Disagreeing with you does not make me ignorant or malicious.

[Deep13]

There have been times when I have posted responses to posts, including answers to direct questions, and have been labeled malicious or ignorant as a response. This has happened on a variety of topics over a long time. Usually the person making the suggestion was emotionally invested in whatever it was I was criticizing. The argument usually goes something like this:

OP: I'm so glad that tooth was extracted. Root canals are horribly painful because there is no way to anesthetize the damaged nerve.

Deep13: Actually, a damaged nerve can easily be numbed.

OP: You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I had one done before and it was intensely painful. (NB: this is the ignorance argument.)

Deep13: I've had 11 root canals. Three were really painful because the dentist did not know what he was doing. The rest were easier than fillings.

OP: Why do you stick up for big pharma by defending the self-interested practice of dentistry? You must be lying! Either that or you have a financial interest in it. (The malice argument.)

That is what I mean. I tried to make up an example that has nothing to do with any real posts where I have noticed this. After all, I am complaining about an illogical style of argument and am not "calling out" any one poster.

I also encounter this when I state that someone's opinion is really an erroneous statement of fact. Then I am being arrogant. Of course, even if I'm arrogant, that does not make me wrong. Even if I have an axe to grind, I can still be correct in my evidence.

Let us be clear on our terms.

A factual statement is the answer to a question that is either right or wrong. The answer exists independently in the world (or universe) and has no relation to what anyone believes. Often, the answer to a factual question is not known. That does not make it a matter of opinion, but simply an unknown fact.

Some questions of fact are easily seen: "Does gravity exist?" There is only one right answer to that question.

Some are difficult: "Does gun ownership reduce crime?" There is one right answer to this question, but it is not really known. Do states with low crime rates have low crime because people own guns? Do they own guns because the low crime means there has never been a reason to prohibit them? I don't know the answer, but that does not mean there isn't one.

Opinions are answers to questions that have no right answer. This includes questions on the specific applications of facts to a complex problem. Should we reduce violent crime by prohibiting handguns if we know that some innocent people will become crime victims as a result? That is a judgment call with no right answer.

If I disagree with your opinion, it does not mean I am ignorant or that I don't value life or am a conservative sympathizer. It just means I have a different opinion. If I state that your belief is factually wrong, it is not an attack on you personally. I may be wrong myself, but being offended by my statement is not proof I am wrong.

Speaking of proof, let us examine what is and is not evidence.

Personal experiences are not evidence. If you had a personal religious experience, for example, it is not proof of anything except that you had a religious experience. The human mind is incredibly prone to suggestion. The mind is programed to recognize human faces in random patterns and voices in random sounds. It is prone to hallucination. This is especially true when a person is in pain, sick or on the edge of sleep. What is more, the mind is programed to attribute cause and effect to coincidence. Maybe you did see a person at the same instance you were thinking about him. You are ignoring all the times when you thought about someone and did not see that person. If you had some unorthodox treatment for an illness and recovered, it does not mean it worked. It just means you recovered. That is why personal experiences are not reliable and anecdotes are not evidence.

Belief is not evidence. No matter how much one needs to belief X, it does not make X true. No matter how many people believe X, it does not make them right. X is true only if X has an existence independent of anyones belief. This is another area that invites the claim of arrogance.

Personal values are not evidence for the same reason. No matter how much one might be horrified by the prospect of animal vivisection, that is still a value judgment and not a factual argument. Value judgments may be valid as value judgments, but not as fact. If I think smoking in public places should be banned it means I value disease control more than I value personal autonomy on this issue. My values would then be different than someone else's. Declining to accept the a value judgment does not make someone a moron or a bad person.

Ad hominim attacks are not evidence. Even if I am an ignoramus, asshole, Republican sympathizer, racist, misogynist or sociopath, I might still be right on this particular point. (For the record, I deny being any of those things.)

Making something a sacred cow is not evidence. You can't criticize Mother Theresa! She's a saint! Maybe, but that did not stop her from being a shameless attention whore who capitalized on the suffering of her victims. She did nothing to alleviate the suffering of her charges, told people that suffering made them closer to Christ and poured the money she got from donations into new convents for her order. Maybe I am wrong on my facts (I'm not) but the fact that it is Mother Theresa is not a basis for proving me wrong.

Guilt by association is not evidence. A silly example of this is accusing someone of being a NAZI because he drives a Volkswagen. That company was started or at least encouraged by Hitler. A more familiar example might be this. Some association or even membership in the DLC does not make a candidate or office holder a corporate shill. Many people join organizations simply to spread their names and to do some networking. While I distrust the premise of the DLC on economic matters, I do find myself agreeing with them from time to time.

