Prev: Cruelty-free meat
Next: The argument once again, addressing Dutch's concerns about sentence structure
From: Dutch on 14 Jul 2008 21:02
Rupert wrote:

Surely you can't be serious. You don't make a discussion of morality any
more lucid by attempting to turn it into a complex mathematical theorem.
Just say it in a simple clear sentence.

If contributing to the death and suffering of animals by maintaining my
relatively comfortable and convenient lifestyle despite my belief that
animals have rights makes me a hypocrite, then you are..etc..

However you word it, it's a tu quoque.
From: Rupert on 14 Jul 2008 23:47
On Jul 15, 9:02 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> Surely you can't be serious. You don't make a discussion of morality any
> more lucid by attempting to turn it into a complex mathematical theorem.
> Just say it in a simple clear sentence.
>

I did. Nothing hard to understand about what I'm saying.

> If contributing to the death and suffering of animals by maintaining my
> relatively comfortable and convenient lifestyle despite my belief that
> animals have rights makes me a hypocrite, then you are..etc..
>
> However you word it, it's a tu quoque.

Here's what a "tu quoque" is. A "tu quoque" is when someone declares
that they accept a moral principle P and then says "If P, then what
you are doing is morally wrong" and then I reply "But you too do
things that fall afoul of P, so you haven't given me any reason to
accept that what I am doing is morally wrong". That's an invalid
argument because it could be that we are both acting in ways that are
morally wrong. That's what a "tu quoque" is. So, for example, if Ball
says "You buy tofu and vegetables, therefore it's okay for me to buy
factory-farmed meat", that's a tu quoque.

Here's what's going on here. I got the impression that Ball accepted
(p1) and was using it as part of an argument that I am a filthy
shitstained hypocrite. I actually think that I can criticise this
argument in other ways than by questioning (p1). But today what I'm
doing is saying "Well, Ball, if you're really serious about (p1), then
you have to either accept (c9) or else say that you have doubts about
(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), or (p8). Or maybe you think (p1)
needs to be qualified somehow." I'm just asking him how he would
respond to the argument. Does he actually accept (c9)? He could do
that. He could say "Yes, we're both filthy shitstained hypocrites."
That's fine and I wouldn't give him a hard time about it. If I'm a
hypocrite then it's my own hypocrisy that I've got to worry about, not
Ball's. If not, then he has to pick one of the premises and say that
he has doubts about it. Maybe he thinks that (p1) should be qualified
in some way; perhaps, as you suggest, there are some exceptions in
wartime. It would be interesting to hear how he thinks it should be
qualified, if at all.

I'm just waiting for some kind of serious engagement with the
argument. But he's too cowardly to do that.
From: Rupert on 16 Jul 2008 18:30
On Jul 17, 3:55 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> SystemX wrote:
> > Rupert wrote:
> >> Formalisation: F(j)
>
> >> The argument is deductively valid. So If Jonathan Ball is unwilling to
> >> accept that the conclusion is true, he has an intellectual obligation
> >> to point to one of the premises and say that he has doubts that it is
> >> determinately true. Simple as that. He hasn't met this obligation yet.
>
> > I think I'm reasonably intelligent and have studied mathematics to an
> > 'A' level standard, but I don't get this.
>
> > A case for Occam's razor?
>
> Rupert believes that expressing arguments in incomprehensible jargon
> lends them credence.

The idea of putting into this form is so we can be clear about the
options Ball has for escaping the conclusion.
From: Rupert on 17 Jul 2008 17:08
On Jul 17, 4:26 pm, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 3:55 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> >> SystemX wrote:
> >>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> Formalisation: F(j)
> >>>> The argument is deductively valid. So If Jonathan Ball is unwilling to
> >>>> accept that the conclusion is true, he has an intellectual obligation
> >>>> to point to one of the premises and say that he has doubts that it is
> >>>> determinately true. Simple as that. He hasn't met this obligation yet.
> >>> I think I'm reasonably intelligent and have studied mathematics to an
> >>> 'A' level standard, but I don't get this.
> >>> A case for Occam's razor?
> >> Rupert believes that expressing arguments in incomprehensible jargon
> >> lends them credence.
>
> > The idea of putting into this form is so we can be clear about the
> > options Ball has for escaping the conclusion.
>
> There's nothing clear about it. Aside from the convoluted unnecessarily
> complicated structure, it contains several undefined parameters.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The sentence structure is not unnecessarily complicated, and you have
to have undefined predicates in every first-order language, that is
the nature of the beast.

It would not be beyond your capacities to just respond to the
challenge and specify a premise which is wrong, but you choose not to
do that, so I don't know why you waste your time slinging mud. The
bottom line is nobody has responded to the argument.
From: Rupert on 17 Jul 2008 20:51
On Jul 18, 7:53 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 4:40 pm, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> > I did plenty to show a parallel between the kind of arguments Ball has
> > been using against me and his own situation.
>
> You did nothing.
>
> > It's a deductively valid argument in first-order logic and if someone
> > wants to question the conclusion they've got an obligation to pick one
> > of the premises and reject it.
>
> Complete bullshit. Nobody is under any obligation to slog through your
> convoluted ranting. If you can't parse your statements in plain English
> then there's something seriously wrong with them.
>
>  > That's the bottom line, always was, and
>
> > always will be no matter how much mud you try to sling.
>
> I'm not slinging mud, which means attacking your character, I am
> attacking your argument. Your "first order blah blah.." is convoluted
> esoteric horseshit.
>
>
>
> > I am interested in knowing on what grounds Ball can avoid the
> > conclusion that he is a filthy shitstained hypocrite, the argument is
> > a serious attempt to make clear what the options are available to him.
> > He's declined to make any sort of engagement with the argument
> > whatsoever.
>
> Then frame the argument in English, not horseshit-ese.

The argument is in English, and it's perfectly easy to understand. You
haven't made any effort to engage with it so all this is so much
babble. If you were honest you'd just admit "I haven't made the effort
to identify a false premise in your argument that Jonathan Ball is a
filthy shitstained hypocrite." If Jonathan Ball were honest he'd admit
that too. End of story.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Cruelty-free meat
Next: The argument once again, addressing Dutch's concerns about sentence structure