On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

[Brian Smith 0]

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

Unless you are claiming that there can be no difference between what a person writes and what he intends to communicate (something I must seriously dispute), this does not address the points I made in my post.

[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.

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.

The premise here is that the mere assertion of misrepresentation by a person is "conclusive evidence" of that assertion. But an arbitrary assertion is not evidence of anything. Thus I challenge this premise as false. And since it appears this false premise is being accepted and applied by the moderators of The Forum against its posters, it is therefore very important to have the fact of its falsehood recognized.

Many times a person will not recognize the conclusion which follows from a premise they have presented. In such cases they claim they have been misrepresented. In other cases, a person will not realize they have said one thing when they meant another. In such cases as well they will claim they have been misrepresented. There are many different way that an assertion of misrepresentation can be false - none of them involving mind-reading or lying (If necessary, I can provide an example from one of the two threads which led to this topic in order to demonstrate this fact). That is why - like ANY assertion - the assertion of "misrepresentation" must, as I said, be PROVED. The claim that the assertion is essentially its own validation is a fundamental violation of the principles of logic.

It is my fervent hope that the use of this fallacious premise by the moderators of this forum will be discontinued.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Unless you are claiming that there can be no difference between what a person writes and what he intends to communicate (something I must seriously dispute), this does not address the points I made in my post.

There may be a difference between what a person writes, and what they intend to communicate. But there may also be a difference between what a person writes and what you understand them to communicate by it. In order to avoid unnecessary belligerence, it's a good policy to question oneself on account of the latter.

[Brian Smith 0]

There may be a difference between what a person writes, and what they intend to communicate. But there may also be a difference between what a person writes and what you understand them to communicate by it.

Then it is a good thing no one claimed otherwise. The point I have made is the assertion of misinterpretation or misrepresentation etc etc, like ANY assertion, must be PROVEN. If it is not, then on what basis do you claim the assertion should be accepted?

In other words, if you understand something to be a contradiction and another person claims it is not - besides having them prove it - on what basis is one supposed to dismiss one's own understanding of the facts and accept theirs instead?

I appeal to reality - to existence - and have them prove it. To what do you suggest one appeal?

[Free Capitalist 0]

In other words, if you understand something to be a contradiction and another person claims it is not - besides having them prove it - on what basis is one supposed to dismiss one's own understanding of the facts and accept theirs instead?

Isn't experience part of reality? Have you never misunderstood or misquoted anyone in your whole life? I know I have, that's why if someone claims I have done it, I go back and make very sure that I truly did understand what the person was saying, I explain myself further, correct things otherwise, etc.

What Betsy seems to be saying is that if you never question the potential for your own misrepresentation, and thus always retort right back at the person who claimed misrepresented by you, then it becomes an argument of personalities, rather than an argument of issues.

[Brian Smith 0]

In order to avoid unnecessary belligerence, it's a good policy to question oneself on account of the latter.

Oh - and just so it is clear, not only do I question my premises before posting, the fact of my posting opens MY assertion (and its support) to the questioning of others. As such, I have a double "good policy". To identify the expression of disagreement and the logical process of resolving that disagreement as "unnecessary belligerence" is both quite astonishing and deeply disturbing.

[Brian Smith 0]

Have you never misunderstood or misquoted anyone in your whole life?

Sure I have. As already explicitly identified, this is not in dispute. But the way I have identified these instances has been by reference to FACT through a logical process of analysis and discourse, rather than by blindly accepting the arbitrary assertions of others that I am somehow supposedly wrong.

I reject second-handedness. I reject the appeal to authority. If that rejection is characterized as "belligerence", that is certainly not my problem.

...that's why if someone claims I have done it, I go back and make very sure that I truly did understand what the person was saying, I explain myself further, correct things otherwise, etc.

The implication here is that I have or do not do this. PROVE it.