Changing the subject is not evidence. One example of this is enlarging ones premise to include things the poster never meant. If you're against gun control, why don't we just pass out UZIs for kindergartners? Well, that's a bit dishonest because the poster never suggested anything like that. If you're against legalizing pot, then you must also be against alcohol and coffee! No, it does not mean that. Laws take into account social realities and are not, therefore, perfectly logical. "Changing the subject" is a wide category of logical fallacies and this is only one example. One of those fallacies is the counter-accusation. Calling someone ignorant or malicious for disagreement is a counter-accusation. It has no bearing on the idea being challenged.

To conclude this long-winded post, I hope people feel free to challenge my factual assertions with FACTS and not with non-evidence. I also hope to find that I may disagree with someones value judgments without ad hominim attacks in response.

[porphyrian]

1. Don't hold your breath. - n/t

[Deep13]

4. Only when I swim.

:shrug:

[Redstone]

2. It doesn't? I thought it did.

Redstone

[Critters2]

3. It does.

And anyone who says otherwise is ignorant and malicious. Trust me on this.

[Solly Mack]

5. True

but it does make you wrong. :P

tickle tickle

[uppityperson]

6. Have I got a topic for you!

I agree and posted this last week along the same lines. Beware, Stridently held opinion!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x858649

[Deep13]

13. I saw that one.

I don't know how anyone could be malicious or ignorant enoough to question your psuedo-scientific views when they are clearly stridently held.

[Xipe Totec]

7. My two cents,

don't argue with fools, people can't tell the difference.

Alert the mods, and add the irritant to your ignore list.


There's plenty of people with whom to have an honest discussion, so don't waste time on lost causes.

[Az]

8. Unfortunately

most debate on the internet takes the form of emotional confrontation. Honestly the only recourse available to one that wishes to promote reasoned and civil debate is to remain civil and reasoned even under the most heated of exchanges. Eventually such tirades tire out and those who wish to converse in civil matters will begin to gravitate towards such discourse and change the environment of such forums.

[Warpy]

9. Welcome to the Fallacy Zoo

http://www.goodart.org/fallazoo.htm

DU is not immune from introducing these beasties, especially if toes are being trod upon by the presentation of inconvenient facts.

Being presented with contrary facts is how we learn. Being abused is how we learn who to block.

[Longhorn]

16. Wow, that's a great site!

I teach a section on fallacies in my college math course. I'm going to bookmark this to share with my students! Thanks! :hi:

[originalpckelly]

41. I thought it was good too. I won three dollars in the lottery after reading it...

I'm thinking reading that site cause me to win.

:rofl:

Thought I'd honor the site with a logical fallacy!

[Posteritatis]

60. Blah; half the links on that are broken. (nt)

[LWolf]

10. I will still disagree

with you, or anyone, based on personal experience, belief, opinion, and other subjective reasons. I will still say that I disagree, and say why.

I don't need to attack you to do that. I won't wait for a group of official studies to back me up before I express agreement, disagreement, or any opinion. I will freely and cheerfully represent it as my opinion, rather than the spoken word of GOD or an absolute proof from the science deity.

Is that a good enough compromise?

[karlrschneider]

11. If you disagree with me, it does NOT make you malicious!

Just wrong.

:D :rofl:

[Deep13]

14. That might be true.

Let's see how it goes in testing.:-)

[Oeditpus Rex]

12. May I add one?

A lack of evidence to support or disprove A does not support or prove B. It simply means there's a lack of evidence.

A couple of days ago, someone here postulated that bras were not burned in the '70s and backed it up with a challenge to produce photographic "proof." The failure to do so proved only that no one could find a photo of bra-burning on the internets. It didn't even prove that none exist, let alone that it didn't happen.

[Deep13]

17. True enough.

I don't know why the house creaks. It must be ghosts.

This can be called "jumping to conclusions."

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. Yes it does!

:evilgrin: Just kidding, Deep13(sounds like a porno flick).

That's one thing I notice too. Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time, nor will they disagree. That's why I can't stand the ignore function here. I'm sure I'm on a few ignore lists, but ti doesn't matter to me. Just because we might disagree on one subject doesn't mean that we are going to disagree on EVERY subject. You can't learn anything when all you get is a group of people who follow the status quo and agree on everything. Intelligent debate is the root of learning...

