strawmen everywhere! October 25, 2005 7:50 PM Subscribe
During my sophomore year in college, my classmates apparently all simultaneously discovered the word "ambiguous." We couldn't go through five minutes of a class discussion without the word being used. It was like, "I'm smart! Look at my new word! Watch me use it in any mildly appropriate way!"
I can't get ten comments through a thread here without someone cleverly pointing out a "straw man" argument. Not every argument that is contrary to your own is a "straw man" argument. An unsupported argument is not a "staw man" argument. If you disagree with someone's point, then take the time to attack the logic or the premise of that argument. Don't just call that person a "straw man." It's too ambiguous.
I can't get ten comments through a thread here without someone cleverly pointing out a "straw man" argument. Not every argument that is contrary to your own is a "straw man" argument. An unsupported argument is not a "staw man" argument. If you disagree with someone's point, then take the time to attack the logic or the premise of that argument. Don't just call that person a "straw man." It's too ambiguous.
Er, I've never seen someone call someone else a straw man. "Take that, you fucking scare crow!"
Isn't calling an argument a straw man an attack on the argument's logic? Bad logic isn't, and all that?
posted by hototogisu at 7:55 PM on October 25, 2005
Isn't calling an argument a straw man an attack on the argument's logic? Bad logic isn't, and all that?
posted by hototogisu at 7:55 PM on October 25, 2005
Hoy crap, he rambles more pointlessly then I do!! And in the wrong catagory never the les!!!
posted by wheelieman at 8:05 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 8:05 PM on October 25, 2005
I'm sure it's not always used correctly, but straw men are a favourite debating tactic around here. There are armies of them wandering about, beating each other over the head with red herrings.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:06 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by Krrrlson at 8:06 PM on October 25, 2005
Occam's Razor is another one that gets on my goat. There's something Goodwinesque* about it. As soon as someone mentions Occam's Razor then they must be wrong!
*As in the Goodwin's Law that most people think is the Goodwin's Law, not the actual Goodwin's Law as it was originally stated. ;)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:07 PM on October 25, 2005
*As in the Goodwin's Law that most people think is the Goodwin's Law, not the actual Goodwin's Law as it was originally stated. ;)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:07 PM on October 25, 2005
I can't believe you want us to follow high school debate rules in our discussions.
posted by smackfu at 8:15 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by smackfu at 8:15 PM on October 25, 2005
People like to say that any metaphor at all is a straw man argument, particulary religious people. Well I know a certain Nazarene who used a lot of these "straw men"...
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:15 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:15 PM on October 25, 2005
I think flarbuse just misphrased that last part. Up to there, it's clear (er, "unambiguous") that he's using "straw man" in relation to arguments, not people.
Krrrlson and flarbuse are both right. MetaFilter fucking loves to use straw men in arguments. But a lot of people use the term "straw man" totally incorrectly (and not in the slip-of-the-tongue/typing-finger way that flarbuse did).
posted by Bugbread at 8:15 PM on October 25, 2005
Krrrlson and flarbuse are both right. MetaFilter fucking loves to use straw men in arguments. But a lot of people use the term "straw man" totally incorrectly (and not in the slip-of-the-tongue/typing-finger way that flarbuse did).
posted by Bugbread at 8:15 PM on October 25, 2005
smackfu : "I can't believe you want us to follow high school debate rules in our discussions."
I don't think that's what flarbuse is saying. He's just saying "use words correctly (or, presumably, incorrectly when in jest), but don't use them if you don't know what they mean just because they sound cool". If anything, it's "don't talk like high school kids".
posted by Bugbread at 8:17 PM on October 25, 2005
I don't think that's what flarbuse is saying. He's just saying "use words correctly (or, presumably, incorrectly when in jest), but don't use them if you don't know what they mean just because they sound cool". If anything, it's "don't talk like high school kids".
posted by Bugbread at 8:17 PM on October 25, 2005
Why don't you just post this to the blue, get spanked for a doublepost, get mad, huff off, lurk for three years, then come back under a new $5 name like all the other doofi?
posted by scarabic at 8:17 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by scarabic at 8:17 PM on October 25, 2005
Isn't this whole callout a straw man?
Nice examples, fuckface.
Now that's pretty unambiguous.
posted by tweak at 8:22 PM on October 25, 2005
Nice examples, fuckface.
Now that's pretty unambiguous.
posted by tweak at 8:22 PM on October 25, 2005
...and then, after some of us got even older and wiser, we discovered that worrying about other people's common intellectual pretensions is itself pretentious and a waste of fucking time. If you don't like how people throw around the term "straw man", then indirectly and subtly correct them and don't worry about it if they don't notice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 PM on October 25, 2005
I don't think that's what flarbuse is saying.
So... was that a strawman?
posted by smackfu at 8:43 PM on October 25, 2005
So... was that a strawman?
posted by smackfu at 8:43 PM on October 25, 2005
Ethereal Bligh : "...and then, after some of us got even older and wiser, we discovered that worrying about other people's common intellectual pretensions is itself pretentious and a waste of fucking time."
Well, you're older than me, so I don't know if it applies, but I learned that worrying about other people's intellectual pretentions is a waste of time, but I also learned that much of the time wasted in discussion is due to people using the same terms to mean different things. Any effort to get people to use words that mean what they're trying to say is (in my opinion) a good thing.
posted by Bugbread at 8:57 PM on October 25, 2005
Well, you're older than me, so I don't know if it applies, but I learned that worrying about other people's intellectual pretentions is a waste of time, but I also learned that much of the time wasted in discussion is due to people using the same terms to mean different things. Any effort to get people to use words that mean what they're trying to say is (in my opinion) a good thing.
posted by Bugbread at 8:57 PM on October 25, 2005
From Ludwig_Van's Wikipedia link: As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.
posted by LarryC at 9:17 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by LarryC at 9:17 PM on October 25, 2005
Bugbread: yes, defining one's terms and the careful use of language is very important in serious discussion. And by "serious", I mean "intended to be intellectually productive with regard to the subject matter". The question we might productively ask in this context is "just how much are the mefites involved truly interested in 'serious' discussion as I've defined it?". I think the answer is probably "not very, only moderately". Given that, I think being casual about other people's use of language is probably most appropriate.
Additionally, I think I'd like to point out that among some there is tendency to pedantry, which is often picky about the use of language for reasons other than utility (specifically, it's an affectation of a sort), in contrast to being picky for the purpose of utility. If utility is primary, then it's probably best to concern oneself with language use that is truly ambiguous or confusing rather than language that is merely a misuse that can safely be ignored.