[Free Capitalist 0]

...that's why if someone claims I have done it, I go back and make very sure that I truly did understand what the person was saying, I explain myself further, correct things otherwise, etc.

The implication here is that I have or do not do this. PROVE it.

You misunderstand the thrust of my point. My point here is not to prove to you that you have done it. My point is to suggest for you (as for me, and everyone) to periodically ask whether you can prove this to yourself. Don't wait for others to point out that you made a mistake.

That's all I'll say on this issue.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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.

The premise here is that the mere assertion of misrepresentation by a person is "conclusive evidence" of that assertion. But an arbitrary assertion is not evidence of anything.

Are you saying that if you say, "You just said the moon is made of green cheese, and that's false," and I say "I really meant to say the moon isn't made of green cheese," that my statement is arbitrary? I don't think so!

What a person says he meant to say is pretty strong evidence that it is, in fact, what he meant to say since he can know with certainty what his intention is, but other people can't. That's why the rational assumption is that what a person says is what he means.

As I indicated above, in order to counter that, you would have to show that (1) I was lying and present evidence that I really meant the moon is made of green cheese. Lotsa luck! The only other grounds for questioning my protest is (2) that you know what I meant to say better than I do. That would not just be an arbitrary assumption on your part; it would also be a massive presumption.

[Brian Smith 0]

My point is to suggest for you (as for me, and everyone) to periodically ask whether you can prove this to yourself.

In other words, check your premises. Of course. As already indicated, I do that every time before I write - and then again as I review before I post an argument. And, especially on a forum such as this, I presume everyone else does as well. That is another of the 'charities' I extend to others.

MY point here, however, is that the explicit premise asserted by Ms. Specher - one apparently applied in moderating The Forum - is blatantly illogical. It claims arbitrary assertions as "conclusive proof" when in fact they have no cognitive content whatsoever. That means, as a standard for rationally moderating The Forum, it is invalid. That standard, therefore, should be changed (along with others I have identified).

Do you dispute this point?

[Brian Smith 0]

Are you saying that if you say, "You just said the moon is made of green cheese, and that's false," and I say "I really meant to say the moon isn't made of green cheese," that my statement is arbitrary? I don't think so!

Neither do I which is why I did not say that.

The example you provide is not a claim of misidentification or misrepresentation or the like. You example has one person claim a logical error. It has the other person agree that an error has been made. It then has that other person correct the error, thus eliminating the contradiction and resolving the dispute. (At which point the process begins again)

WHERE exactly is the supposed claim of misidentification or misrepresentation?

As I stated, your claim that an assertion of misrepresentation BY ITSELF is "conclusive proof" of that assertion is false. The above fails to address this at all.

Put simple, the premise (and the argumentation you have repeated for it) is still wrong.

What a person says he meant to say is pretty strong evidence that it is, in fact, what he meant to say...

I do not dispute this. If someone corrects their statement, then I look to that argument instead.

If you claim I do otherwise, then (as I keep having to repeat) PROVE it by providing an example. But do not claim it is wrong (or belligerent or hostile etc) to correctly identify the falsehood in the first place.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

But do not claim it is wrong (or belligerent or hostile etc) to correctly identify the falsehood in the first place.

So when I asked Duke "So it is acceptable to execute people who are not guilty of a crime but want to die?" what falsehood were you identifying when you answered "Prosecute them for obstruction of justice"?

[Brian Smith 0]

----------

But do not claim it is wrong (or belligerent or hostile etc) to correctly identify the falsehood in the first place.

So when I asked Duke "So it is acceptable to execute people who are not guilty of a crime but want to die?" what falsehood were you identifying when you answered "Prosecute them for obstruction of justice"?

If you are going to provide an example, please be accurate. The question I ACTUALLY answered was:

There are some people who admit to crimes that they haven't committed. What would you do about them?

Prosecute them for obstruction of justice.

And NO "falsehood" was being identified at all. A question was put forth. And an answer was provided to it.

