Imagine a world where people actually tried to understand what another human was saying before taking a single sentence out of context to attack them.

Nice thought, and an offense of which I am guilty as well.

Well said, sir.

Your mom should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation...

Er, I mean, um...

While I respect both you and your mother, I have weighed the evidence, and concluded that she is a member of "the oldest profession", as they say.

So true. This pertains to Lemos' comment re "some" Obama supporters which should then be extended when he speaks later of just "Obama supporters".

I still think that the guilt by association re some of his other arguments applies though. He may not be saying that Obama is akin to some dictator, but the guilt by association cannot be denied. As Syngas mentioned in another thread and in which he linked to this hillarious Monty Python video

I agree with the post in general. I would say that one is responsible for all the possible implications of your words, and one should be careful to be clear when truly nasty interpretations are possible.

I still think that the guilt by association re some of his other arguments applies though. He may not be saying that Obama is akin to some dictator, but the guilt by association cannot be denied.

I very much agree with JoAnn on this one. If you are compairing someone to a great speaker or a charasmatic leader and you choose a dictator or other clearly evil subject, you bear responsibility for the clear implication of your comparison.

There is a differnce between the following...

He is a moving public speaker, similar to how Hitler was a moving public speaker.

Vs.

He is a moving public speaker, similar to how FDR was a moving speaker.

They are ravenous and calling for conflict like a lynch mob.

VS

They are ravenous and calling for conflict like football fans on a Sunday.

These analogies are very different. When you chose to compare one characteristic between two subjects you make implicit statement by the subjects you choose to compare

(This is a hypothetical, please do not read into this that I am saying that anybody compared anybody else to Hitler. Its an example)

Heh. You know, it would make a fun exercise for an intro logic class to translate the Witch scene into propositional notation and identify the particular fallacies committed by Bevidere. :-)

There is a differnce between the following... He is a moving public speaker, similar to how Hitler was a moving public speaker. Vs. He is a moving public speaker, similar to how FDR was a moving speaker. They are ravenous and calling for conflict like a lynch mob. VS They are ravenous and calling for conflict like football fans on a Sunday.

Unless you think negatively about FDR or football fans.

IMO you have created the guilt by association by twisting what was written.

Guilt by association fallacy would be:

Hitler was a moving public speaker and Obama is a moving public speaker therefore Obama is bad.

I don't see where Charles used this logic in his writing.

Heh. You know, it would make a fun exercise for an intro logic class to translate the Witch scene into propositional notation and identify the particular fallacies committed by Bevidere. :-)

True, but this post is about "if there is any question about that intention"... And yet the notion of "intention" is more abstract,

I have always had complete and 100% confidence in Norm's intent, but I just cannot say the same about Lemos.

Hitler was a moving public speaker and Obama is a moving public speaker therefore Obama is bad.

I don't see where Charles used this logic in his writing.

Hi Dar! I've always respected your opinion, so I question your statement here in an attempt to understand. It seems to me to that everything Lemos has posted has been an attempt to demonstrate that "Obama is bad"...

Norm has also posted opinions from Christopher Hitchens here that he agreed with, but I would never say that 1gm = Christopher Hitchens.

Hitler was a moving public speaker and Obama is a moving public speaker therefore Obama is bad.

Well, Charles did not use Hitler, to the best of my knowledge. Lets make that clear. I think that was just done in the comments.

To Dar, its an implied relationship, not an explicit one.

To give another example.

My car has an engine, just like a remote control car has an engine. Vs. My car has an engine, just like a rocket has an engine.

Same explicit comparison; two machines, same components. But there is also an implicit meaning. The first that my car is a tiny peace of crap, the second, that my car is fast.

Perhaps you live is some alternate universe where everything is literal.

Fascists are ego maniacal mass murderers and lynch mobs are bands of racist murderers. The implications are rather not nice.

It is rare that I am proved right so quickly. Generally my predictions can take years to fully work themselves out. In 1998, it was Hugo Chavez that incurred my wrath and no matter his agenda, he was a tyrant in the making. In 2000, I warned everyone who would listen that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was code for “unadorned Friedmanism” that aimed to privatize government services such as welfare, education and social security. In 2002, I noted about Iraq that “the United States will “win the war and lose the peace.” And now I am warning you to look carefully at Obama because the language and the appeals he is using is that typical of leaders of mass social movements who paid lip service to democracy but once in office behaved very differently.

-Charles Lemos 'Seizing a Moment'

If that ain't guilt by association, I don't know what is.

If that ain't guilt by association, I don't know what is.

Syngas, that's actually an explicit comparison.

RedSeven said:

I agree with the post in general. I would say that one is responsible for all the possible implications of your words, and one should be careful to be clear when truly nasty interpretations are possible.

Implications... indeed!

If a participant's argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer.

it was Hugo Chavez that incurred my wrath and no matter his agenda, he was a tyrant in the making

Implications, intentions... And what did Olbermann have to say about this?

And what is the "implication" or the "intention" of the "Protect America Act"?

Hi Dar! I've always respected your opinion, so I question your statement here in an attempt to understand. It seems to me to that everything Lemos has posted has been an attempt to demonstrate that "Obama is bad"...

That could be his motives but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. My first impressions of his posts was a question I have asked also. "Why Obama over J.E. or H.R.C."

All I can come up with is emotions and charisma. Which is fine IMO but worth thinking about if that's what is driving your decision.

Would I have worded it differently, probably but I'm not as invested in the candidates as Charles is. He was supporting a candidate and has stronger opinions than I do.

I just think the responses from 1gm readers was disappointing. Instead of addressing is assertions many posters reacted emotionally.

I just think the responses from 1gm readers was disappointing. Instead of addressing is assertions many posters reacted emotionally.

Well, Lemos' posts were rather emotional in nature and others responded emotionally. That is only to be expected. However, there were many responses which had only to do with facts. I note that Lemos only responded to the "emotional" responses and yet never responded to the facts.

I just think the responses from 1gm readers was disappointing

I beg to differ. I learned much more from the responses than I did from the original post.

This principle was taken to extreme with George W. From using the wrong words, to just saying gibberish, he allowed the spin doctors to put every possible re-meaning into his mouth.

There were a few well written responses but if I remember correctly the response were mostly counter productive IMO. Maybe I'll go back and re-read them to make sure. Just my impression of the events doesn't mean I'm right.

Aha! So you're saying that we should just roll over and ignore the logical fallacies of our opponents out of some sense of politeness!

(Kidding! No argument is well-refuted unless you've refuted the strongest interpretation of it, and thanks for mentioning this crucial and oft-overlooked point.)

Well quoted :)

The problem arises when both arguers do not adhere strictly to that code.

In politics even more so, since the typical audience does not generally know the entire context of arguments posed. Politicians have an even stronger obligation to "uphold the code" since they are mixing facts with ideology. Unfortunately, as soon as one slips, the other usually follows...in order to win the argument.

Maybe the main problem is that politicians by definition need to win every argument they participate in - ideally, arguing scientists are motivated by the common cause of uncovering scientific or philosophical "truth".