Protest in NY: "Occupy Wall Street"

[Gnomesmusher]

Prolescum you're clearly holding a grudge from our past disagreements since you had to resort to silly claims about me. Legendary huh? Anyway, sarcasm or not, Welsh presented an exaggerated viewpoint of Ken's (i.e. civil rights atrocities) in order to argue against it and ridicule it. That's a straw man.

And here's a perfect illustration of sarcasm being used as a straw man argument. I'd like to see you defend Kent Hovind.

http://www.kent-hovind.com/breakfast.htm

Probably Hovind's favourite rhetorical line is "..... came from a rock." This phrase has numerous permutations:

If you want to believe you came from a rock .......

If you are dumb enough to believe you came from a rock ....

If you think you came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago ....

At least I don't think I came from a rock.

For maximum effect the line is usually spoken drenched in sarcasm.

Hovind is creating a straw man argument regarding abiogenesis, that is, the conditions of the first replicating systems on Earth. Forget biochemistry, only geology existed 4.6 billion years ago, according to Hovind.

The first significant flaw with Hovind's rhetoric is that "rocks" are silicon (Si) based and life is hydrocarbon (H, C) based. Abiogenesis research is interested in carbon (gas or solid), hydrogen (gas), nitrogen (gas) and a motley collection of trace elements. None of these elements (excluding trace elements) is argued to have "came from a rock"

Hovind knows his rhetoric isn't an accurate reflection of his opponent's position. He will sometimes add phrases such as, "When you boil away all the fluff and feathers" or "If you condensed thirty pages of the textbook that is what they are saying." Hovind refuses to acknowledge the 'thirty pages' of 'fluff and feathers' (a) expose his misrepresentation, (b) illustrate why abiogenesis is perhaps hypothetically feasible.

However, the power of the phrase, "came from a rock" should never be underestimated. In the hands of a charismatic speaker such as Hovind this phrase can kill any science at 100 yards. I will illustrate the power of this rhetorical phrase by showing a hypothetical scenario in which Hovind would show an opponent "eats rocks for breakfast."

HOVIND: At least I don't eat rocks for breakfast!

OPPONENT: What? Who eats rocks for breakfast?

HOVIND: You do. I don't know why you can't see it or if you are deliberately lying.

OPPONENT: Nobody eats rocks for breakfast.

HOVIND: What are breakfast cereals made from?

OPPONENT: Wheat. Rice. Things like that.

HOVIND: And where do these come from?

OPPONENT: Wheat and rice plants.

HOVIND: Which grow in the soil, right?

OPPONENT: Yes

HOVIND: And soil is made from rocks, right?

OPPONENT: Yes, but ......

HOVIND: See, you eat rocks for breakfast.

OPPONENT: But there is more to it than that.

HOVIND: You can add all the fluff and feathers you like. Admit it, you eat rocks for breakfast.

Clearly Hovind does not believe anyone eats rocks, he's being sarcastic but also misrepresenting the opponent's arguments.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Anyway, I don't want this crapfest to derail this thread so here's an article on the Occupy protests and it's presence on the internet:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-wallstreet-protests-media-idUSTRE79377W20111004

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum you're clearly holding a grudge from our past disagreements

We don't have past disagreements; you made a personal attack on the public boards that was discussed on the thread it appeared in, then sent me snotty PMs which some friends and I laughed at.

since you had to resort to silly claims about me.

It is not a claim without merit, there are examples in abundance in this very thread.

Anyway, sarcasm or not, Welsh presented an exaggerated viewpoint of Ken's (i.e. civil rights atrocities) in order to argue against it and ridicule it.

No, he was - and I'm only going to say this once more - taking the piss at the serious, po-faced reportage of roping. Go and take a hard look at the rainbow post.

That you still do not understand this (or are just too proud to back down) leaves me in no doubt as to your value in conversation.

That's a straw man.

Actually, that is a straw man. Perhaps you should look up irony while you study up for our next public dalliance.

This might help.

A study of French-speaking children in 2005 showed that the younger children (age 5) understood sarcasm when the speaker used a sarcastic intonation, while the older children (over the age of 7) could tell sarcasm simply by the context [source: Laval]. When children don't successfully interpret a statement as sarcastic, they sometimes interpret it as a lie, especially when the only cue is contextual.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Cool story.

 

[Prolescum]

Clever.To save face, place catchphrase.

 

[televator]

Edit to your edit:

Irrelevant. Kenandkids' view on the subject is of no consequence, as it is the event (roping) being construed as serious that Welshidiot is aiming at.

I actually thought this myself. I can see how that might be valid, but I don't think Welsh made that clear. The only way to know whether he's imposing this view wrongly on Ken, or reacting about a prior observation of the general reaction from other people about the incident is for him to specify this. We can't read his mind, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think he has really clarified that.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I actually thought this myself. I can see how that might be valid, but I don't think Welsh made that clear. The only way to know whether he's imposing this view wrongly on Ken, or reacting about a prior observation of the general reaction from other people about the incident is for him to specify this. We can't read his mind, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think he has really clarified that.

This is the very reason why I asked Welsh to explain his post. Twice.

 

[Prolescum]

Edit to your edit:

Irrelevant. Kenandkids' view on the subject is of no consequence, as it is the event (roping) being construed as serious that Welshidiot is aiming at.

