[lbo-talk] autumn of the communes

[// ravi]

On Oct 31, 2011, at 9:05 AM, SA wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 6:29 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> 
>> Yeah. I agree. One thing Carrol has said, and I think it's very true.
>> When we have a discussio, calling each other names is not that big a
>> deal. Using ad hominem and logical fallacy, however, is something you
>> use on your enemy. When people elect to use logical fallacy here, I at
>> first assume it's a mistake. When that becomes their  main line of
>> argument, then I assume that they are not interested in solidarity. I
>> assume that those who prefer to use it in arguments have decided that
>> they see members of this list as the enemy.
> 
> I don't get this at all. It's fine to call people names, but not to point out their (perceived) logical fallacies? These norms of argument are unfamiliar to me. I'm trying to figure out what the ideal mode of discussion would be in your view. It seems like it would be an ongoing workshop in which everyone collaboratively helps each other refine their ideas. That does happen here sometimes, and it's nice when it does. But it can only happen when people are already in fundamental agreement on some point.
> 
> But what about when people just fundamentally disagree? Normally that would mean demonstrating why one thinks the other person is wrong, showing errors of fact or argumentation (i.e. logical fallacies) -- you know, argument. It sounds like you're saying that that in itself is a breach of "solidarity" - a sign that the other person is viewed as an "enemy." Well, no, it's not. It's just debate. Can't you think the other person is completely wrong on some point without seeing them as an enemy? It's strange to think that if person A pointed out person B's logical fallacy, and B responded by calling A a nasty name, you would see A as being in the wrong and B as being in the right. No wonder there's so much misunderstanding on this list.

Speaking of misunderstanding I think you have misunderstood what shag wrote above. The sequence is not:

A points out logical fallacy in B’s argument
B calls A a nasty name
=> A is in the wrong

The sequence is:

A makes a substantive argument
B makes a response that is a logical fallacy
A finds this sort of fallacious response too frequent to be unintentional
=> A concludes that B is arguing in bad faith
=> A calls B a nasty name

If A is right, then why would B keep mistreating A’s argument? You might do that sort of thing repeatedly to your enemies when it helps win an argument…

	—ravi