[Deep13]

19. Cue '70s porn music.

It is from a cable TV show from the 1990s called Mystery Science Theater 3000. For the bulk of the show, a dude and two puppet robots watch old movies and make fun of them. One of the regular characters when the show was still on Comedy Central broadcast the movies from a lab at the center of the Earth. The lab was called "Deep 13."

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. I think I saw that show a couple times...

didn't they call it "short attention span theater" or was that a different show? The 80's and early 90's are literally a haze to me...

[Gemini Cat]

44. Greatest show ever made.

Croooooooooooowwwwwwwww!!!!!!

[Patsy Stone]

54. It sure is.

One of the best shows ever!

[Redstone]

18. Deep 13: I'm not all that familiar with English grammar:

"OP: I'm so glad that tooth extracted."

Redstone

[Deep13]

20. Er, um, I was trying to duplicate a common internet typo.

Lying is probably also not evidence.:7

[gizmonic]

21. I'm Gizmonic...and I approve this message

:loveya: :yourock: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :applause:

[Deep13]

22. Sweetie! I thought you were coming home!

:loveya:

[gizmonic]

23. Still @ work

Leaving in about 5 min, then hittin' the grocery store.

mwah!

[Deep13]

25. Ah, go shopping tomorrow. We'll orger a pizza or something tonight.

[gizmonic]

26. I'm leaving work tout de suit! Later 'tater!

:* :bounce: :hi:

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Sounds like you hate the way people argue here! Nice post, Hitler!

Hitler hated people arguing with him too! HA!

Seriously, good post. It's easy to get emotionally invested around here, and then get carried away.

[MazeRat7]

27. You didn't get the memo ? Everyone here is always right...

I could post that dark means the absence of light and someone would dispute the point... because they "believe" they are just a wee bit smarter than everyone else....

FWIW...

MZr7

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. You missed (at least) one.

Emotions are not evidence. Feelings are not reality. I've stirred up a couple people by saying 'feelings are not real' when what I meant was 'feelings are not reality'. Feelings are a perception of reality, not to be confused with the reality itself. But there will always be those who take offense when they are called on it.

[Deep13]

33. I'm sure I missed quite a few.

:)

[man4allcats]

29. Listen you ignoramus, asshole, Republican sympathizer, racist,

misogynist, sociopath, I disagree with your contention that if you disagree with me that does not make you ignorant or malicious - I think. :7

[bananas]

31. Good post, but you're wrong about personal experience

Personal experience is evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is evidence in court,
even hearsay evidence can be used in some cicumstances.
Expert opinions are also legal evidence.
In science and medicine, anecdotal evidence is often the basis for research studies.

[Deep13]

35. Courts use witnesses because that is the best they can do.

They simply must arrive at a decision and in a short amount of time. In the best cases, circumstances, more witnesses and physical evidence corroberate what a witness saw. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. For science the rules are far more stringent. Let us, therefore, not confuse legal "evidence" for actual proof of objective facts.

Controlled studies such as clinical drug trials and sociological surveys used standardized questions and often control groups to remove as much subjectivity as possible. They are not measuring individual experiences so much as the prevailing views of a large group. Still, these studies are problematic since their methodology cannot usually exclude all subjectivity. For example, studies show that Prozac does not cause weight gain. Unfortunately, these studies are only six weeks long. No one gains significant weight in six weeks. The famed Kinsey Report, for example is has a significant methodological flaw. It is not a random sampling. Rather, Kinsey sampled large numbers of specific groups that may or may not be representative of the population as a whole.

[bananas]

53. Personal experience can be strong or weak evidence

If someone goes into anaphylactic shock after eating peanuts,
it's pretty strong evidence they're allergic to peanuts.

[Deep13]

57. That's a physical reaction, not personal impression.

All the witness would be doing is decribing to a physician what happened after eating a peanut. Granted, the patient might be lying, but there is no reason to suppose it. The patient may have been stung by a bee the instant he ate peanuts. If so, the onlookers might not have seen it. So, yeah, it is the best evidence that an ER doctor has to go on, but it is not really conclusive. Fortunately for our hypothetical patient, the treatment for both bee sting and peanut-induce allergies is the same. To be sure it was the goobers, however, a follow-up allergy test would be necessary.

In a lot of ways the job of an E-room doctor is similar to that of a police detective. He or she has to figure out what happened based on a single event. While either professional may put together a likely course of events, it is never really conclusive in the scientific sense. This is especially true for the cop who does not usually have further testing to fall back on. Prosecutors like to stress to the jury that the standard of proof for conviction is beyond REASONABLE doubt, not beyond all doubt. This doubt is further curtailed by the court's instruction only to consider evidence presented.

