past. The question is fallacious only if you never beat your wife.

[Free Capitalist 0]

However, what if you ARE beating your wife?

Then you PROVE it. But don't claim it can't be proved and you won't believe it anyway. As I said, that is not a statement deserving of response from a rational individual.

No what I'm saying is, somebody else's proof should not be required here. You, and I, and everyone else should be periodically asking ourselves if we're doing it, without having someone else challenge or point out or go through efforts to prove it to us. If we question ourselves, keep benevolence on the forefront, and make sure our own approach is always benevolent, then that's all that can really be asked of anyone.

[Brian Smith 0]

You, and I, and everyone else should be periodically asking ourselves if we're doing it, without having someone else challenge or point out or go through efforts to prove it to us.

In other words, you are saying that we should follow the advice given by Arnold (and expanded upon it a little). I will simply point out that when Arnold made your exact point, I explicitly stated my comment that one cannot rationally respond to his assertion was NOT directed as his suggestion, but specifically at his comments that such a thing can't be proved and one won't believe it anyway.

In other words, as the movie quote goes "I'm not arguing that with you."

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The problem was the posters believe, and so do I, that you misidentified their premises and there was, in fact, no contradiction.

Then prove it.

Other posters have written that the ideas you have attributed to them are not their actual views. That's pretty strong evidence that you have misidentified their views.

In fact, it is conclusive evidence unless you can prove (1) they are lying or (2) you know what they really mean better than they do. That's a pretty tough burden of proof.

[Brian Smith 0]

The problem was the posters believe, and so do I, that you misidentified their premises and there was, in fact, no contradiction.

Then prove it.

Other posters have written that the ideas you have attributed to them are not their actual views. That's pretty strong evidence that you have misidentified their views.

Actually, it is no evidence at all. What a person intends to communicate and what a person has actually written can be (and often is) two quite different things. Since identifying the intention of an individual would involve "mind reading" - and I DON'T do that - I stick to what a person actual SAYS. Thus if I note a contradiction in his statement, I do not have to 'divine' why it exists or if he meant it to exist, etc. I merely have to identify the fact it exists.

That is not a "tough" burden of proof at all.

[Free Capitalist 0]

The problem was the posters believe, and so do I, that you misidentified their premises and there was, in fact, no contradiction.

Then prove it.

Other posters have written that the ideas you have attributed to them are not their actual views. That's pretty strong evidence that you have misidentified their views.

Actually, it is no evidence at all. What a person intends to communicate and what a person has actually written can be (and often is) two quite different things. Since identifying the intention of an individual would involve "mind reading" - and I DON'T do that - I stick to what a person actual SAYS.

Yes, the charge is that you may misunderstand what the person has said.