me: >> In context with the previous message in this thread, >> that's a personal attack on me -- saying that I'm >> trying to deceive people. That ends the thread. I'm >> not interested in invective.
Julio: > I'm claiming that, not you as a person, but your *mode of arguing* is > deceitful, yes. Certainly, arguing about your mode of arguing (or mine for > that matter) wouldn't be particularly enlightening to readers, but I can back > up my claim.< Then do so: in what way was my argument "deceitful"? If you're going to make things personal, with charges of "sophistry" and the like, you _should_ be willing to back them up. I don't see how one can separate my "mode of arguing" from me in this case. After all, if my statement was indeed deceitful (i.e., dishonest), that says that I am the type of person who uses deceitful argumentation. Julio, in effect you said that I _lied_. The word "sophistry" implies that I lied _on purpose_. It's not just a matter of accusing someone of repeating the lies that are circulating in society or of deceiving themselves. It's an accusation of deliberate prevarication. This is supposed to be a civil forum, with people being (at minimum) polite to each other. I don't think we need such accusations. In case anyone cares, Julio's accusations of "sophistry" arose as follows: In reference to Obama's words of support for the sit-down strike (which I view as "mere words" rather than a true commitment) I wrote: >> Note that he [Obama] didn't sign any contract to put what he said into >> practice. Not even a verbal contract.<< Julio Huato then wrote: > What a load of sophistry this is.< Then I quoted one definition of "sophistry," from the Wikipedia: "In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone." (Given the structure of the sentence, it looks like the word "BS" was originally where "sophistry" was. It's a better word, since it usually means "nonsense," saying that Julio disagrees with my opinion. On the other hand, "sophistry" says that Julio thinks that I am deliberately deceitful. (The Online Dictionary defines "bullshit" as "Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language." The "or" is crucial there. The definition of the word "sophistry" lacks that word in most of the definitions I could find on-line.) and I said: >I'd like to see how I am trying to deceive anyone. I'd also like to see how >the statement above is illogical or confusing. It may be _wrong_, but that's >completely different than sophism.< Julio responded by saying "Bingo!" As far as I can tell, that means "oh yes, you are engaging in sophistry, i.e., deceitful, illogical, and confusing argumentation." But he did not present any evidence to back that assertion up (if indeed that's what he meant by "Bingo!") -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