[Lilith Velkor]

32. Fuckin A.

[realisticphish]

34. great post

:toast:

[iverglas]

36. ah, but let's not forget ;)

Some people *are* malicious and/or ignorant. ;)

But first, thank you for the post. Of course, it's interesting that both of your firearms control-related examples depicted advocates misrepresenting opponents ...

And I'm committing one of my own pet cardinal sins - not reading the thread before posting to the OP, but what the hell.

To comment on just one aspect of what you said:

Personal values are not evidence for the same reason. No matter how much one might be horrified by the prospect of animal vivisection, that is still a value judgment and not a factual argument. Value judgments may be valid as value judgments, but not as fact. If I think smoking in public places should be banned it means I value disease control more than I value personal autonomy on this issue. My values would then be different than someone else's. Declining to accept the a value judgment does not make someone a moron or a bad person.

-- I sometimes try to get agreement on the common values in issue in a disagreement about a policy that should be adopted. Your example here is the classic dichotomy: a public good (disease control) vs. personal autonomy. Everybody can agree that disease control is good and that personal autonomy is good. Most public policies involve promoting a public good by limiting personal autonomy, most objections to public policies involve objecting to limits on personal autonomy to promote a public good. Everybody agrees with some limitations on personal autonomy to promote the public good.

Too many people state their own values not only as if they were facts, but as if they didn't approve of exceptions and limitations themselves. "Free speech" is an example. Everyone believes in some limits on speech, but opponents of some particular limitation all too often portray themselves as simple champions of free speech battling the fascistic forces of communitarianism / stupid sheep of the nanny state -- i.e., malicious and/or ignorant people. ;)

I like to call it when it happens. Many years ago, I attended a public meeting in my city about a proposal, made by a group of poverty activists, that the city purchase a small rural property so that single mothers and their kids in social housing projects could get a bit of respite from the city occasionally. The wise and well-intentioned burghers who spoke against the proposal either had better ideas for helping the poor or weren't about to spend their taxes on the lazy and greedy. I finally stood up and said that I was tired of seeing low-income women portrayed as either stupid or evil. I got a big hand. People do see what's happening when it's pointed out. If only one didn't have to, of course.

So, speaking of firearms control, let me add to your list what I consider to be a prime example of the problem you cite -- portraying someone as stupid/evil by misrepresenting what s/he has said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=136962

Opening post, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings:

This is why we all need carry permits
This sort of thing wouldn't have been as tragic if more people carried.

Response to Original message
14. No thank you! I prefer to risk one nutcase at a time.
Not a whole flock of them.

Response to Reply #14
31. The student body are nutcases? :shrug:

Huh. I wonder who wrote post 31. Kinda looks like the flip side of:

Changing the subject is not evidence. One example of this is enlarging ones premise to include things the poster never meant. If you're against gun control, why don't we just pass out UZIs for kindergartners? Well, that's a bit dishonest because the poster never suggested anything like that.

Those who seek equity must come to court with clean hands, eh?

[Deep13]

39. "Not a whole flock of them."

Perhaps there is another way to read that in context, but my literal reading of that was that it was meant to apply to at least most of the student body. I figured that is not what the poster meant, but it is a reasonable reading from what he or she actually wrote.

I try to not fall into illogical traps, but I am cognizant of the expression that turnabout is fair play. In other words, I don't mind resorting to sacrasm when all I am getting from those advocating the contrary point of view is insults and ad hominim value judgments.

You conveniently overlook my post #122 where I apologize for defending gun ownership on the same day as the mass murder.

P.S.: I did not mean for my OP to be about the merits of gun control. It just seemed like a good example to use.

[sheerjoy]

37. Being decent and articulate

does not work well on DU, but keep trying anyway.

Bless your heart.

[AngryOldDem]

38. I was just gonna say that....

...but to be fair, such fine debating skills aren't just limited to DU. I've seen it everywhere. It's easy to be insulting and fling logical fallacies around when it's basically just you and your keyboard.

(But I like the OP's sentiments anyway. The lesson is, I guess, learn how and when to pick your fights, and learn to sometimes just walk away.)

[sheerjoy]

40. Precisely!

...and there are sooooo many to walk away from...<g>

amazing how some think.

[alphafemale]

42. Great post. Reminds me of this quote.

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

When I feel compelled to launch into full tilt tirade, I try to think of that and give a more reasoned response.

Well...sometimes. :D

[Deep13]

43. *a-hem* #5 anyone?