I actually thought this myself. I can see how that might be valid, but I don't think Welsh made that clear. The only way to know whether he's imposing this view wrongly on Ken, or reacting about a prior observation of the general reaction from other people about the incident is for him to specify this. We can't read his mind, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think he has really clarified that.

This is the very reason why I asked Welsh to explain his post. Twice.

Which he kindly did.

I didn't straw man you, Kenandkids, or anyone else. Google the definition of "straw man". I did not misrepresent anyone's views, or positions, in either post.

Mockery and "straw man" are not automatically the same thing,...neither generally, nor in this specific instance.

 

[televator]

Hmmm...IDK. Those statements are a bit too ambiguous. HOW is Welsh not straw manning Ken? WHO is he actually mocking? Either way, my interest in this has totally drained. Fuck it. If there is a conclusive closing on this, good. If not, meh... as long as this derailment doesn't continue for another 30 posts.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I don't see how that explains anything either. And I'm tired of this as well. So how about those protests, eh?

 

[Prolescum]

Just noticed you edited in that Hovind jibber-jabber, Gnomesmusher.

Hovind's straw man is that evolution proponents say we evolved from rocks. Whether he drenches it in a sarcastic tone or not is utterly irrelevant. Welshidiot made the point that the reporting on the story was of a more serious tone than it warranted, with sarcasm.

I have to go to bed, and it can't be made any clearer than it already is.

 

[Welshidiot]

I can't believe you lot have wanked on about this for so long.

I gave all the explanation necessary the first time, I still feel disinclined to do so again, so I'll restrict myself to two things:

1: Prolescum is wholly correct in his assessment.

2: I offer this recent, famous example of mockery as precedent,.....from Pharyngula:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

So which one was Dawkins "straw manning"? Muslima, or Skepchick?

Obey the NWO!

 

[Gnomesmusher]

The Occupy Wall Street protestors have now issued a declaration and a manifesto listing it's objectives. Now it's less "bunch of hippies whining about stuff" and more like a movement with a purpose.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-declaration-york-protesters/story?id=14656653

 

[ImprobableJoe]

2: I offer this recent, famous example of mockery as precedent,.....from Pharyngula:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

And Dawkins was being an idiot when he made that post. I'm not sure what good you've done by quoting a smart man being a total fool, because it makes me think I should take the opposite of whatever position you've taken on this issue.

 

[Prolescum]

And Dawkins was being an idiot when he made that post. I'm not sure what good you've done by quoting a smart man being a total fool, because it makes me think I should take the opposite of whatever position you've taken on this issue.

Is there something in the water today? The point of comparison is the sarcasm, not the content. For fuck's sake...

 

[australopithecus]

If you kids can't play nice with your politics then you won't be allowed to have any. The report button is there to report serious issues, not to sooth butthurt.

 

[televator]

:facepalm: People reported each other over this? I am disappoint....

Anyway, enough of that....

Tomorrow will be a good day for the occupation.

AFL-CIO (AFSCME)
United NY
Strong Economy for All Coalition
Working Families Party
TWU Local 100
SEIU 1199
CWA 1109
RWDSU
Communications Workers of America
CWA Local 1180
United Auto Workers
United Federation of Teachers
Professional Staff Congress - CUNY
National Nurses United
Writers Guild East

And:

VOCAL-NY
Community Voices Heard
Alliance for Quality Education
New York Communities for Change
Coalition for the Homeless
Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP)
The Job Party
NYC Coalition for Educational Justice
The Mirabal Sisters Cultural and Community Center
The New Deal for New York Campaign
National People's Action
ALIGN
Human Services Council
Labor-Religion Coalition of New York State
Citizen Action of NY
MoveOn.org
Common Cause NY
New Bottom Line
350.org
Tenants & Neighbors
Democracy for NYC
Resource Generation
Tenants PAC
Teachers Unite

 

[Prolescum]

If you kids can't play nice with your politics then you won't be allowed to have any. The report button is there to report serious issues, not to sooth butthurt.

Unbelievable. :lol:

------------------------------------------------------

Televator, sorry for the overall derail. I'll try not to respond further unless it's actually relevant.

 

[australopithecus]

This forum produces at least 90% of all reports the Mod team gets. Naming no names, but some people do it far more than others, mostly for no good reason. The report button is not there to tell us that someone said something mean or something you didn't like. Read the rules, if something that breaks them is posted then by all means report it. That said we Mods don't just sit on our arses waiting for someone to report, we actively read threads and if action needs taking we take it. Personally speaking, I'm much less inclined to care if all that is being reported is petty squabbling. Crying "WOLF!" is always a silly thing to do.

 

[Welshidiot]

2: I offer this recent, famous example of mockery as precedent,.....from Pharyngula:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

And Dawkins was being an idiot when he made that post. I'm not sure what good you've done by quoting a smart man being a total fool, because it makes me think I should take the opposite of whatever position you've taken on this issue.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?
And why didn't you quote the part that said: "So which one was Dawkins "straw manning"? Muslima, or Skepchick?"
Was it because if you quoted that part you wouldn't be able to make your "pithy" comment?

I explained what I was giving an example of, if you can't be bothered to read back, then don't bother to post.




@ FORUM

I haven't reported anything in this thread.

Obey the NWO!