This was probably his most eloquent attempt to articulate his main argument - that JimK’s objection to Moore was personal not ethical. I thought it deserved some attention.
Do you expect me to be online 24/7. I do have a life you know. Does the fact that I wasn’t reading “live” prohibit me from an opinion. Actually, I think reading it 10 pages at a time gave me a different but worthwhile perspective. I really got a sense of the mood of the thread as it evolved (and disintegrated) And now I have turned it into a self parody. Sorry about that. :red:
No, I absolutely do not expect you to be here 24/7 (that’s CM’s job), that’s why I offered to call you. Pay attention! ;)
Seriously, though, sorry for the heavy sarcasm, it just sounded a bit like you were essentially berating everyone who commented in the thread for not saying what you think you would have said. (what we should have said), but alas, we can’t all be as insightful as you. Tis a pity, really.
But either way, I’m willing to bury the hatchet on this thing.... provided I can have one or two or ten more whacks at the horse before I do… you know, for old times’ sake.
This was probably his most eloquent attempt to articulate his main argument - that JimK’s objection to Moore was personal not ethical. I thought it deserved some attention.
Do you expect me to be online 24/7. I do have a life you know. Does the fact that I wasn’t reading “live” prohibit me from an opinion. Actually, I think reading it 10 pages at a time gave me a different but worthwhile perspective. I really got a sense of the mood of the thread as it evolved (and disintegrated) And now I have turned it into a self parody. Sorry about that. :red:
No, I absolutely do not expect you to be here 24/7 (that’s CM’s job), that’s why I offered to call you. Pay attention! ;)
Seriously, though, sorry for the heavy sarcasm, it just sounded a bit like you were essentially berating everyone who commented in the thread for not saying what you think you would have said. (what we should have said), but alas, we can’t all be as insightful as you. Tis a pity, really.
But either way, I’m willing to bury the hatchet on this thing.... provided I can have one or two or ten more whacks at the horse before I do… you know, for old times’ sake.
Hey I’d rather flog a dead horse than a dead duck :)
Just to clarify, I have no problem with any argument you or anyone else made (you more than anyone had it wrapped up by page 5). Maybe just the tone got a little heavy-handed from some. I guess I’m just trying to be generous to him.
r.j. may have a point, but Applepie’s comment was still based on an assumption.
That is the point I was trying to address and he ignored it.
I would also point out he/she was very dismissive of others arguments, which is not helpful in a debate, as it is not actually debating.
As far as ganging up, whenever anybody comes here and starts throwing around blanket statements and assumptions as facts, everybody responds to that here.
When I was a new member, I didn’t. I am sure I would have been attacked by somebody if I did.
People did it to Souleata all the time on both sides of the political divide.
If Applepie had lightened the tone and backed off the generalizations and assumptions, the thread would have never looked like this, IMO.
I am not going to feel ashamed for responding with the same tone that Applepie used.
I can actually appreciate an after-action analysis from r.j., who I respect and basically wasn’t otherwise involved. I’m going to respond, but if this ticks off other posters I’ll just ask you to ignore the rest of this thread (unless Applepie returns, in which case I suggest we burn this place to the ground, salt the earth, migrate to a different planet, and erase this one from our collective memories). R.J. and I have shown in the past that we can peacefully converge in an argument without requiring complete agreement.
As far as I can tell, r.j., your concern was expressed here:
r.j. - 22 May 2007 10:28 PM
Applepie paraphrased Aristotlean philosophy in an interesting way, which certainly made me think about the issue differently for a while.
You say what you enemy did is a misuse of charity and evil, but had your friend done it you would have found a way to excuse it. This shows that while it may be wrong, what you are objecting to is your enemy, not to his action.
Now at the very least, Applepie deserves some credit for an intelligent contribution to the debate.
Sethery came back with this.
That is a commentary on human nature. It is not a proof of the goodness of Moore, nor the wrongness of JimK.
Applepie.
It was not meant as a proof of the goodness of Moore or the wrongness of JimK. It was an argument - rather conclusive I think - that someone who objects to behavior X in an enemy but not in a friend is not against or objecting to the behavior, but against or objecting to the person.
But then Sethery turned this around and applied it to Applepie’s hypocrisy (which is not in question, IMO)
So then what did it prove about all of us, including yourself, considering our answers?
And then elaborated with the whole “You failed the Aristotlean Test, and it was you who brought this up for God’s sake”. Now, I think you did indeed catch him in a hypocritical loop, but you never really addressed the idea he raised. In fact no one adequately did.
I think I did address the idea. I acknowledged it as a valuable personal exercise, and a broad ethical stance. But it’s application in an argument requires at least two data points: 1) how did someone react when an enemy does something perceived as bad, and 2) how does that same someone react when a friend does the same something. I described it as an alternate universe fallacy (not it’s real name, but I don’t know what it is), because I thought he was going to claim a conclusion with only one data point. I jumped the gun because I made that description before he actually offered a conclusion. That was definitely my mistake, and I am treating that as a lesson learned.