Finally, it is almost always more effective to be exemplary of good (or appropriate) behavior than to be accusatory of bad behavior.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:18 PM on October 25, 2005
Additionally, I think I'd like to point out that among some there is tendency to pedantry, which is often picky about the use of language for reasons other than utility (specifically, it's an affectation of a sort), in contrast to being picky for the purpose of utility. If utility is primary, then it's probably best to concern oneself with language use that is truly ambiguous or confusing rather than language that is merely a misuse that can safely be ignored.
Finally, it is almost always more effective to be exemplary of good (or appropriate) behavior than to be accusatory of bad behavior.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:18 PM on October 25, 2005
why straw men? ... you burn them up once and they're gone ... what you need are tin demons ... little ideas and concepts that horrify you that can be set up and kicked around again and again until you feel better, having blown off steam and demonstrated to your friends that your heart is in the right place and you're willing to be suitably outraged about something
tin demon kicking seems to be fairly frequent around here ... and other places
posted by pyramid termite at 9:23 PM on October 25, 2005
tin demon kicking seems to be fairly frequent around here ... and other places
posted by pyramid termite at 9:23 PM on October 25, 2005
well, I don't know if it belongs on meta, but he's right. straw man, and ad hominem are both thrown around here without merit at times.
in particular, a straw man is often called when someone says "your argument implies [x]," but the person didn't mean [x]. then you will inevitably hear "nice straw man." it's not actually a straw man. it's just the accuser of such being unclear and not wanting to clarify, or at least believing that his opponent is intentionally trying to lie when he is not. It is also called when someone is genralizing, but the accuser believes he is being specific. for instance, "people keep whining about [y]." "I didn't say [y]. nice straw man!" "that's an ad hominem attack!"
which brings me to another point. people around here carry ad hominem snugged into their waste lines just waiting to whip it out and blow some sucker away. consequently they get a little itchy on their trigger fingers and call it on something that isn't actually an ad hominem attack.
posted by shmegegge at 9:25 PM on October 25, 2005
in particular, a straw man is often called when someone says "your argument implies [x]," but the person didn't mean [x]. then you will inevitably hear "nice straw man." it's not actually a straw man. it's just the accuser of such being unclear and not wanting to clarify, or at least believing that his opponent is intentionally trying to lie when he is not. It is also called when someone is genralizing, but the accuser believes he is being specific. for instance, "people keep whining about [y]." "I didn't say [y]. nice straw man!" "that's an ad hominem attack!"
which brings me to another point. people around here carry ad hominem snugged into their waste lines just waiting to whip it out and blow some sucker away. consequently they get a little itchy on their trigger fingers and call it on something that isn't actually an ad hominem attack.
posted by shmegegge at 9:25 PM on October 25, 2005
"[T]he creator of a 'straw man' argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous."
Sounds like a normal day around here, don't it?!?
Face it, we ALL hate freedom!
posted by davy at 9:31 PM on October 25, 2005
Sounds like a normal day around here, don't it?!?
Face it, we ALL hate freedom!
posted by davy at 9:31 PM on October 25, 2005
I noticed this about three years ago on the web -- the widespread use of philosophy 100 terms in a pop culture kind of way. Straw man in particular is very frequently misused.
My person pet peeve, though, is the old "AH, but that's correlation not causation". Which is a fine objection, if you understand the value of correlation on its own. I'll take a 1.0 over an uncertain causal connection any day. At least I'll have a certain outcome.
posted by dreamsign at 9:39 PM on October 25, 2005
My person pet peeve, though, is the old "AH, but that's correlation not causation". Which is a fine objection, if you understand the value of correlation on its own. I'll take a 1.0 over an uncertain causal connection any day. At least I'll have a certain outcome.
posted by dreamsign at 9:39 PM on October 25, 2005
Also, I think that everyone should consider at great length the possibility that accusations of argumentative fallacies are more often than not based upon an armchair psychoanalysis of the accused rather than an dispassionate objection to a lack of integrity of another's argument or reasoning. I really, really believe that most discussions would be more productive and enjoyable, particularly when they concern emotionally charged matters, when those involved stop interpreting everything everyone (by "everyone", I probably mean "one's ideological opponents") says through the filter of a crude and ungenerous psychological profile of a person and their intentions.
Many supposed straw man arguments may well in fact be straw man arguments, but not all of them are deliberate or even unconscious attempts to argue in bad faith. The almost omnipresent assumption of bad faith among one's discursive "adversaries" poisons discussion right from its beginning. If we learned to avoid this, the world and MetaFilter would be a much better place.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:44 PM on October 25, 2005
Many supposed straw man arguments may well in fact be straw man arguments, but not all of them are deliberate or even unconscious attempts to argue in bad faith. The almost omnipresent assumption of bad faith among one's discursive "adversaries" poisons discussion right from its beginning. If we learned to avoid this, the world and MetaFilter would be a much better place.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:44 PM on October 25, 2005
About this call-out: most people neither know nor care what these terms mean whether they use them or not. Those who throw such terms around most often don't want to know how to use them correctly, as their goal is to SEEM smart without having to actually learn anything. So it seems to me that it's dumb to even bring it up because it accomplishes nothing.
How many people are even going to click on scarabic's link to a page explaining logical fallacies and neato debating tricks?
(Like, what logical fallacies and debating tricks have I just committed in this comment?)
[There may be better ruby ports than Sandeman but I can't afford them so fuck it.]
posted by davy at 9:48 PM on October 25, 2005
How many people are even going to click on scarabic's link to a page explaining logical fallacies and neato debating tricks?
(Like, what logical fallacies and debating tricks have I just committed in this comment?)
[There may be better ruby ports than Sandeman but I can't afford them so fuck it.]
posted by davy at 9:48 PM on October 25, 2005
Well I know a certain Nazarene who used a lot of these "straw men"...
you know Him? next you'll be claiming He's your personal savior.
posted by quonsar at 10:03 PM on October 25, 2005
you know Him? next you'll be claiming He's your personal savior.
posted by quonsar at 10:03 PM on October 25, 2005
Cast:
Dave - boss
Bruce - Williams
[Set in office. Bruce knocks on the door.]
Dave: Come in.
Bruce: I came as soon as I ascertained you needed to see me, sir.
Dave: Sit down, Williams.
Bruce: [sits] What is it, sir?
Dave: There have been some complaints about your use of language on the docks.
Bruce: If this is about yesterday, sir, yes I did use a few blue words, a few cuss words, but as soon as I ascertained that the mix up had been corrected --
Dave: Noo, Williams, it's not your swearing that I'm getting complaints about; it's the fact that use the word "ascertain" too much.
Bruce: Really?
Dave: Yes, apparently you use it an average of two to three- hundred times, daily.
Bruce: Well, I do, but so...other...few words...fit.
Dave: Well, it's driving the men crazy.
