avalanche:ix

"Appeal to Ridicule"

yes, absolutely.


"Straw Man"

no, that's an appeal to ridicule too actually. if you observe more closely you'll notice that it was a carefully constructed bit of humor through in under the guise of sarcasm or a definitive statement.


"Appeal to Ignorance"

no, an inquiry into emotional ties to the subject at hand. really, come now.


"Appeal to Spite"

this isn't a courtroom boy! appeals appeals!


"Red Herring"

as opposed to a comment which is intended for you to counter with your dashing retort on the benefits of displine?


"Argumentum Ad Hominem and a Straw Man"

since when? oh right, you're just pissed off or something.

"Do you feel better now?"

yes.


"PS. You're going to have to do a lot better than responding with fallacious arguments. They only serve to weaken your position and expose your true character."

PS. You're going to have to follow some social studies 101 if you can't tell the difference between a mocking commentary and an argument.

Neo

Sure, but it was a Straw Man first and foremost. I did not say what you "quoted".

In the words of Dr. Evil, "Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhtttt!"
So carefully constructed that you misspelled 'the' and allowed the typo to go uncorrected.

Again, "Riiiiiiiigggghhhhtttt!" Your blatant dismissal was an appeal to ignorance.


Unfamiliar with logical fallacies, are we?


Well, I'm not too familiar with the benefits of 'displine', but I could inform you about the intent and purpose of the strict discipline that is key to an effective armed force(s).

Nope, not pissed off rather I am amused by such an A-Typical emotional knee-jerk reaction of a response.

The ad hominem was the 'obsessive' remark and the straw man was the allegation that I stated everyones' opinion was "invalidated".


Please...I understand the difference quite well, hence my reference to your 'Appeal to Ridicule' (a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."). As for an argument, you've yet to give one.

Neo

Neo

Hardly.

I wasn't ridiculing Loren, I was simply making a statement of fact. Which, by the way, I followed up in a subsequent posting with the analogy of the plumber vs the electrician for those (like yourself) who wouldn't 'get it'.

Give and take. He gave "...your opinion is just plain crap and offensive to me" it, I took it, and gave it right back! Which was again, another statement of fact.

Because I have an infinite amount of patience and can excuse and even forgive the ignorance of others.

You said it, not me.

Still a straw man Bree. I did not say Gays should be or need to stay in the closet. My comment was a statement of fact regarding the results of a individual(s) who is discovered to be gay. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's called the 'Bandwagon' effect.

Neo

avalanche:ix

"In the words of Dr. Evil, "Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhtttt!"
So carefully constructed that you misspelled 'the' and allowed the typo to go uncorrected."

yes, as anybody who follows a bit of internet fashion knows, spelling 'the' as 'teh' is rather common now when one is speaking in a humoristic manner. don't believe me? go and find out for yourself.


"Again, "Riiiiiiiigggghhhhtttt!" Your blatant dismissal was an appeal to ignorance."

who said i was dismissing anything? your honor! appeal to assumption!

"Unfamiliar with logical fallacies, are we?"

no, just unfamiliar with your rabid fanaticism on the subject.

"Well, I'm not too familiar with the benefits of 'displine', but I could inform you about the intent and purpose of the strict discipline that is key to an effective armed force(s)."

right, an armed force which is consistently beaten in international wargames by forces with far less discipline.


"Nope, not pissed off rather I am amused by such an A-Typical emotional knee-jerk reaction of a response."

say what you want, you're pissed off.


"The ad hominem was the 'obsessive' remark and the straw man was the allegation that I stated everyones' opinion was "invalidated"."

i never stated that you stated that. i stated "as though...", which doesn't state that you stated that. appeal to assumption!


"Please...I understand the difference quite well, hence my reference to your 'Appeal to Ridicule' (a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."). As for an argument, you've yet to give one."

yes, i would scarcely need to argue anything in this ridiculous thread. it speaks for itself, though you seem to think that shouting "appeal!" a lot and point out what you think are fallacies in an otherwise not argumentative post, somehow persuades others to look up to you. oh, right,

"APPEAL TO SOMETHING!"

mecca777

Pardon my (non-military) confusion, but isn't the whole point of objectivity that it doesn't come from a particular perspective or range of experience?

Gurdur

You flatter yourself, and demean others; you'll need to be far more precise in your language.
You'll find that the so-called "irrationality" you're tilting against is simply thinking based on premises different from yours.