What Applepie was collecting as second data points were our own descriptions of how we would behave in the reverse scenario. I described why this was a fundamentally bad idea when refuting his claim that it was used in courts all the time. The questioned person can answer pretty much however they like, and without a similar real data point to compare their answer against, it can’t be refuted. So while he wasn’t committing an alternate universe fallacy, the whole line of reasoning behind the great Aristotlean idea was was almost destined from conception to go nowhere, because we’re either ethical enough or smart enough to not give an answer inconsistent with our current behavior.
I never dreamed that in a thousand posts, Applepie would give an inconsistent answer to his own ethical question. That stunned me beyond belief. As you quoted below, he tried to save some face by defining which specific behavior was subject to Aristotle’s ethics, and that his behaviors was not. He must have known he was caught, because it was at this point that the thread fell apart in the manner you find distasteful. My immediately previous post might have used emphasis, bolding, and underline (and, okay, a theistic appeal for sanity) to convey how stunned I was and to ensure it was seen, but it basically offered my conclusion without calling him names.
Now at this stage, Applepie lost his cool and said this.
You’re completely bonkers. You’ve got it competely upside down. You have behavior X. I _don’t_ object to behavior X by Moore, and I wouldn’t object if JimK did it. I came here because I wanted to see for myself what the reaction was from Moore’s detractors. I’ve found out: they just hate Moore.
And that opened up the whole Moorehaters can-o’-worms and everything got sidetracked. But in his rant, Applepie is, in a hamfisted way, saying, “please don’t apply my idea to behaviour X (my hypocrisy), apply it to behaviour A (Jim’s reaction to Moore)
Which was exactly my problem with his argument.
Like I say, I don’t think he had a leg to stand on - Seth, Thorisin, Sl0re, Rapid - you all had him tied up pretty good. But Applepie was far from a troll and did raise some interesting objections. Let’s put it this way - if I was on trial for a crime I obviously committed, I could do worse than have Applepie argue for me. He made an decent enough fist of a losing battle. And I’d be happy if he stayed around, because he certainly livened things up.
I don’t think any of the contributors actually considered him a troll, but I’d like to see more than mere “livening up” from new posters.
So I tip my hat to Applepie.
I’m still not clear as to why. He dodged questions, simplified and redefined the situation, avoided any consideration of the other side while demanding it of us, and when his one decent contribution of a great Aristotlean ethical ideal was used against him, he called us haters.
You say what you enemy did is a misuse of charity and evil, but had your friend done it you would have found a way to excuse it. This shows that while it may be wrong, what you are objecting to is your enemy, not to his action.
I don’t agree with this. It is based on an assumption of my character. That I would have found a way to excuse my friend.
In fact, I was embarrassed by some of my friends displays of character last weekend that have made me rethink my friendship to them.
I am objecting to Moore’s action and JimK and I are not friends, we have never met. I also do not hate Michael Moore.
Many of Applepie’s posts were based on assumptions or interpretations of Moorewatch, posters here and what JimK said and felt.
As we have proven, we can talk about these all day with nobody changing anyone’s mind.
It appears Applepie felt he/she could change our minds, and therein lies the problem, and the length of this thread.
I was trying to point out that fact, but it appeared not to be of import.
Someone got very frustrated in the GW thread because they presented all the facts, yet some people’s minds were not changed.
One can agree to disagree, which I believe Applepie did at some point.
Then tried to show that he/she was correct again, why can’t we see it.
I am sure it was frustrating for him/her , as well as us.
I didn’t get frustrated in the GW debate because people didn’t see things my way, I get frustrated when certain people demonstrably couldn’t follow my arguments. For instance, Diogenes and I came to a mutual understanding of where our opinions differed on the reliability of ice-cores. I made an argument, and he clearly showed that he understood that argument, but didn’t agree. Fine. No frustration there.
The frustration came when certain people’s objections to my argument clearly demonstrated that they weren’t even following me. I’d make point A, B and C and they’d talk about X, Y and Z. It’s a mutual lack of understanding. So what do I do? I can continue to find new ways of making myself clearer, but I get accused of being a climavangalist who is trying to convert people who disagree with me. But how do I know they really disagree with me when they steadfastly refuse to read what I write.
All I’m saying is that, for all of Applepie’s faults, he made some worthwhile points that weren’t always engaged directly. Applepie introduced a concept with his friend/enemy thing. I’m not saying he’s right, but no one addressed it. They instead chose to focus on who he called Moorehaters, (as if that was going to undermine his argument) I can read the thread from his POV and see how he was getting a little frustrated.
