On 07/20/2013 12:36 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental
> rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your
> opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful.
Logical fallacy type: bifurcation. You can be open and honest without
being offensive or abusive.
Regards,
Daniel
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/20/2013 12:36 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental
>> rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your
>> opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful.
>
> Logical fallacy type: bifurcation. You can be open and honest without
> being offensive or abusive.
You are mistaken, that is not what the false dichotomy fallacy means.
I'm not saying you have to be A (open and honest), or B (polite), and
that you can't be both, if that's what you arguing (which seems to be
the case), you are wrong, and to argue against that position would be
a straw man fallacy.
Your mistaken fallacy seems to be that you think one can *always* be
both A (open and honest), and B (polite), I'm not sure if there's a
name for that fallacy, but you don't provide any evidence for that
claim.
And even supposing that such an obvious fallacy (that one can *always*
be both open and honest, and polite) was true, the fact that something
*can* be done, doesn't mean it *should* be done.
--
Felipe Contreras
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 19:51 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Phillips
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 07/20/2013 12:36 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental
> >> rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your
> >> opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful.
> >
> > Logical fallacy type: bifurcation. You can be open and honest without
> > being offensive or abusive.
>
> You are mistaken, that is not what the false dichotomy fallacy means.
> I'm not saying you have to be A (open and honest), or B (polite), and
> that you can't be both, if that's what you arguing (which seems to be
> the case), you are wrong, and to argue against that position would be
> a straw man fallacy.
>
> Your mistaken fallacy seems to be that you think one can *always* be
> both A (open and honest), and B (polite), I'm not sure if there's a
> name for that fallacy, but you don't provide any evidence for that
> claim.
It's not actually one of the original logical fallacies, but it's called
argument to moderation or false compromise: The fallacy is the
assumption that the original statements represent extremal positions of
a continuum so there must always be middle ground which represents the
correct statement. To those accepting the fallacy making the middle
ground statement by that fact alone demonstrates the invalidity of the
previous proposition.
I think it's not in the original fallacies because they come from Greek
rhetoric and the Greeks believed dialectic: the taking opposite
positions and arguing them thoroughly. It's only with the advent of
Western European political systems that we're conditioned to seek
compromise without rigorous examination. This actually makes argument
to moderation one of the most effective rhetorical tools in use today
for discrediting an opponent's argument without actually addressing it.
James
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 18:26 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> I think it's not in the original fallacies because they come from Greek
> rhetoric and the Greeks believed dialectic: the taking opposite
> positions and arguing them thoroughly. It's only with the advent of
> Western European political systems that we're conditioned to seek
> compromise without rigorous examination. This actually makes argument
> to moderation one of the most effective rhetorical tools in use today
> for discrediting an opponent's argument without actually addressing it.
What? Really? You mean the truth doesn't lie in the middle between
evolution and creationism?
-- Steve
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:26 PM, James Bottomley
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 19:51 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Phillips
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On 07/20/2013 12:36 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental
>> >> rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your
>> >> opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful.
>> >
>> > Logical fallacy type: bifurcation. You can be open and honest without
>> > being offensive or abusive.
>>
>> You are mistaken, that is not what the false dichotomy fallacy means.
>> I'm not saying you have to be A (open and honest), or B (polite), and
>> that you can't be both, if that's what you arguing (which seems to be
>> the case), you are wrong, and to argue against that position would be
>> a straw man fallacy.
>>
>> Your mistaken fallacy seems to be that you think one can *always* be
>> both A (open and honest), and B (polite), I'm not sure if there's a
>> name for that fallacy, but you don't provide any evidence for that
>> claim.
>
> It's not actually one of the original logical fallacies, but it's called
> argument to moderation or false compromise: The fallacy is the
> assumption that the original statements represent extremal positions of
> a continuum so there must always be middle ground which represents the
> correct statement. To those accepting the fallacy making the middle
> ground statement by that fact alone demonstrates the invalidity of the
> previous proposition.
And when so many of us had convinced ourselves that this thread could
not possibly descend any further into the off-topic weeds... Good job.
That assumption has now been shattered by bringing in ancient Greece.
Given that, I'd like to propose a KS topic that covers Adam Smith, and
John Stuart Mill, Leviathan by Hobbes, and The Politics by Aristotle.
C'mon folks. This is beyond silly. Let us look at the things that we
can really change, or at least influence change within. Things that
really matter to linux today and tomorrow.
P.
---
>
> I think it's not in the original fallacies because they come from Greek
> rhetoric and the Greeks believed dialectic: the taking opposite
> positions and arguing them thoroughly. It's only with the advent of
> Western European political systems that we're conditioned to seek
> compromise without rigorous examination. This actually makes argument
> to moderation one of the most effective rhetorical tools in use today
> for discrediting an opponent's argument without actually addressing it.
>
> James
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 21:48 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> C'mon folks. This is beyond silly. Let us look at the things that we
> can really change, or at least influence change within. Things that
> really matter to linux today and tomorrow.
Ah, so there is middle ground between creationism and evolution!
-- Steve
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 21:38 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 18:26 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > I think it's not in the original fallacies because they come from Greek
> > rhetoric and the Greeks believed dialectic: the taking opposite
> > positions and arguing them thoroughly. It's only with the advent of
> > Western European political systems that we're conditioned to seek
> > compromise without rigorous examination. This actually makes argument
> > to moderation one of the most effective rhetorical tools in use today
> > for discrediting an opponent's argument without actually addressing it.
>
> What? Really? You mean the truth doesn't lie in the middle between
> evolution and creationism?
Well, you jest, but actually Intelligent Design is usually presented as
a false compromise between the "extremes" of evolution and creationism.
If you listen to it's proponents, the rhetorical device they use to
argue for legitimacy is precisely an argument to moderation.
James
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 09:23 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 21:38 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 18:26 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > > I think it's not in the original fallacies because they come from Greek
> > > rhetoric and the Greeks believed dialectic: the taking opposite
> > > positions and arguing them thoroughly. It's only with the advent of
> > > Western European political systems that we're conditioned to seek
> > > compromise without rigorous examination. This actually makes argument
> > > to moderation one of the most effective rhetorical tools in use today
> > > for discrediting an opponent's argument without actually addressing it.
> >
> > What? Really? You mean the truth doesn't lie in the middle between
> > evolution and creationism?
>
> Well, you jest, but actually Intelligent Design is usually presented as
> a false compromise between the "extremes" of evolution and creationism.
> If you listen to it's proponents, the rhetorical device they use to
> argue for legitimacy is precisely an argument to moderation.
Exactly, which is why I used that as an example. And also, just to kick
the hornet's nest.
-- Steve