I've pointed out to you that:

1. objective" = independent of human perception/interpretation.
   You are using the word "objective" incorrectly, and in doing so also making a false argument from authority.
   .
2. There are armed forces without the "gay" barier. They are not ineffective.
   .
3. Moral standpoints, and even interpretation of facts, mean a subjective interpretation.

Experience does not equal objectivity.
This is not to devalue experience, but to value precision.

And you get it wrong again with "objectivity". You'll find high-rankers with all relevent experience and knowledge but who have diametrically opposing views on this matter, as on any other.

Must you butcher the poor English language so ?
Experience does not equal objectivity.

Actually, that might well be an interesting sub- question; but Kind Bud claims to have served, and Hugo Holbling certainly has, and even I have. And yet we don't agree --- thus indicating the subjectivity of personal opinion.

And I refuse to be held responsible for avalanche:ix.

You seem to misunderstand.
I say,
"This is not just a practical question, but also a moral question"
You say in response,
"This is not just a moral question but also a practical question".
That is not a terribly devastating counter-argument.

Plus you claim "moral opinions most certainly can be objective", which is absolute nonsense from any philosophical and scientific consensus; you'll need to explain just why your opinion is so out of step with science, which is a hell of a lot more objective than your opinion or unsubstantiated assertion.

heh, heh, HEH.
I could and have said pretty much exactly the same as an argument against military discrimination against gays; I pointed out that increasing technologization of warfare, combined with chronically undermanned armed forces, means that non-essential discrimination is simply a luxury that cannot be afforded - thus the ever-increasing drive against sexual discrimination and harrassment in the armed forces.

If gays can do the job, then they're needed.

You need to come up with an argument as to why discrimination against gays being allowed into the armed forces is supposedly essential.

Oh, and more on these supposedly objective moral statements of yours.

Bree

So, Neo:

Are you saying the "bandwagon effect" is OK?

Do you participate in the bandwagon effect?

If you didn't participate, what do you think would happen to you? Are you afraid of the consequences?

Hugo Holbling

Said Gurdur:

I've tried pointing out the fact that these high-rankers do indeed have a different opinion on this matter, and with the rank to do something about it. Somehow i'm not getting through.

Once more from the top:

1. Homosexuals do not compromise operational effectiveness. The British government tried unsuccessfully to use this claim to avoid revoking its ban on homosexuals within the UK Armed Forces, as i mentioned in a previous post. (<a href="http://www.mod.uk/issues/homosexuality/statement.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> again is the statement made in the House Of Commons in which the Defence Secretary outlined the reasons for the change in policy. Other European nations were way ahead, as usual.)

This argument is dead.

2. Discrimination on grounds of sexual preference is now illegal.

3. Those of us with military experience plus the rank to be privy to higher-level policy understand that all Armed Forces are quite unequivocal in their determination to oppose and prosecute any form of discrimination.

4. As Gurdur says, manpower constraints will force those countries that are currently dragging their heels to adjust quickly or face increasing operational difficulties in the medium- to long-term.

5. As the US catches up with Europe in this regard, its personnel will learn to adapt or face court martial.

On a side-note, i find it very interesting to note the hostile reactions to homosexuals on show here. Given that the heterosexuals among us do not chase after every potential mate we see, it's no surprise that homosexuals behave similarly, in spite of the wild and licentious imaginings of homophobes. I think i detect a hint of vanity offended...

G V

IIRC the legal term nexus covers the relation of regulations or law and the "get the job done" under discussion supra.

BUT I have not got the job done of reorganizing my library [more books than shelves] and not found the book which makes the point using the nexus terminology and precedential court cases.

However in Chapter 11 on Homosexuality Policy Questions in Sex And Reason by R. A. Posner (Harvard Univ. Press 1992) he devotes about 10 pages to the Armed Forces.

War And Anti-War by A & H Tofler (Little, Brown 1993) provides an extended discussion of gurdur's point about hi tech aspects of issue. To paraphrase someone: smart planes need smart pilots.

Sorry gang, when I find the book I'm looking for I will post the info.

Gurdur

heh, I should thank you, G V.

I've grown lazy; the experience of endlessly fighting opinion masquerading as argument on SecWeb has left me in the position that where I know I can fully document and back up my own claims, I often don't bother, since the original claimant will probably never admit to error anyway.

Bad of me to be so lazy, but still.