Right. I am sorry I misinterpreted that GW thang r.j., I apologize.(No CM, I am not British) That is exactly how I felt with Applepie. I felt we clearly had demonstrated that JimK was, in fact, acting appropriately, or at the very least, it could be interpreted that way. All I am saying is for our faults, he wasn’t engaging our worthwhile points either.
Several questions were raised to him early on, he ignored them or dismissed them entirely. Hardly a debate, from someone who says they want to debate.
I think I am missing something.
Now, don’t jump on me as I am not firing on all cylinders yet (and may not be for several days still) but in Applepies original argument he was using a contrarian argument. Basically would your reaction be the same if the circumstances were reversed.
Now don’t get me wrong, I actually try to use this fairly often. Remnants of a parochial school and all.
To a VERY basic point this argument can be made, which is fine.
But here is what I seem to be missing,
First he made the claim it was used in law schools, but never supported the claim. Second (and this is where I think I may be missing something) he posted a link that, from what I could tell didn’t really reflect what he was claiming. Now, again, I am not 100% but did I misread his link or were they not exactly related?
No, I didn’t see the link related to the ethical proposition either. I pasted a section from the link that was could be interpreted as refuting his claim it was a logical proof, but it used rather ambiguous language. That was more to poke him than anything, and I didn’t pursue it when he ignored it. But yeah, I think the posted link was another red herring.
Maybe it shouldn’t say the link was a complete red herring, but I read the whole thing and didn’t see where it backed up using the claim in an argument. It is possible r.j. spotted something we missed.
Applepie introduced a concept with his friend/enemy thing. I’m not saying he’s right, but no one addressed it.
I did… I said I wouldn’t go for a conservative doing it to a lefty either… actually, its easier for me to have clear thoughts looking at it from that POV… because seriously, I have such low expectations of lefties that I don’t really focus (bawh, there they go again… pfft)… So on that, looking at it from a conservative doing it to a lefty, I found the whole business seriously disgusting… Messing with / involving his family… gotcha moments instead of reasoned arguments....
Also, I raised Carl Schmitt… a nasty piece of work who was also a philosopher and jurist who’s work often centered around an argued need for friend enemy relations in thought and systems… and that it is ok to have different standards for friends and enemies… Also, an unrepentant nazi… and it makes sense… liberalism and enlightenment reason reject separate standards…
r.j. may have a point, but Applepie’s comment was still based on an assumption.
That is the point I was trying to address and he ignored it.
I would also point out he/she was very dismissive of others arguments, which is not helpful in a debate, as it is not actually debating.
As far as ganging up, whenever anybody comes here and starts throwing around blanket statements and assumptions as facts, everybody responds to that here.
When I was a new member, I didn’t. I am sure I would have been attacked by somebody if I did.
People did it to Souleata all the time on both sides of the political divide.
If Applepie had lightened the tone and backed off the generalizations and assumptions, the thread would have never looked like this, IMO.
I am not going to feel ashamed for responding with the same tone that Applepie used.
Fair enough.
And no one could ever really complain about your tone, Rapid. You set a pretty high standard for conduct.
Applepie introduced a concept with his friend/enemy thing. I’m not saying he’s right, but no one addressed it.
I did… I said I wouldn’t go for a conservative doing it to a lefty either… actually, its easier for me to have clear thoughts looking at it from that POV… because seriously, I have such low expectations of lefties that I don’t really focus (bawh, there they go again… pfft)… So on that, looking at it from a conservative doing it to a lefty, I found the whole business seriously disgusting… Messing with / involving his family… gotcha moments instead of reasoned arguments....
Also, I raised Carl Schmitt… a nasty piece of work who was also a philosopher and jurist who’s work often centered around an argued need for friend enemy relations in thought and systems… and that it is ok to have different standards for friends and enemies… Also, an unrepentant nazi… and it makes sense… liberalism and enlightenment reason reject separate standards...
There is a distinction between the contrarian argument (what if a rightwinger did it to a lefty) and Applepie’s Aristotlean rule (what if a rightwinger had done it to JimK).
As for Schmitt. Well, Applepie was arguing that it is NOT alright to have separate standards for friends and enemies. (even if Sethery felt he failed in this himself). So I don’t especially see the relevance.
I think I did address the idea. I acknowledged it as a valuable personal exercise, and a broad ethical stance. But it’s application in an argument requires at least two data points: 1) how did someone react when an enemy does something perceived as bad, and 2) how does that same someone react when a friend does the same something. I described it as an alternate universe fallacy (not it’s real name, but I don’t know what it is), because I thought he was going to claim a conclusion with only one data point. I jumped the gun because I made that description before he actually offered a conclusion. That was definitely my mistake, and I am treating that as a lesson learned.
What is an alternative universe fallacy? Doesn’t that mean that you’d never accept any hypothetical questions. That doesn’t seem like the most generous approach to an argument. Perhaps he wasn’t claiming a conclusion with only one data point. Perhaps he was just encouraging people to ask it as a valuable personal exercise.