Bruce: Who's complaining, sir? Is it Sanchez?
Dave: Noo, it's not Sanchez. It's--it's the older men, the ones nearing retirement.
Bruce: Sir, I ascertain that these men are just jealous of my command of the...English...uh language.
Dave: Well, perhaps. But, I suggest just to keep things running smoothly down at the docks that you humor me by limiting yourself to these four work-related phrases: [reads them off a paper] Good morning fellas; Hand me that thing; Boy, this work's hard; Guys, break's over.
Bruce: Sir, I ascertain--
Dave: Ah.
Bruce: -- that it's their problem. They're just jealous of me. It's my right to ascertain things. You should talk to them about their being upset about my...ascertaination.
Dave: Look, I was young once; and, whatever you do in the privacy of your home, with your good lady wife, well that's your business. But, when it starts to slow work down on the docks, then it becomes my business.
Bruce: I ascertain--
Dave: If you don't back off that word, you'll be looking for a new job -- comprendez-vous?
Bruce: I...asc--
Dave: Unh-uh.
Bruce: ah--
Dave: Mmm-mm.
Bruce: ah--
Dave: Nn-nn.
Bruce: Asc--
Dave: N-nuh-no.
Bruce: Asc -- asc--
Dave: Nooo-no-no-no.
Bruce: I asc--
Dave: Mm-mm-mm-mm.
Bruce: Cer--
Dave: No.
Bruce: tuh--
Dave: Uh-uh. Good morning fellas; hand me that thing; boy, this work's hard; guys, break's over.
Bruce: I asc--
[Dave shoves the paper in his face. Bruce grabs it with disgust.]
Bruce: [pouting] Boy, this work's hard.
Dave: There ya go! Good boy! Now, get the hell out of my office.
[Bruce gets up to go.]
Dave: Glad we had the chance to delineate our little problem.
[Twinkley music sounds out the word "delineate" dances around the screen.]
Bruce: [to himself, trying the word out] Duh-lynn-e-ate. Duh-lynn-e-ate. Sir, I promise I'll never use that...other word ever again. [to himself] Duh-lynn-e-ate.
[Dave eyes him skeptically, as Bruce continues trying the word.]
stolen from kithfan.org
posted by LimePi at 10:32 PM on October 25, 2005
Dave - boss
Bruce - Williams
[Set in office. Bruce knocks on the door.]
Dave: Come in.
Bruce: I came as soon as I ascertained you needed to see me, sir.
Dave: Sit down, Williams.
Bruce: [sits] What is it, sir?
Dave: There have been some complaints about your use of language on the docks.
Bruce: If this is about yesterday, sir, yes I did use a few blue words, a few cuss words, but as soon as I ascertained that the mix up had been corrected --
Dave: Noo, Williams, it's not your swearing that I'm getting complaints about; it's the fact that use the word "ascertain" too much.
Bruce: Really?
Dave: Yes, apparently you use it an average of two to three- hundred times, daily.
Bruce: Well, I do, but so...other...few words...fit.
Dave: Well, it's driving the men crazy.
Bruce: Who's complaining, sir? Is it Sanchez?
Dave: Noo, it's not Sanchez. It's--it's the older men, the ones nearing retirement.
Bruce: Sir, I ascertain that these men are just jealous of my command of the...English...uh language.
Dave: Well, perhaps. But, I suggest just to keep things running smoothly down at the docks that you humor me by limiting yourself to these four work-related phrases: [reads them off a paper] Good morning fellas; Hand me that thing; Boy, this work's hard; Guys, break's over.
Bruce: Sir, I ascertain--
Dave: Ah.
Bruce: -- that it's their problem. They're just jealous of me. It's my right to ascertain things. You should talk to them about their being upset about my...ascertaination.
Dave: Look, I was young once; and, whatever you do in the privacy of your home, with your good lady wife, well that's your business. But, when it starts to slow work down on the docks, then it becomes my business.
Bruce: I ascertain--
Dave: If you don't back off that word, you'll be looking for a new job -- comprendez-vous?
Bruce: I...asc--
Dave: Unh-uh.
Bruce: ah--
Dave: Mmm-mm.
Bruce: ah--
Dave: Nn-nn.
Bruce: Asc--
Dave: N-nuh-no.
Bruce: Asc -- asc--
Dave: Nooo-no-no-no.
Bruce: I asc--
Dave: Mm-mm-mm-mm.
Bruce: Cer--
Dave: No.
Bruce: tuh--
Dave: Uh-uh. Good morning fellas; hand me that thing; boy, this work's hard; guys, break's over.
Bruce: I asc--
[Dave shoves the paper in his face. Bruce grabs it with disgust.]
Bruce: [pouting] Boy, this work's hard.
Dave: There ya go! Good boy! Now, get the hell out of my office.
[Bruce gets up to go.]
Dave: Glad we had the chance to delineate our little problem.
[Twinkley music sounds out the word "delineate" dances around the screen.]
Bruce: [to himself, trying the word out] Duh-lynn-e-ate. Duh-lynn-e-ate. Sir, I promise I'll never use that...other word ever again. [to himself] Duh-lynn-e-ate.
[Dave eyes him skeptically, as Bruce continues trying the word.]
stolen from kithfan.org
posted by LimePi at 10:32 PM on October 25, 2005
flarbuse, whatever you do, just please don't beg any questions.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:33 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by madamjujujive at 10:33 PM on October 25, 2005
I have noticed that klangklangston particularly enjoys the phrase "ouch, my straw man hurts". Curse you, klangklangston, you'll never get away with using the same clever turn of phrase twice! Not while the straw man posse is on MeFi patrol.
posted by louigi at 10:35 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by louigi at 10:35 PM on October 25, 2005
The internet is filled with children and dropouts who prove that a little knowledge is dangerous (although "embarrassing" is sometimes a better fit). Yes, I absolutely agree -- but I don't think this thread will accomplish anything. Most won't see it, and those who do will find another $5 word to molest tomorrow.
Personally, I hope it's "ambiguous."
posted by cribcage at 10:47 PM on October 25, 2005
Personally, I hope it's "ambiguous."
posted by cribcage at 10:47 PM on October 25, 2005
You people are flogging a dead horse.
Speaking of which, Google is dead. What's up?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:00 PM on October 25, 2005
Speaking of which, Google is dead. What's up?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:00 PM on October 25, 2005
It was like, "I'm smart! Look at my new word! Watch me use it in any mildly appropriate way!"
The irony is delicious. Mmm, delicious irony.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:05 PM on October 25, 2005
The irony is delicious. Mmm, delicious irony.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:05 PM on October 25, 2005
"My person pet peeve, though, is the old 'AH, but that's correlation not causation'. Which is a fine objection, if you understand the value of correlation on its own. I'll take a 1.0 over an uncertain causal connection any day. At least I'll have a certain outcome."
