I think it depends on the fallacy. Certain ones, like strawman, slippery slope, or moving the goal posts, are not conducive to any discussion. If I spend all day trying to defend myself from the strawman argument, I'll never get anywhere. Better to call it what it is and remind them of my actual position. Same with slippery slope- there is no point in trying to discuss it down. Best to just call it as it is.
Hey, I'm all for everybody on all sides of an issue doing a better job avoiding and exposing logical fallacies in non-obnoxious ways. Glad I could be of help. :) (Don't read this as me being snarky. I mean it! But I know how this can be lost in translation in text-only comments like this.)
Also, what sort of dishonesty are they referring to? If they ask me a question I feel very uncomfortable answering (more along the lines of privacy than not knowing something, I'm thinking) how can I get out of it without appearing dishonest?
I don't think there is anything wrong with saying, "That question is pretty personal, and we don't know each other that well yet. I'm not comfortable sharing that part of my life with you yet."
Abortion and Christian opposition to it are nothing new. The second century Epistle to Diognetus says about Christians: "They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring."
It bears mentioning that supporters of war and anti-abortion activists see a great deal of overlap. Though this is absolutely not relevant to the abortion debate per se, since so much of this debate is connected to politics, it becomes relevant: It is very difficult to support a pro-life politician who is not also pro-war in many ways. Ultimately, in America at least, most conservatives are seduced by the easy path of appealing to authority, even while giving lipservice to how evil war is. "He talks like me and appears to think like me, so I'll vote him into office, even though his hawkish position will lead to the deaths of milions, including quite possibly my own child. On the other hand, most of those deaths will be non-Christian and/or non-American deaths, so it's not all bad." The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways. (Liberals fall into the exact same trap, by the way, though the position is not exactly reversible, since most pro-choice advocates do not consider early-term fetuses to have become human yet.)
Are you asking me to characterize every American Conservative? Or just those who support war? If it is the former, then I will decline, for what should be obvious reasons. If it is the latter, then you are better off asking them directly ("Why do you support politician XYZ's contributions to continuing war in the world?"), and then forming your own conclusions based on their answers, than you would be asking an openly anti-war individual on the internets.
Am I correct in assuming that you are redefining my post as a characterization of all conservatives? I honestly don't know, because you didn't bother to answer the (honest) question. Ultimately, my response to what you just said is to repeat the exact same question I already asked you. If you genuinely want to discuss this, then answer it, please. If you are simply picking a fight, then no thank you and goodbye. :)
Speaking of semantics. Do you really believe the statement "Dogs chase cats" literally means ALL dogs chase cats? That is not how English OR logic works. No English speaking person would think for a second that it meant ALL dogs, they would know it meant MOST or perhaps even just SOME given the proper context. You said "....MOST conservstives....."... That is why it was proper for me to ask "So, essentially your position is that Conservatives support war because "most of the deaths are non-Christian and/or non-American"? It was proper because 1) I was using English as it is commonly used and 2) By the context it was absolutely, indisputably clear that I was referring to the "...MOST conservatives..." in your comment. Context matters, and when you drop it and intead focus on words, you are playing semantic games.
Here is what you said:
Ultimately, in America at least, most conservatives are sedluced by the easy path of appealing to authority, even while giving lipservice to how evil war is. "He talks like me and appears to think like me, so I'll vote him into office, even though his hawkish position will lead to the deaths of milions, including quite possibly my own child. On the other hand, most of those deaths will be non-Christian and/or non-American deaths, so it's not all bad." The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways. I'm asking you if your position is that (at least some) Conservatives support war because "most of the deaths are non-Christian and/or non-American"? Is that your position?
If I understand your question correctly as referencing certain wars, then in a word, YES. Absolutely. (Sorry, that's two words.) War per se? No, of course not. Specific wars? Yes, without question. Do you disagree?
But, see, you have no case so far. All you have is assertions. I was trying to get you to back up your assertions because I care about facts, and facts only, and if you had been willing to present a fact-based, logical argument, I would have been more than willing to read and respectfully engage you and perhaps even been convinced if you had presented a sound, factually irrefutable case. Why do you decline to engage on this level?