Is the claim here that it was somehow "belligerent" or in some other way supposedly against the rules of The Forum to answer the question you asked?

[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.

In reviewing the above example, it becomes evident the "problem" here is not that which Ms. Speicher has identified. The actual problem here is the assertion that a particular person is responsible for a claimed "misidentification". In other words, the problem here is the laying of BLAME for any miscommunication.

Consider the example Paul references. After I answered his question, he responded by claiming my answer - my conclusion - involved an unwarranted assumption (ie an error). He then clarified what he was trying to ask with his question.

Claiming 'You made an error when you came to this conclusion about my statement' is altogether different than saying 'That isn't what I meant. Here is what I mean.'

The former statement makes a charge against a person - specifically that they have made an error. Such a claim is rationally open to dispute. Simply put, if the accused disagrees with the charge, justice allows him to defend himself.

The latter statement, however, makes no charge against anyone. It simply identifies the fact that a miscommunication has supposedly occurred. It does not assign blame for the miscommunication. As such, there is no claim to be disputed, no defense to be mounted, and no diversion from the subject.

What has made matters worse here is that Ms. Speicher is actively sanctioning the former approach. Not only does she accept the practice of laying blame for miscommunication, but she actually participates in it. She has explicitly identified the "problem" here to be MY supposed (read: unproven) 'misidentification'. In other words, she has identified the defense against the accusations made by herself and others to be the "problem" rather than the accusations themselves. So she is both permitting and participating in the leveling of blame for miscommunication. Yet, at the same time, she prohibits and chastises the defense against such charges.

That is an incredible double standard. If the accusations of blame are permitted, then there is no basis to prohibit rebuttals in defense of those accusations. Such a prohibition is neither just nor rational.

Given the above, in regards to claims of miscommunication, I would suggest that the proper approach for The Forum would be to either:

allow both the claims of responsibility for miscommunication and the defense against such claims

or

prohibit both (ie only allow a person to identify the fact of miscommunication, along with clarification)

Either option qualifies as an objective standard. And either would be immeasurably better than the unjust standard currently applied on The Forum.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Given the above, in regards to claims of miscommunication, I would suggest that the proper approach for The Forum would be to either:

allow both the claims of responsibility for miscommunication and the defense against such claims

or

prohibit both (ie only allow a person to identify the fact of miscommunication, along with clarification)

Either option qualifies as an objective standard. And either would be immeasurably better than the unjust standard currently applied on The Forum.

Both of the above would be off-topic for almost all threads.

Instead, there is another alternative. Present the facts and reasons supporting or disputing conclusions about the topic. Don't make an issue of another poster's errors and speculations about the reasons for them. If he is in error, leaving him out of it and presenting contrary facts will suffice.

[Brian Smith 0]

Given the above, in regards to claims of miscommunication, I would suggest that the proper approach for The Forum would be to either:

allow both the claims of responsibility for miscommunication and the defense against such claims

or

prohibit both (ie only allow a person to identify the fact of miscommunication, along with clarification)

Either option qualifies as an objective standard. And either would be immeasurably better than the unjust standard currently applied on The Forum.

Both of the above would be off-topic for almost all threads.

Really!?! The second option would be "off-topic"!?! It is precisely YOUR suggestion! The only difference is that I am suggesting you apply the principle consistently - instead of having the current double standard (as I identified in the last post).

To use your own example, if someone says: "The moon is made of green cheese" and another person responds "It is not true that the moon is made of green cheese. The moon is made of rock," I am saying the first person should not respond by saying: "You made an error in grasping my view" or "You obviously didn't understand my words/what I said" or the like (assertions which are made frequently on The Forum). The first person should respond either as you indicated: "You are right. What I meant to say was: the moon is not made of green cheese." or, if the first person believes there has been some miscommunication, they should say: "That is not what I meant. I mean.... the moon in my kitchen pantry is made of green cheese... "(or whatever).