I wish I heard that objection more often rather than less. I think a very large number of people by habit assume that corelation essentially is causation and could do with some reminding that this is not the case. Also, I have a very vivid and unpleasant memory of an argument with an apparently educated and intelligent fellow who asserted, strongly and repeatedly, that correlation is, in fact, causation. His argument was that it almost always is, with only trivial exceptions, and so such an assumption is reasonable. My counter-argument is exactly the opposite: I think non-causal correlation is necessarily much greater than causal correlation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:15 PM on October 25, 2005
I wish I heard that objection more often rather than less. I think a very large number of people by habit assume that corelation essentially is causation and could do with some reminding that this is not the case. Also, I have a very vivid and unpleasant memory of an argument with an apparently educated and intelligent fellow who asserted, strongly and repeatedly, that correlation is, in fact, causation. His argument was that it almost always is, with only trivial exceptions, and so such an assumption is reasonable. My counter-argument is exactly the opposite: I think non-causal correlation is necessarily much greater than causal correlation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:15 PM on October 25, 2005
All of the discussion in this thread thus far overlooks the real travesty of intellectual purity:
Who the hell discovers the word 'ambiguous' in college, for crying out loud?
That's something that should be encountered much earlier in life, like say, junior high, for crying out loud.
flarbuse: Report to the Ministry of Intellectual Purity at once for an immediate lobotomy. Transgression: Public admission of intellectual weakness.
But seriously, this post was useless.
posted by teece at 11:20 PM on October 25, 2005
Who the hell discovers the word 'ambiguous' in college, for crying out loud?
That's something that should be encountered much earlier in life, like say, junior high, for crying out loud.
flarbuse: Report to the Ministry of Intellectual Purity at once for an immediate lobotomy. Transgression: Public admission of intellectual weakness.
But seriously, this post was useless.
posted by teece at 11:20 PM on October 25, 2005
Like, what logical fallacies and debating tricks have I just committed in this comment?)
[There may be better ruby ports than Sandeman but I can't afford them so fuck it.]
That would be the classic in vino veritas fallacy.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:25 PM on October 25, 2005
[There may be better ruby ports than Sandeman but I can't afford them so fuck it.]
That would be the classic in vino veritas fallacy.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:25 PM on October 25, 2005
Reminds me of 1st year Philosophy, as well. I swear, sometimes those "debates" sounded like a pseudo-intellectual Street Fighter 2 game.
Ryu: Ad Ho-Mi-Nem!
E.Honda:Ne-ce-sa-ri-no-Su-fi-shen!
Ken:Be-in-Qua-Be-in!
Sagat:Tau-to-lo-ji!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:58 PM on October 25, 2005
Ryu: Ad Ho-Mi-Nem!
E.Honda:Ne-ce-sa-ri-no-Su-fi-shen!
Ken:Be-in-Qua-Be-in!
Sagat:Tau-to-lo-ji!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:58 PM on October 25, 2005
During my sophomore year in college
Was that last year?
posted by fixedgear at 3:20 AM on October 26, 2005
Was that last year?
posted by fixedgear at 3:20 AM on October 26, 2005
This is just about the most annoying collective tic on MetaFilter for me. It'd be okay if folk dropped the occasional 'Way to reductio ad absurdam, dude' or 'Your momma smells like circular reasoning, bitch!' but it's all ad hominem this, straw man that. Correctly applied or otherwise, these terms are just trite commonplaces on MetaFilter or, to put it another way, they're fucking boring.
flarbuse, whatever you do, just please don't beg any questions.
The use of 'begging the question' to mean 'raising the question' makes my blood boil too. May need to get out more.
posted by jack_mo at 3:58 AM on October 26, 2005
flarbuse, whatever you do, just please don't beg any questions.
The use of 'begging the question' to mean 'raising the question' makes my blood boil too. May need to get out more.
posted by jack_mo at 3:58 AM on October 26, 2005
"The use of 'begging the question' to mean 'raising the question' makes my blood boil too. May need to get out more."
That's what it means. Because, for most people, that's what the expression means. I don't like it any more than you do, but why tilt at windmills? Furthermore, the funny thing about this is that the "correct" meaning of the phrase depends upon an archaic use of beg while the "incorrect" and increasingly wide usage makes perfect sense. The "incorrect" usage is more meaningful and clear! As said by others here before, it might be best for those in the know to avoid "begging the question" and use petitio principii.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:22 AM on October 26, 2005
That's what it means. Because, for most people, that's what the expression means. I don't like it any more than you do, but why tilt at windmills? Furthermore, the funny thing about this is that the "correct" meaning of the phrase depends upon an archaic use of beg while the "incorrect" and increasingly wide usage makes perfect sense. The "incorrect" usage is more meaningful and clear! As said by others here before, it might be best for those in the know to avoid "begging the question" and use petitio principii.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:22 AM on October 26, 2005
In flagrante delicto! Yeeha!
posted by Captaintripps at 4:51 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by Captaintripps at 4:51 AM on October 26, 2005
Also, "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument".
posted by Wolfdog at 4:55 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by Wolfdog at 4:55 AM on October 26, 2005
I prefer the Wicker Man argument where you stuff your opponent into a giant wooden statue and then set fire to it.
posted by Joeforking at 4:58 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by Joeforking at 4:58 AM on October 26, 2005
Is the "burning man argument" where you accuse your opponent of being dressed in nothing but body glitter and homemade fairy wings?
posted by chasing at 5:27 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by chasing at 5:27 AM on October 26, 2005
Well, now that we have picked the low hanging fruit, are the any real complaints?
posted by R. Mutt at 5:47 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by R. Mutt at 5:47 AM on October 26, 2005
Is the "burning man argument" where you accuse your opponent of being dressed in nothing but body glitter and homemade fairy wings?
Nice macho-man randy savage argument, chasing.
posted by tpl1212 at 5:51 AM on October 26, 2005
Nice macho-man randy savage argument, chasing.
posted by tpl1212 at 5:51 AM on October 26, 2005
Can we get back to pelting flarbuse with rocks and garbage? That was fun!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:52 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:52 AM on October 26, 2005
I wish I heard that objection more often rather than less. I think a very large number of people by habit assume that corelation essentially is causation and could do with some reminding that this is not the case.
In discussion/argument off the net, agreed. On the net, though, it's hammer/nail syndrome, and everywhere there's a correlation to be pounded. Even when correlation is exactly what the actuary called for.
posted by dreamsign at 5:53 AM on October 26, 2005
In discussion/argument off the net, agreed. On the net, though, it's hammer/nail syndrome, and everywhere there's a correlation to be pounded. Even when correlation is exactly what the actuary called for.
posted by dreamsign at 5:53 AM on October 26, 2005
The most overused word on this site is egregious.