You need to lead by example, sir. All you've done in this conversation so far is disagree or ask disingenuously leading questions (which is quite rude, and yes, it is a strawman). Frankly, I find that style of debate boring (and completely unproductive, but honestly, boring is enough to make me walk away). Go back and look at your first couple of replies. Is that really what you think "respectful engagement" looks like? Go back and read my very first sentence, please. If you disagree with that premise then it is reasonable that you will disagree with my conclusion. So far you haven't even mentioned it, so perhaps you don't even care about the actual point I was making. Here, I will spell it out: Premise: It bears mentioning that supporters of war and anti-abortion activists see a great deal of overlap. Conclusion: The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways. Disagree with my premise, or show how it doesn't lead to my conclusion. THAT is respectful engagement based on facts. If you just want to get your feathers ruffled over my characterization of some Americans based on attitudes I have observed personally in the United States, then feel free to do so (so far that seems to be the only reason you engaged me), but don't expect it to turn into an interesting or productive debate.
Again, attempting to bring clarity to the discussion I ask the questions relevant to your premise:
Premise: It bears mentioning that supporters of war and anti-abortion activists see a great deal of overlap.
Conclusion: The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways. I ask: And who are "the supporters of war"? What do you mean by "support war"? How do they "support war"? Where is the evidence of this alleged "overlap"? (A question that can only be answered once you demonstrate the other questions. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and read your answer to these questions. I am genuinely curious.
Premise: It bears mentioning that supporters of war and anti-abortion activists see a great deal of overlap.
Conclusion: The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways. Oh? And who are "the supporters of war"? What do you mean by "support war"? How do they "support war"? Where is the evidence of this alleged "overlap",? (A question that can only be answered once you demonstrate the other questions.
I don't have to lead by example because all I'm doing is asking perfectly reasonable questions which you avoid by deflecting such as accusing me of asking misleading questions and now getting ridiculously personal by accusing me of having my feathers ruffled. I first asked you to clarify your position. That is 100% undeniably respectable and rational. It is one of the key compenents of rational discourse. Here is what you said:
Ultimately, in America at least, most conservatives are sedluced by the easy path of appealing to authority, even while giving lipservice to how evil war is. "He talks like me and appears to think like me, so I'll vote him into office, even though his hawkish position will lead to the deaths of milions, including quite possibly my own child. On the other hand, most of those deaths will be non-Christian and/or non-American deaths, so it's not all bad." The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways. I asked you a perfectly reasonable question:
So, essentially your position is that Conservatives support war because "most of the deaths are non-Christian and/or non-American"? My dear amigo sir, that is a perfectcly reasonable question, and what I was asking was absolutetly, 100% clear given the context. However, (LOL) instead of answering the question, you equivocated and pretended that the question was not clear and misleading, which as patently absurd. The context makes the question clear. In our exchange I even provided the context and asked the question again, and you still pretended the question was not clear. It is clear that all you care about is semantic games instead of engaging on a rational level. If you change your mind, and decide you wish to rationally enage, I will be more than happy to have a productive discussion with you. Anybody who falsely accuses their oppenent of "misleading" questions, and engages in personal attacks ("your feathers are ruffeled") clearly has no desire to enage in rational discourse. I sincerly hope you amend your ways.
This conversation is boring, David. Go ahead and make whatever comment you feel you need to make to save face and have the last word, and we'll leave it at that.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL I bet you expect me not to respond now that you said that, huh? You hope that by doing that you might have the last word. But I'm mature and I don't fall for childish games so I'll go ahead and respond... If I was so boring, you wouldn't have bothered to point out how boring I am. You would have just never responded again. Thus, you are using the "boring" excuse because you don't have the wherewithal to engage on a rational level. I had hoped that you would be willing and able to defend your remarks. It is clear that you do not have the ability to do so. Sad. Very sad.
Is not a Christian giving logic advice to Christians similar to a Psychopath giving compassion and empathy advice to sociopaths. Yet, I can see it happening since both psychopaths and sociopaths are too blinded by their hate and arrogance to be aware of their laughingly obvious, yet intellectually crippling disability. Just as the evil, hate-bating, culturally digressing Christian are.
If you are pro-life, you are not a nerd, but you are profoundly ignorant to the depth and breadth of the historical antecedents that made legal abortion a moral imperative. Here is an alternate solution to your logical fallacy concern: Do not argue a myopically envisioned, morally corrupt position. Are you implying that the United States Supreme Court would render a culturally pivotal decision that was replete with logical fallacies. Do you think your grasp of logic and law superior to the ‘poorly’ educated Supreme Court justices?
Please help me understand your argument better. It sounds like you're saying that if the Supreme Court made a legal decision then it follows that their decision must be morally right. Have I understood your argument correctly?
(Don't read this as me being snarky. I mean it! But I know how this can be lost in translation in text-only comments like this.)
Ultimately, in America at least, most conservatives are seduced by the easy path of appealing to authority, even while giving lipservice to how evil war is. "He talks like me and appears to think like me, so I'll vote him into office, even though his hawkish position will lead to the deaths of milions, including quite possibly my own child. On the other hand, most of those deaths will be non-Christian and/or non-American deaths, so it's not all bad." The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways.