As it stands, you accept the accusations (apparently because you claim they are "conclusive evidence" for themselves) and prohibit a defense against them. My point here is, if you are going to permit - and participate in - accusations of error, it is unjust and irrational to prohibit a defense against such accusations. If you don't want the defense, then don't permit the accusation!

Put simply, don't allow people to claim others are wrong and then, when the accused try to defend themselves, tell them to shut up. That is just plain wrong.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

To use your own example, if someone says: "The moon is made of green cheese" and another person responds "It is not true that the moon is made of green cheese. The moon is made of rock," I am saying the first person should not respond by saying: "You made an error in grasping my view" or "You obviously didn't understand my words/what I said" or the like (assertions which are made frequently on The Forum). The first person should respond either as you indicated: "You are right. What I meant to say was: the moon is not made of green cheese." or, if the first person believes there has been some miscommunication, they should say: "That is not what I meant. I mean.... the moon in my kitchen pantry is made of green cheese... "(or whatever).

As it stands, you accept the accusations (apparently because you claim they are "conclusive evidence" for themselves) and prohibit a defense against them. My point here is, if you are going to permit - and participate in - accusations of error, it is unjust and irrational to prohibit a defense against such accusations. If you don't want the defense, then don't permit the accusation!

Put simply, don't allow people to claim others are wrong and then, when the accused try to defend themselves, tell them to shut up. That is just plain wrong.

I would prefer people just say, "My view is really ..." when another poster misunderstands or mischaracterizes what they said. Less desirable is, "You're wrong. My view is really ..." but that is still acceptable because after a brief statement of disagreement, it gets right back on topic.

What is out of bounds is "you are wrong and you committed fallacy X which is disgusting, irrational, immoral, evasive, ... etc." because that derails the discussion into an off-topic focus on the other poster rather than the topic.

By the way, pointing out an error using facts -- "X is wrong because ..." is not an accusation. Pointing out that someone is wrong -- "You are wrong because ..." -- might be. It depends on whether it is communicated in a benevolent spirit of "I'd like to help you understand this better" or a belligerent, triumphal "Gotcha!"

[Brian Smith 0]

I would prefer people just say, "My view is really ..." when another poster misunderstands or mischaracterizes what they said.

Well, I am glad to see that it is not, as you had just indicated, something which would be "off-topic". That is SOME progress at least.

"You're wrong. My view is really ..."...is still acceptable. ... What is out of bounds is "you are wrong and you committed fallacy X which is disgusting, irrational, immoral, evasive, ... etc." because that derails the discussion into an off-topic focus on the other poster rather than the topic.

So the "problem" now is NOT as you identified - ie NOT "the posters believe, and so do I, that you misidentified their premises and there was, in fact, no contradiction."

Of course, that leaves what the supposed "problem" was unidentified.

As to the fact that you believe it is acceptable to BLAME someone for an error - ie claim: "You are wrong", well - that fact has already been identified. The problem is that you find it unacceptable for a person to DEFEND themselves from this accusation of error. That is the double standard. And it appears you are still adhering to it.

By the way, pointing out an error using facts -- "X is wrong because ..." is not an accusation. Pointing out that someone is wrong -- "You are wrong because ..." -- might be. It depends on whether it is communicated in a benevolent spirit of "I'd like to help you understand this better" or a belligerent, triumphal "Gotcha!"

So now the issue is NOT about attribution or directly speaking to the person as previously claimed, since you explicitly indicate above that is acceptable. Nor is it about staying on the topic because people want to learn about what is right, not wrong, etc. - also as previously claimed.

NOW the issue is supposedly "spirit" or 'tone'.

So, after all this, the 'problem' turns out not to be one of violating any objective rule of the forum, but a subjective appraisal of writing style.

Well, you identified the following as problem posts. As such, perhaps you will identify what about them indicates that their "spirit" is OTHER than 'trying to help someone understand x better.'