That is all.
posted by iconomy at 6:05 AM on October 26, 2005
That is all.
posted by iconomy at 6:05 AM on October 26, 2005
The year was the 89-90 school year. The school was the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. I tend to pick up on repetitive uses or patterns in language more than most people do. I would imagine that many of my classmates have no such recollection of their overuse of "ambiguous."
Is this an appropriate place to post this observation? I have no idea. I am not too familiar with MetaTalk, but I was unable to find somewhere more appropriate to put it. I considered putting it in a thread immediately following what I deemed to be a poor use of the term "straw man." However, I did not want to derail the thread and I did not want the point to be lost, either.
Why did I not cite examples? I am not interested in calling out people by name as I find little use typically comes of that. I also find the misuse of the term to be so abundantly overused here that there is little need to find examples. Examples are in many threads on a daily basis. ludwig_van was kind enough to link to a definition. I certainly should have done that myself. Ironically, it would appear that I was complaining about the misuse of a term while expecting the audience to know what it meant. That makes no sense.
I certainly do not consider this post and the response here as being useless. I am hoping that some of the more flagrant users of the term have read this post and might now refrain from using the term as loosely as they have been.
posted by flarbuse at 6:16 AM on October 26, 2005
Is this an appropriate place to post this observation? I have no idea. I am not too familiar with MetaTalk, but I was unable to find somewhere more appropriate to put it. I considered putting it in a thread immediately following what I deemed to be a poor use of the term "straw man." However, I did not want to derail the thread and I did not want the point to be lost, either.
Why did I not cite examples? I am not interested in calling out people by name as I find little use typically comes of that. I also find the misuse of the term to be so abundantly overused here that there is little need to find examples. Examples are in many threads on a daily basis. ludwig_van was kind enough to link to a definition. I certainly should have done that myself. Ironically, it would appear that I was complaining about the misuse of a term while expecting the audience to know what it meant. That makes no sense.
I certainly do not consider this post and the response here as being useless. I am hoping that some of the more flagrant users of the term have read this post and might now refrain from using the term as loosely as they have been.
posted by flarbuse at 6:16 AM on October 26, 2005
The most overused word on this site is egregious.
I would have gone with shrill, I think.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:18 AM on October 26, 2005
I would have gone with shrill, I think.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:18 AM on October 26, 2005
Sorry, iconomy, but you can't say "egregious" without appending "asshattery".
-10 colloquialism points
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:19 AM on October 26, 2005
-10 colloquialism points
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:19 AM on October 26, 2005
Additionally, I think I'd like to point out that among some there is a tendency to pedantry, which is often picky about the use of language for reasons other than utility (specifically, it's an affectation of a sort), in contrast to being picky for the purpose of utility. If utility is primary, then it's probably best to concern oneself with language use that is truly ambiguous or confusing rather than language that is merely a misuse that can safely be ignored.
That's what [begging the question] means. Because, for most people, that's what the expression means. I don't like it any more than you do, but why tilt at windmills? Furthermore, the funny thing about this is that the "correct" meaning of the phrase depends upon an archaic use of beg while the "incorrect" and increasingly wide usage makes perfect sense. The "incorrect" usage is more meaningful and clear! As said by others here before, it might be best for those in the know to avoid "begging the question" and use petitio principii.
I just wanted to replay those two comments because I enjoyed them so much and they're so right. Listen up, you nutmunching straw men! (Now, that's a fucking ad hominem, you hear me?)
Also, Goodwin's Law is that quiz shows are rigged.
posted by languagehat at 6:21 AM on October 26, 2005
That's what [begging the question] means. Because, for most people, that's what the expression means. I don't like it any more than you do, but why tilt at windmills? Furthermore, the funny thing about this is that the "correct" meaning of the phrase depends upon an archaic use of beg while the "incorrect" and increasingly wide usage makes perfect sense. The "incorrect" usage is more meaningful and clear! As said by others here before, it might be best for those in the know to avoid "begging the question" and use petitio principii.
I just wanted to replay those two comments because I enjoyed them so much and they're so right. Listen up, you nutmunching straw men! (Now, that's a fucking ad hominem, you hear me?)
Also, Goodwin's Law is that quiz shows are rigged.
posted by languagehat at 6:21 AM on October 26, 2005
Can we have a contest to ban a word from MetaFilter for a week?
posted by Wolfdog at 6:25 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by Wolfdog at 6:25 AM on October 26, 2005
Okay, now that would funny, Wolfdog. Whichever word is voted off gets replaced by OVERUSED BANNED WORD HERE for a week.
By the way, according to Google "Ad Hominem" beats "straw man", "shrill" and "egregious".
posted by taz at 6:44 AM on October 26, 2005
By the way, according to Google "Ad Hominem" beats "straw man", "shrill" and "egregious".
posted by taz at 6:44 AM on October 26, 2005
taz-Always with the statistics as a way to win the argument? Why must you be so right?
posted by OmieWise at 6:51 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 6:51 AM on October 26, 2005
Can we have a contest to ban a word from MetaFilter for a week?
we'll start with a simple one we hardly ever use ... girls ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:42 AM on October 26, 2005
we'll start with a simple one we hardly ever use ... girls ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:42 AM on October 26, 2005
Also, Goodwin's Law is that quiz shows are rigged.
Don't be a pedant. I don't like it any more than you do, but people use "Goodwin's law" to refer to the Hitler reference, and therefore they're right to do so. That's just how people's names evolve, man. I, for one, welcome our Goodwin-invoking slumlords.
posted by Aknaton at 8:47 AM on October 26, 2005
Don't be a pedant. I don't like it any more than you do, but people use "Goodwin's law" to refer to the Hitler reference, and therefore they're right to do so. That's just how people's names evolve, man. I, for one, welcome our Goodwin-invoking slumlords.
posted by Aknaton at 8:47 AM on October 26, 2005
By the way, according to Google "Ad Hominem" beats "straw man", "shrill" and "egregious".
Okay, now we know which one is most used. But which one is most overused? Also, did you include "army of straw men"?
posted by Aknaton at 8:52 AM on October 26, 2005
Okay, now we know which one is most used. But which one is most overused? Also, did you include "army of straw men"?
posted by Aknaton at 8:52 AM on October 26, 2005
"Because, for most people, that's what the expression means."
Argumentum ad populum.
"I have noticed that klangklangston particularly enjoys the phrase "ouch, my straw man hurts". Curse you, klangklangston, you'll never get away with using the same clever turn of phrase twice! Not while the straw man posse is on MeFi patrol."
Well, stop beating it then. Heh.
