Phi for All

Then I suggest you take your ball and go home. It took you two pages of opinions to come to the conclusion that you didn't want them. Pedants everywhere will rejoice that they can ignore you from now on. Just so this thread is not a complete waste, this is a great example of a very bad debate. Anyone who is not ready to recieve new ideas about a subject shouldn't post on a scientific debate forum. On the advice of our Chemistry Experts, I am closing and moving this thread.

The only logical fallacies the staff gives warning points for are excessive strawmanning and ad homs that come off as Flaming. I suppose if anyone were to use any logical fallacy excessively after it has been pointed out they would incur warning and then banning, but it only seems to happen with ad hom and strawman. You should be on the lookout for when an opponent uses some other logical fallacy and politely point it out ("I say old boy, when you say that all environmentalists are hypocrites because your ex-girlfriend was, isn't that a Hasty Generalization?"). Remember that most logical fallacies are wrong because they are faulty if... then statements, where the opponent uses false logic to prop up an argument. Most of the time you just have to point out that someone is trying to use logic in a bad way. Make sure your own conclusions aren't propped up by the use of false logic. If you think in this particular instance your use of logic is valid, say why you think so. I think I can make a pretty good case why burning books is a bad idea using the Slippery Slope fallacy. If I explain my reasons adequately to my audience it's OK, if I blindly make the assumption using fallacious logic it's not OK.

Briefly, it's when your opponent in an argument shifts the target of the argument to something he can better defend (setting up a man filled with straw so he can knock it down because he can't knock down the real man). * edit * Sorry for the redundancy. swansont said it better. I've GOT to stop letting work interfere with my posting. Where are my priorities, honestly? * edit 2 * You're very welcome.

No one judged your ungiven opinion on SUVs. Everyone was commenting on what you asked them to comment on, whether your argument was a good one. So far it is pretty unanimous that it is NOT. Again, a bad strawman argument. None of these examples are for vehicles used for traveling. These are all vehicles used for entertainment purposes. Believe me, you DO NOT want to go down that road in your SUV argument. If you did, you would need to provide statistics that show a preponderance of off-road recreational use for the average SUV, which is one of the environmentalists strongest points for their being so extravagantly wasteful.

This is absolutely false. For one thing most environmentalists are picking on inefficient vehicles in general, and SUVs fall into that category. If someone is arguing against SUVs because they're inefficient, it's not hypocrisy, it's just targeting one example. If there was a food shortage and a group of rich 500-lb obese people were arguing that, since they can afford more food and want more food, they should get more food than the average income average weight people, would I be a hypocrite by objecting just because I also consume food?

This would be my comment as well. While airplanes, rockets and SUVs are all used for travel, the kind of travel is completely different. Most people who travel by airplane are doing so because of time constraints. Most people who travel by rocket are doing so because the situation demands it. SUV travelers have choices not available to the airplane and rocket travelers Trying to bring the emissions caused by airplanes and rockets into an SUV emission debate is a blatant strawman. You are not a hypocrite traveling 1000 miles by plane because your meeting is this afternoon and your Toyota hybrid can't get you there in time.

As part of our new policy on creationism, since no NEW points have been raised, and this thread is starting to just bring up all the same old points, I'm going to close it so it doesn't waste anyone's time. Feel free to search for "creationism" and read what's already been posed and refuted. If yolu have anything NEW to add, please PM me to reopen any closed thread or feel free to start a new thread trumpeting your colossal breakthrough.

* sigh *

It's too easy to catch someone in a lie on a debate forum where everything is written down. Bad information is not good debate material. I think you're trying to say "politician" here, and they don't usually lie, they "dissemble", or conceal the truth under a false appearance with the intent to deceive. It takes years of speeches and press conferences to learn how to do this. ; ) After the last few political debates I've seen, I don't think debates designed to win votes are necessarily the same as those designed to discuss issues or help people learn.

To quote Richard Nixon (rarely a good idea), let me say this about that: revprez/phcatlantis is one of the sharpest guys I've ever seen. He has a really keen grasp of political science and he is extremely well informed. Like syntax252, he brought a great deal to the boards and neither of these guys were your average troll who gets bounced after twenty posts or less. The staff went to great lengths to warn them, publicly and privately, about their behavior, and cut them as much slack as possible while trying to remain fair to everyone else as well. Ultimately, they're like the really smart but disruptive kids we all knew in high school. They may be entertaining for a while, and definitely thought-provoking, but in the end they distract from the real learning and make the whole experience all about themselves. That's just not going to happen here at SFN.