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?

It can't be because it is "off topic" because you have explained that it is acceptable to point out someone's error, so long as it is in the 'spirit' of trying to help them understand the problem better. And it can't be the direct address, because that is supposedly acceptable, so long as the tone is 'right'. So it must be the "spirit". It must somehow be 'wrong'

So what supposedly identifies this statement as "belligerent, triumphal, "Gotcha!"" rather than a direct, straightforward attempt to identify a problem and provide a solution?

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.

Here I had identified the fact that an invalid question had been asked (akin to the question: where did the universe come from). I identified the fact that the question required a switch in context in mid stream. It was claimed no switch was occurring and the question was perfectly valid. I responded to the above, indicating there are only two options when it comes to the sentence, and I identified why I chose switch of context rather than meaningless.

I ask the same questions as the previous one: what identifies this statement as "belligerent, triumphal, "Gotcha!"" rather than a direct, straightforward (and completely on-topic) attempt to identify an invalid question and support the claim that it is invalid?

Oh - and how do the answers to these questions about my "spirit" NOT require "mind-reading" - ie claiming, as you put it, to know what I mean and intend more than I do?

[JRoberts 0]

So, after all this, the 'problem' turns out not to be one of violating any objective rule of the forum, but a subjective appraisal of writing style.

I'm sorry, Brian, but last I checked, this was Betsy's forum.

My mother always used to tell me, "You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar."

How are you trying to catch flies?

[Brian Smith 0]

So, after all this, the 'problem' turns out not to be one of violating any objective rule of the forum, but a subjective appraisal of writing style.

I'm sorry, Brian, but last I checked, this was Betsy's forum.

Where has there been a suggestion otherwise? Is the claim here that one can neither try to identify nor question the standards of The Forum (especially when claims as to why some types of posts are supposedly problematic keeps changing?)

[Free Capitalist 0]

NOW the issue is supposedly "spirit" or 'tone'.

So, after all this, the 'problem' turns out not to be one of violating any objective rule of the forum, but a subjective appraisal of writing style.

Why can't it be tone? I've been referencing the issue of tone throughout all of my replies in this thread.

By the way, by saying "subjective" are you saying that primacy of consciousness you underlies all evaluation of writing style?

[Free Capitalist 0]

are you saying that primacy of consciousness you underlies

Err, "for you".

[JRoberts 0]

Where has there been a suggestion otherwise? Is the claim here that one can neither try to identify nor question the standards of The Forum (especially when claims as to why some types of posts are supposedly problematic keeps changing?)

For me personally, I understood what Betsy was trying to say from the first post.

Stephen always told me that the best way to understand something was when that something was presented in a terse, essential statement. If you are confused about the policies, why don't you ask Betsy for a terse, essential statement?

If you disagree, then why not agree to disagree.

[Brian Smith 0]

Why can't it be tone?

I've simply identifying the change of claims. Is the suggestion here that it is wrong to make such an identification?

By the way, by saying "subjective" are you saying that primacy of consciousness you underlies all evaluation of writing style?

Loaded question.

What I am saying is that this means one can't look to set rules or principles of The Forum.

As an aside here, I find it interesting that, of all the things there have been to respond to: double standards, claims that arbitrary assertions are self-validating, personal address is not appropriate on The Forum, etc. etc., that it is my identification that the standard which determines what is "on" and "off" topic is "spirit" that has elicited a response. And, coincidently, that response is from exactly those same individuals who complain that my straightforward approach is somehow 'hostile'.

If you want to accuse me of "belligerence" or "hostility" or anything else, just do it. But don't make the accusation an arbitrary assertion. Back up the accusation with some actual proof.

[Brian Smith 0]

If you disagree, then why not agree to disagree.

Is the claim here that if one identifies unjust standards (on a forum dedicated to a philosophy of reason), one cannot speak of them and seek to have them changed?