The reason why "straw man!" is such a common cry around here is that this place, especially in political threads, thrives on bad faith arguments and hyperbolic misrepresentations.
But if you want to ban saying "straw man," go right ahead.
(Heh.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 AM on October 26, 2005
Argumentum ad populum.
"I have noticed that klangklangston particularly enjoys the phrase "ouch, my straw man hurts". Curse you, klangklangston, you'll never get away with using the same clever turn of phrase twice! Not while the straw man posse is on MeFi patrol."
Well, stop beating it then. Heh.
The reason why "straw man!" is such a common cry around here is that this place, especially in political threads, thrives on bad faith arguments and hyperbolic misrepresentations.
But if you want to ban saying "straw man," go right ahead.
(Heh.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 AM on October 26, 2005
Who the hell discovers the word 'ambiguous' in college, for crying out loud?
That's what I was wondering. Then again, that sort of thing doesn't surprise me anymore.
posted by keswick at 9:05 AM on October 26, 2005
That's what I was wondering. Then again, that sort of thing doesn't surprise me anymore.
posted by keswick at 9:05 AM on October 26, 2005
And something people should remember about ad hominems (aside from the fact that it originally refered to arguments that were popular because they appealed to emotion, 'to the man') is that just because you get called a fucktard for your insipid views on, say, the proper way to eat paste, doesn't mean that's an "ad hominem fallacy." If, however, it is argued that we shouldn't listen to your views on the Iraq war because you're a partisan, that is an ad hominem fallacy. Fucktard.
posted by klangklangston at 9:05 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 9:05 AM on October 26, 2005
As said by others here before, it might be best for those in the know to avoid "begging the question" and use petitio principii.
Or for them to say "You're assuming what you're trying to prove" or "You're making a circular argument" or "You're using your conclusions as your premises" which are more clear and direct.
It would also be better if the technically-incorrect people would abandon the phrase in favor of something that's not a stock cliche: "This leads immediately to the question..." or "This brings to mind the following:" or "This prompts the question..." or "The obvious question is of course..."
Can we have a contest to ban a word from MetaFilter for a week?
I vote for "heteroskedastic." Or "fahrvergnugen."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on October 26, 2005
Or for them to say "You're assuming what you're trying to prove" or "You're making a circular argument" or "You're using your conclusions as your premises" which are more clear and direct.
It would also be better if the technically-incorrect people would abandon the phrase in favor of something that's not a stock cliche: "This leads immediately to the question..." or "This brings to mind the following:" or "This prompts the question..." or "The obvious question is of course..."
Can we have a contest to ban a word from MetaFilter for a week?
I vote for "heteroskedastic." Or "fahrvergnugen."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on October 26, 2005
Here's a vote for banning ad hominem. Sometimes hominem just need to be attacked.
posted by johngoren at 9:26 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by johngoren at 9:26 AM on October 26, 2005
Who the hell discovers the word 'ambiguous' in college, for crying out loud?
I thought the canonical college-discovery-word was dichotomy.
Waitress: You want fries or onion rings with that?
Frosh: That's an interesting dichotomy.
("Canonical" is the canonical grad-school-discovery-word.)
I think these things have a backward drift, though; you'll always have your high school seniors trying to sound like college students by using the same vocabulary, and so on.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:27 AM on October 26, 2005
I thought the canonical college-discovery-word was dichotomy.
Waitress: You want fries or onion rings with that?
Frosh: That's an interesting dichotomy.
("Canonical" is the canonical grad-school-discovery-word.)
I think these things have a backward drift, though; you'll always have your high school seniors trying to sound like college students by using the same vocabulary, and so on.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:27 AM on October 26, 2005
Doesn't the fundamental ambiguity of language render any counter-argument susceptible to the straw-man fallacy?
Or is that, you know, just a straw man?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:29 AM on October 26, 2005
Or is that, you know, just a straw man?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:29 AM on October 26, 2005
DON'T GO POMO ON ME!
posted by klangklangston at 9:32 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 9:32 AM on October 26, 2005
*mashes cream pie in yerfatma's face*
posted by languagehat at 9:53 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by languagehat at 9:53 AM on October 26, 2005
languagehat, yerfatma's just orientated that way. Don't be such a pendant.
posted by taz at 10:00 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by taz at 10:00 AM on October 26, 2005
During my sophomore year in college, my classmates apparently all simultaneously discovered the word "ambiguous."
I discovered some surprising ambiguities while in college too. But then again, it was art school and we never exchanged phone numbers.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:08 AM on October 26, 2005
I discovered some surprising ambiguities while in college too. But then again, it was art school and we never exchanged phone numbers.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:08 AM on October 26, 2005
I did not want the point to be lost, either.
Why did I not cite examples? I am not interested in calling out people by name as I find little use typically comes of that. I also find the misuse of the term to be so abundantly overused here that there is little need to find examples.
Jeezus. You do realize that you are inflicting your college freshman sense of smarterthanyouness on all of us. This anecdote about your friends overusing 'ambiguous' - THIS is the vital cautionary tale we all needed to hear? Find something to care about, please.
I'm sure this thread will live on as long as it's open; there are plenty of folks willing to critique nuances of other people's usage till the cows come home. But don't confuse that with validation of this limp, nit-picky, unsubstatiated, pompous, bullshit callout.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 AM on October 26, 2005
Why did I not cite examples? I am not interested in calling out people by name as I find little use typically comes of that. I also find the misuse of the term to be so abundantly overused here that there is little need to find examples.
Jeezus. You do realize that you are inflicting your college freshman sense of smarterthanyouness on all of us. This anecdote about your friends overusing 'ambiguous' - THIS is the vital cautionary tale we all needed to hear? Find something to care about, please.
I'm sure this thread will live on as long as it's open; there are plenty of folks willing to critique nuances of other people's usage till the cows come home. But don't confuse that with validation of this limp, nit-picky, unsubstatiated, pompous, bullshit callout.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 AM on October 26, 2005
misuse of the term to be so abundantly overused
How do you overuse a misuse, while we're nitpicking?
so abundantly overused here that there is little need to find examples
Don't you mean little need to cite examples? Or that there's little effort required to find examples?
For someone so hung up on precision, your prose sucks.
posted by scarabic at 10:29 AM on October 26, 2005
How do you overuse a misuse, while we're nitpicking?
so abundantly overused here that there is little need to find examples
Don't you mean little need to cite examples? Or that there's little effort required to find examples?
For someone so hung up on precision, your prose sucks.
posted by scarabic at 10:29 AM on October 26, 2005
Do we have a member named Strawman because that would solve alot of the trouble right there. And then we'll need another member named Begs the Question because that's another one that gets trotted out alot and used incorrectly.