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Just Gave Ya A #6

[IronLionZion]

45. You have a financial interest in reason and sensibility don't you?

What do you know? You're just another corporate freeper tool.

:silly:

I'm just kidding. I agree with you.

[Deep13]

48. Damn! Caught in a tangled web of my own deceit!

:hippie:

[IronLionZion]

51. Don't worry, I've been trolling here for 4 years without getting banned! nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Hear. Fucking. Hear.

Awesome, awesome post. :applause:

[crispini]

49. Teaching logic to posters on an internet forum ...

is like trying to teach pigs to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig. :P

[ItNerd4life]

50. LOL. Not all posters are that way

but I know what you mean.

Very few people can open their mind to accept new ideas. Sadly, most people have knee jerk reactions to topics that are in disagreement with their beliefs.

If you don't agree with them, then you are an idiot. Thusly, if you don't agree with me that most people are close minded, then you too are an idiot. :P

Idiots Unite!

[Behind the Aegis]

52. OUTSTANDING!

Very good post!

[Patsy Stone]

55. I send you this link with my compliments.

Enjoy! http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

[Deep13]

56. I'm not trying to be provocative, you know.

I'm just a little tired of repeated the same agrument piecemeal in post after post. I figure it is easier to write it once.

[Patsy Stone]

58. I didn't think you were provacative

and that link was merely a "field guide" to some of the internet forum wildlife. I couldn't pick just one to post, but I do like this one:

"Issues has an issue and she won't rest until it becomes your issue, too. Even when she's not talking about her issue it's clear she would rather be talking about her issue. Something of a secular evangelist, her religion, her raison d'etre, her abiding passion is....well, her issue. Not exclusive to any ideological orientation, her issue could be the environment, abortion rights, raw foods, breast feeding, whatever. Her obsession, however, provides the key to defeating her in battle; she can't tolerate indifference, so if her thrusts are simply ignored she will rage, accuse, condemn, plead and finally, go away."

I've felt the same frustration as you and I enjoyed your post. :thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Yeah, well, I had a root canal that hurt like fucking hell.

Seriously, though, you make some good points.

I will say, in my experience, oftentimes it's a little too easy for "common knowledge" or "conventional wisdom" to take the place of supposedly-monolithic big-R "Reality"... particularly when skeptics and debunkers get a little too enthusiastic about their hobbies.

Let me also say that I am a firm believer in science and the scientific method; and I believe that ONLY verifiable, repeatable experiments or facts otherwise grounded in evidence should be presented as science. However, I do *not* believe that it is a "scientific" statement to say, for instance, that "no weird shit ever happens" and if it does "it was all a hallucination or a figment of your imagination".

Those aren't scientific statements. Look, you may discount personal experience, but in the final analysis, personal experience is all any of us have. I know I've experienced things that fall outside the bounds of "common sense". I don't need to "prove" those things to anyone, and I'm certainly not interested in running around trying to proseltyze people about 'em. But it is presumptuous to say, for instance, the guy who won big at the craps table because he had his lucky shirt on did NOT win because of the lucky shirt, he is only deluding himself into thinking he did. Who knows? Not you. Maybe you're deluding yourself into thinking he didn't. You can't prove something like that either way, So why bother?

You also seem to be interested in arbitrarily picking and choosing which value judgements people are allowed to introduce into arguments:

If you're against legalizing pot, then you must also be against alcohol and coffee! No, it does not mean that. Laws take into account social realities and are not, therefore, perfectly logical.

Well, wait a minute. Don't laws take into account other things besides some people's "social realities"? Shouldn't laws take into account FACTS like the fact that alcohol is generally a far more dangerous drug than marijuana? And shouldn't laws take into account social realities like the widespread damage alcohol is known to cause, and attempt a modicum of consistency? And more importantly, isn't it just as VALID to bring up those points as it is to shut down discussion by asserting that "social reality" justifies an idiotic $40 Billion Dollar a year drug war aimed primarily at pot smoking? Laws against interracial marriage and consenting adult gay sex no doubt reflected certain "social realities"- and they were wrong. They way that people challenged and eventually overturned them was by pointing out the hypocrisy and ludicrousness of those laws. You seem to be arguing that if a law -like pot being criminalized- is illogical, "that's just the way it is", although I'm not sure why.

But beyond that, like I said, you make some good points. A lot to chew on. I mean, this is a discussion forum and not a strictly moderated debate stage, so obviously you're going to get some turd-flinging and whatnot. Personally, I've found it's easier to surf on the tides than yell at them to not come in, but I do appreciate where you're coming from on some of this stuff.