I think straw man is the most used, followed by ad hominem. The best recent example of straw man arguments are about the war in Iraq. I'm sure we've all heard: Person #1: I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. Person #2: How can you not support the soldiers who are fighting to keep you free? Person #1 said NOTHING about the troops, but is forced to argue that he does support the troops because he can't let such erroneous information go unchallenged. Besides being a straw man this is also an Appeal to Emotion, implying that the argument is stronger because it's patriotic. I'm not saying arguing fallaciously is a conscious effort on the part of Person #2. Many people just start dredging up supporting information for their argument as a knee-jerk reaction. Often that information has nothing to do with what you just said. Have you ever had a face-to-face conversation with someone who suddenly went all glassy-eyed and you realize they've stopped listening to what you're saying and have started to formulate their rebuttal? This is the debate version of that. A very subtle ad hominem, one of syntax252's signature moves. He also loves to ask you a loaded question followed by a rolleyes smiliey (You have stopped beating your wife, haven't you, hmmm? ). Enough about him. Here is a list of logical fallacies with their explanations. Remember that some fallacies are always wrong to use (like straw man, which misrepresents and skews the argument causing wasted effort), and some are mostly wrong (Slippery Slope is usually a bad assumption, but not always) while others are often correct (post hoc ergo propter hoc is sometimes absolutely right, e.g., "I took the medicine then I felt better so it must have been the medicine"). I do hope everybody realizes that when the staff takes part in posting as members, we are especially careful about abusing our authority. Personally, I care more about my reputation as a good Moderator than I do as a good debater. So many people here have a better science background than I do and I'm grateful for such a place to come and learn every day. I will always be on the lookout for those who would waste your valuable time with their own agendas, vendettas and petty competitions, because most of you are just like me, you read way more than you post.

Other than his insistance on strawmanning I actually like the POV that syntax252/darth tater/H W Copeland brings to the board. I think he provides a much needed perspective. But it takes so much time correcting him! I can't stand leaving bad information stay unrefuted. You don't provide more fight than I can handle, H W, you just choose not to follow our rules. You take up too much moderation time. Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible. If anybody has more to add to the Tookie executed thread, PM me and I will reopen it.

If you lack the humanity to see that taking ANY life is something to anguish over, it's no wonder you're worried about someone else looking superior. Mental masturbation, syntax252? How long before I get a filthy PM from you telling me off? When you beat the argument I'm making instead of one you want me to make, I'll let you know.

Run a global forum Search using "blacklight". There have been other threads about this. Appears to be crap, unfortunately.

I wouldn't think sodium would be very good at high temps. Wouldn't it melt pretty easily?

I blame it on alien technology, as described by Douglas Adams (from Wikipedia):

This is where we differ. I would have a problem "excusing" myself for ANY killing. That's not to say I wouldn't do it, just that I would not easily shrug it off just because I saved lives doing it. This last statement is a classic syntax252, where you straw man the argument I'm trying to make by changing it to one you can more easily defend. You are not listening to or responding to what I'm saying, and so you are derailing the thread by making me clarify, over and over, my position. Whatever value I place on one life over another doesn't make killing anyone any more just. Legal exoneration aside, I would still mourn the neccesity of having to take the life of anybody, and would not try to excuse myself of responsibility for their death by the easy expedient of "he had it coming". No one is more entitled to live than anyone else, and I may make a decision to end someone's life based on my own survival or that of others, but I refuse to excuse myself from responsibility for my actions. I may not go to jail, but I won't sleep easily for a long time after, no matter who I saved. If I don't take responsibility, won't my next killing be easier to justify?

That sounds like an endorsement for the death penalty in all homicide cases. Kill them all and they will kill no more. How can you add double emphasis to what I wrote and still ask those questions? My response to you was about justification of killing in self defense. Let's define the term "justify" before you start doing the syntax252 thing, hmm?. I think you're using justify to mean "prove or show evidence why certain decisions or actions have been taken". To me, that's an explanation. I'm using justify to mean "make right, to free from the penalty of responsibility". To me, this is an excuse. I make a great distinction between an explanation (or a reason) and an excuse. I could never excuse myself for killing or allowing someone else to be killed. It is something I would live with for the rest of my life, and I think it would be criminal of me to try to justify away my responsibility. Extremely well put. Why do I always overestimate the need for clarity when writing?

I don't think that's the point, especially since you're looking only at the economic issue. The individual is saying things are looking up, but the country as a whole has been defiled in their eyes. Again, if the US were invaded, even if the invader cleared up what they thought was wrong with us, wouldn't we still be a bit cranky about being invaded in the first place?

It's hard to fault the Iraqis for being patriotic about the sovereignity of their country, no matter how well off the individual might be. If the US were invaded and taken over, yet the new regime helped us improve schools, curb inflation and reduce government corruption, wouldn't we still say things were better in the "old days"?

Absolutely not. SFN is a web-based science information forum, and as such has neither the right nor the capability of invading a sovereign nation. We find it difficult to collaborate on musicals and novels, much less a military offensive of this nature.

Justifiable in the sense that it makes it right to do so? Absolutely not. People use justifiability to avoid moral responsibility. Would I kill in self defense or to defend others from death? Absolutely, if there were no other way. But I would not try to sidestep the fact that I had taken the life of a fellow human. Legally I am absolved from prosecution if I kill someone who is trying to kill me. That doesn't mean they "deserved" to die. It doesn't mean I would lose less sleep because it was legally justifiable. Failing my moral responsibility to preserve the lives of my fellow humans isn't something I could easily write off, even if I felt it was the necessary thing to do.

Well, yeah, but you need something to dunk the cookies in....

dave likes Guinness. Buy him a case and he'll change your name to Elizabeth Windsor if you want.