I always get stupid words stuck in my head, like nictitating. How in the hell can I use that in a conversation? Though I think I could use nictitation incorrectly and nobody would ever question me.
posted by fenriq at 10:32 AM on October 26, 2005
I always get stupid words stuck in my head, like nictitating. How in the hell can I use that in a conversation? Though I think I could use nictitation incorrectly and nobody would ever question me.
posted by fenriq at 10:32 AM on October 26, 2005
We have a member named Man O' Straw but he just lurks and posts as It's Raining Florence Henderson.
posted by sciurus at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by sciurus at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2005
Can we have a contest to ban a word from MetaFilter for a week?
Can we start with "meme"? Please?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2005
Can we start with "meme"? Please?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2005
Yikes, google's word of the day today:
virago: an ill-tempered, overbearing woman; also, a woman of great strength and courage.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:41 AM on October 26, 2005
virago: an ill-tempered, overbearing woman; also, a woman of great strength and courage.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:41 AM on October 26, 2005
So who's going to publish a Metafilter Elements of Style guide so we can settle this donnybrook once and for all?
posted by tweak at 10:43 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by tweak at 10:43 AM on October 26, 2005
Also, I've heard radio reporters describe something as "heart-rendering" at least twice in the last week. Just thought I'd throw that in.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:55 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:55 AM on October 26, 2005
the aztec empire had some heart rendering rituals ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:12 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 11:12 AM on October 26, 2005
"'Because, for most people, that's what the expression means.'
Argumentum ad populum."
That's an ad populum just as much as it's a fallacy to claim that the mayor is the mayor because he won an election.
Only some sort of idealist descriptivist with regard to language could claim that usage does not ultimately decide meaning. Only some sort of crazy person could claim that it doesn't matter at all. Therefore an argument built around the popularity of a particular usage is not a fallacious argument.
My word-peeve is decimate. When a word's construction itself implies its meaning, then I tend to be more of a prescriptivist than a descriptivist. Even so, I usually just use the word properly to set an example. Or, sometimes I will explain what the word originally meant and that it's also what it apparently means from its construction. I'll champion the usage that I think is best.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:13 AM on October 26, 2005
Argumentum ad populum."
That's an ad populum just as much as it's a fallacy to claim that the mayor is the mayor because he won an election.
Only some sort of idealist descriptivist with regard to language could claim that usage does not ultimately decide meaning. Only some sort of crazy person could claim that it doesn't matter at all. Therefore an argument built around the popularity of a particular usage is not a fallacious argument.
My word-peeve is decimate. When a word's construction itself implies its meaning, then I tend to be more of a prescriptivist than a descriptivist. Even so, I usually just use the word properly to set an example. Or, sometimes I will explain what the word originally meant and that it's also what it apparently means from its construction. I'll champion the usage that I think is best.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:13 AM on October 26, 2005
"Also, I've heard radio reporters describe something as 'heart-rendering' at least twice in the last week."
Well, hell, what do you think the Republicans use for the lamp oil in their dungeons? It's not like they need the organ.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:16 AM on October 26, 2005
Well, hell, what do you think the Republicans use for the lamp oil in their dungeons? It's not like they need the organ.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:16 AM on October 26, 2005
Where is Fedora, the wild virago?
It's lucky I missed her gangster sister from Chicago
Where is Venetia, who loved to chat so?
Could still she be drinking in her stinking pink palazzo?
and of course, my personal motto:
Raising an heir
Could never compare
With raising a bit of hell
- Cole Porter's Kiss Me Kate
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:17 AM on October 26, 2005
It's lucky I missed her gangster sister from Chicago
Where is Venetia, who loved to chat so?
Could still she be drinking in her stinking pink palazzo?
and of course, my personal motto:
Raising an heir
Could never compare
With raising a bit of hell
- Cole Porter's Kiss Me Kate
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:17 AM on October 26, 2005
The comment in which I further poke Ethereal Bligh with a stick, in order to see him fume:
""'Because, for most people, that's what the expression means.'
Argumentum ad populum."
That's an ad populum just as much as it's a fallacy to claim that the mayor is the mayor because he won an election."
No, it's as much of a fallacy to claim that someone is the Mayor just because most people call him Mayor. Fie to your poor analogies.
posted by klangklangston at 11:47 AM on October 26, 2005
""'Because, for most people, that's what the expression means.'
Argumentum ad populum."
That's an ad populum just as much as it's a fallacy to claim that the mayor is the mayor because he won an election."
No, it's as much of a fallacy to claim that someone is the Mayor just because most people call him Mayor. Fie to your poor analogies.
posted by klangklangston at 11:47 AM on October 26, 2005
Always with the straw men. Won't somebody think of the poor, neglected straw women.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:57 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by madamjujujive at 11:57 AM on October 26, 2005
I'd agree to using the more gender-neutral term, strawperson.
posted by horsewithnoname at 12:11 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by horsewithnoname at 12:11 PM on October 26, 2005
But only if there's a consensus.
posted by horsewithnoname at 12:14 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by horsewithnoname at 12:14 PM on October 26, 2005
I prefer being called "fuckface" to having my prose mocked.
posted by flarbuse at 12:45 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by flarbuse at 12:45 PM on October 26, 2005
Good for you, fuckface.
posted by klangklangston at 1:12 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 1:12 PM on October 26, 2005
Sorry... The fruit, it was just so... low-hanging. I couldn't not pick it, y'know?
posted by klangklangston at 1:13 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 1:13 PM on October 26, 2005
I am unable to read the phrase "low-hanging fruit" without picturing saggy testicles dangling from a tree. I do not want to be exposed to low-hanging fruit.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:46 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:46 PM on October 26, 2005
I prefer being called "fuckface" to having my prose mocked.
Sorry. I was a little cranky when I woke up. But you did kind of walk right into it with this post.
posted by scarabic at 2:53 PM on October 26, 2005
Sorry. I was a little cranky when I woke up. But you did kind of walk right into it with this post.
posted by scarabic at 2:53 PM on October 26, 2005
I am unable to read the phrase "low-hanging fruit" without picturing saggy testicles dangling from a tree.
I always thought of it as a porn mag title, filed next to "Tranny Granny".
It's Godwin, not Goodwin.
Look upthread, lazybones.
posted by Aknaton at 3:05 PM on October 26, 2005
I always thought of it as a porn mag title, filed next to "Tranny Granny".
It's Godwin, not Goodwin.
Look upthread, lazybones.
posted by Aknaton at 3:05 PM on October 26, 2005
That's what it means. Because, for most people, that's what the expression means.
Yeah, getting angry about it is more of a hobby than anything else.
posted by jack_mo at 4:12 PM on October 26, 2005
Yeah, getting angry about it is more of a hobby than anything else.
posted by jack_mo at 4:12 PM on October 26, 2005
I prefer being called "fuckface" to having my prose mocked.