(Liberals fall into the exact same trap, by the way, though the position is not exactly reversible, since most pro-choice advocates do not consider early-term fetuses to have become human yet.)
If it is the former, then I will decline, for what should be obvious reasons.
If it is the latter, then you are better off asking them directly ("Why do you support politician XYZ's contributions to continuing war in the world?"), and then forming your own conclusions based on their answers, than you would be asking an openly anti-war individual on the internets.
I honestly don't know, because you didn't bother to answer the (honest) question.
Ultimately, my response to what you just said is to repeat the exact same question I already asked you. If you genuinely want to discuss this, then answer it, please. If you are simply picking a fight, then no thank you and goodbye. :)
You said "....MOST conservstives....."...
That is why it was proper for me to ask
"So, essentially your position is that Conservatives support war because "most of the deaths are non-Christian and/or non-American"?
It was proper because 1) I was using English as it is commonly used and 2) By the context it was absolutely, indisputably clear that I was referring to the "...MOST conservatives..." in your comment. Context matters, and when you drop it and intead focus on words, you are playing semantic games.
I'm asking you if your position is that (at least some) Conservatives support war because "most of the deaths are non-Christian and/or non-American"? Is that your position?
War per se? No, of course not. Specific wars? Yes, without question. Do you disagree?
Jesus was not a hawk, and hawks (even non-racist ones) do not follow Jesus's example.
Why do you decline to engage on this level?
Go back and read my very first sentence, please. If you disagree with that premise then it is reasonable that you will disagree with my conclusion. So far you haven't even mentioned it, so perhaps you don't even care about the actual point I was making. Here, I will spell it out:
Premise: It bears mentioning that supporters of war and anti-abortion activists see a great deal of overlap.
Conclusion: The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways.
Disagree with my premise, or show how it doesn't lead to my conclusion. THAT is respectful engagement based on facts.
If you just want to get your feathers ruffled over my characterization of some Americans based on attitudes I have observed personally in the United States, then feel free to do so (so far that seems to be the only reason you engaged me), but don't expect it to turn into an interesting or productive debate.
I ask:
And who are "the supporters of war"? What do you mean by "support war"? How do they "support war"? Where is the evidence of this alleged "overlap"? (A question that can only be answered once you demonstrate the other questions.
I am willing to let bygones be bygones and read your answer to these questions. I am genuinely curious.
Oh? And who are "the supporters of war"? What do you mean by "support war"? How do they "support war"? Where is the evidence of this alleged "overlap",? (A question that can only be answered once you demonstrate the other questions.
I first asked you to clarify your position. That is 100% undeniably respectable and rational. It is one of the key compenents of rational discourse.
Here is what you said: Ultimately, in America at least, most conservatives are sedluced by the easy path of appealing to authority, even while giving lipservice to how evil war is. "He talks like me and appears to think like me, so I'll vote him into office, even though his hawkish position will lead to the deaths of milions, including quite possibly my own child. On the other hand, most of those deaths will be non-Christian and/or non-American deaths, so it's not all bad." The right wing in America is, ironically, profoundly anti-Christian in many ways.
I asked you a perfectly reasonable question: So, essentially your position is that Conservatives support war because "most of the deaths are non-Christian and/or non-American"?
My dear amigo sir, that is a perfectcly reasonable question, and what I was asking was absolutetly, 100% clear given the context. However, (LOL) instead of answering the question, you equivocated and pretended that the question was not clear and misleading, which as patently absurd. The context makes the question clear.
In our exchange I even provided the context and asked the question again, and you still pretended the question was not clear.
It is clear that all you care about is semantic games instead of engaging on a rational level.
If you change your mind, and decide you wish to rationally enage, I will be more than happy to have a productive discussion with you.
Anybody who falsely accuses their oppenent of "misleading" questions, and engages in personal attacks ("your feathers are ruffeled") clearly has no desire to enage in rational discourse.
I sincerly hope you amend your ways.
I bet you expect me not to respond now that you said that, huh? You hope that by doing that you might have the last word. But I'm mature and I don't fall for childish games so I'll go ahead and respond...
If I was so boring, you wouldn't have bothered to point out how boring I am. You would have just never responded again. Thus, you are using the "boring" excuse because you don't have the wherewithal to engage on a rational level.
I had hoped that you would be willing and able to defend your remarks. It is clear that you do not have the ability to do so. Sad. Very sad.
How do historical antecedents ever justify murder?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/139828