How convenient that you've come to just the right place for both! Reminds me of elementary school, when all my friends apparently all simultaneously discovered the word 'fuckface'...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:37 PM on October 26, 2005
How convenient that you've come to just the right place for both! Reminds me of elementary school, when all my friends apparently all simultaneously discovered the word 'fuckface'...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:37 PM on October 26, 2005
All this talk of banning words sounds like Nazi Germany.
posted by cribcage at 4:59 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by cribcage at 4:59 PM on October 26, 2005
"How convenient that you've come to just the right place for both!"
Why choose?
posted by klangklangston at 5:16 PM on October 26, 2005
Why choose?
posted by klangklangston at 5:16 PM on October 26, 2005
You learned the word ambiguous your sophomore year in college?
Good god man.
posted by delmoi at 5:38 PM on October 26, 2005
Good god man.
posted by delmoi at 5:38 PM on October 26, 2005
Delmoi just woke up.
posted by klangklangston at 5:47 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 5:47 PM on October 26, 2005
The bottom line is these terms exist to simplify discussion. Rather than sit and explain why an argument is flawed, it's easier for everyone to have a set of common terminology to describe the common fallacies. I wouldn't complain about any use (or "overuse") of the terms, as long as they're used in the correct situations. If you want to ban "begging the question" (for example), then you are forcing everyone to explain that the argument in question assumes the conclusion as one of the premises, and frankly, that's more words to type.
posted by knave at 5:56 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by knave at 5:56 PM on October 26, 2005
I predict no downturn in ill-wrought straw man charges, and a climb in humorously reckless usages of "ambiguous."
posted by scarabic at 6:57 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by scarabic at 6:57 PM on October 26, 2005
flarbuse, this is dumb. Nobody cares about your pet peeves. If you see somebody misusing the term then point out that they're misuing the term. Or not. Nobody likes pedantic assholes that must critically evaluate each and every term. Personally, I suspect discussion on mefi would go a lot smoother if people just passed over such trivial issues.
Also, your classmates are dumb. I remember tossing about 'ambiguous' as a fifty-cent word for papers in grade school. It's also a SAT word. In the future, you should keep that story to yourself. Or perhaps change the beginning to, "I know a guy who..."
Also, I would like all Mefis to stop cussing. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't make you sound all grown-up and wise. So, please don't do it. Fuckers.
posted by nixerman at 7:45 PM on October 26, 2005
Also, your classmates are dumb. I remember tossing about 'ambiguous' as a fifty-cent word for papers in grade school. It's also a SAT word. In the future, you should keep that story to yourself. Or perhaps change the beginning to, "I know a guy who..."
Also, I would like all Mefis to stop cussing. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't make you sound all grown-up and wise. So, please don't do it. Fuckers.
posted by nixerman at 7:45 PM on October 26, 2005
i was walking my straw man down the street ... ambiguously
posted by pyramid termite at 8:58 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 8:58 PM on October 26, 2005
Well, since you asked, I find this thread to be rather shallow and pedantic.
posted by danb at 9:27 PM on October 26, 2005
posted by danb at 9:27 PM on October 26, 2005
tsk tsk people. my classmates apparently all simultaneously discovered the word "ambiguous."
The point is they were overusing it, not that they truly just "learned" it. Now why am I taking the time to comment on this post? The world may never know.
And, look, I didn't even use "ambiguous" or "strawman".
Damnit!
posted by Stauf at 6:45 AM on October 27, 2005
The point is they were overusing it, not that they truly just "learned" it. Now why am I taking the time to comment on this post? The world may never know.
And, look, I didn't even use "ambiguous" or "strawman".
Damnit!
posted by Stauf at 6:45 AM on October 27, 2005
shmegegge: The other day i was walking down the street.
dg: Wow, what a coincidence - so was I.
That's correlation, not causation.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:58 AM on October 27, 2005
dg: Wow, what a coincidence - so was I.
That's correlation, not causation.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:58 AM on October 27, 2005
I once knew a fellow named "Dave L. Sadvocate," and I am disregarding your comment because your name sounds the same.
sorry about the ad homonym
posted by cortex at 10:43 AM on October 27, 2005
sorry about the ad homonym
posted by cortex at 10:43 AM on October 27, 2005
I prefer the Wicker Man argument where you stuff your opponent into a giant wooden statue and then set fire to it.
posted by Joeforking at 4:58 AM PST on October 26 [!]
Is the "burning man argument" where you accuse your opponent of being dressed in nothing but body glitter and homemade fairy wings?
posted by chasing at 5:27 AM PST on October 26 [!]
Joeforking and chasing concomitantly owe me a new keyboard.
("Owe me a new keyboard" being to "that made me laugh heartily" as "ambiguous" is to "annoying flarbuse." And "concomitantly" being a singularly awesome word.)
posted by gompa at 2:46 PM on October 27, 2005
posted by Joeforking at 4:58 AM PST on October 26 [!]
Is the "burning man argument" where you accuse your opponent of being dressed in nothing but body glitter and homemade fairy wings?
posted by chasing at 5:27 AM PST on October 26 [!]
Joeforking and chasing concomitantly owe me a new keyboard.
("Owe me a new keyboard" being to "that made me laugh heartily" as "ambiguous" is to "annoying flarbuse." And "concomitantly" being a singularly awesome word.)
posted by gompa at 2:46 PM on October 27, 2005
DevilsAdvocate and cortex now owe me a keyboard. Is that causationality or just concomitancy?
posted by languagehat at 2:55 PM on October 27, 2005
posted by languagehat at 2:55 PM on October 27, 2005
It's a causal relationship, silly.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:07 PM on October 27, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:07 PM on October 27, 2005
I didn't read this thread, but I try to use "obsequious" as much as possible.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:44 PM on October 27, 2005
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:44 PM on October 27, 2005
(except when my mom tells me not to)
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:44 PM on October 27, 2005
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:44 PM on October 27, 2005
I'm totally into causal sex.
That's because you have a fear of concomitancy and you know it.
posted by dg at 6:56 PM on October 27, 2005
That's because you have a fear of concomitancy and you know it.
posted by dg at 6:56 PM on October 27, 2005
I'm totally into causal sex.
just make sure you don't have it with an illicit minor
posted by pyramid termite at 8:39 PM on October 27, 2005
just make sure you don't have it with an illicit minor
posted by pyramid termite at 8:39 PM on October 27, 2005
And never have causal sex with a logical phallacy on a slippery slope. Trust me.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:55 PM on October 27, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:55 PM on October 27, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Kwantsar at 7:54 PM on October 25, 2005