|
United States43751 Posts
On September 06 2017 07:25 Sermokala wrote:
Asking someone if they still beat their wife out of the blue only gets a warning?
It's a reference to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
It's a classic example, he wasn't literally asking whether he still beat his wife. The accusation was not of wife beating, it was of asking loaded questions.
I didn't see the warning but I don't think it should have been warned if it was. Presumably the mod who read it was unfamiliar with that phrase.
|
In my defence, I thought I posted it here.
|
On September 06 2017 07:25 Sermokala wrote:
Asking someone if they still beat their wife out of the blue only gets a warning?
Loaded question fallacy. It is the alpha example of a question that cannot be answered without negative implications.
He could have given it more context, like linking the wiki. But I knew what he was referring to.
|
Okay I can understand it in context but out of context it was pretty crazy. If someone does that they should have to post the context in the future.
|
United States43751 Posts
On September 06 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:
Okay I can understand it in context but out of context it was pretty crazy. If someone does that they should have to post the context in the future.
It's a common enough expression that any adult in the English speaking world could be expected to be familiar with it.
|
On September 06 2017 08:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:
Okay I can understand it in context but out of context it was pretty crazy. If someone does that they should have to post the context in the future. It's a common enough expression that any adult in the English speaking world could be expected to be familiar with it.
Oh please. It was a wife beater joke trying to get a laugh at asking an sarcastic question.
|
On September 06 2017 09:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 08:17 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:
Okay I can understand it in context but out of context it was pretty crazy. If someone does that they should have to post the context in the future. It's a common enough expression that any adult in the English speaking world could be expected to be familiar with it. Oh please. It was a wife beater joke trying to get a laugh at asking an sarcastic question.
That response to a loaded question has been around forever. I learned about it in high school. That was like 20 years ago.
|
On September 06 2017 09:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 09:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 06 2017 08:17 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:
Okay I can understand it in context but out of context it was pretty crazy. If someone does that they should have to post the context in the future. It's a common enough expression that any adult in the English speaking world could be expected to be familiar with it. Oh please. It was a wife beater joke trying to get a laugh at asking an sarcastic question. That response to a loaded question has been around forever. I learned about it in high school. That was like 20 years ago.
Same, though in my case it was more like a decade ago.
|
I never heard it before I don't think.
|
On September 06 2017 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
I never heard it before I don't think.
True with this crowd it wouldn't be out of character to insult like that, however the warn was appropriate because it was flippant false question attack. Had he continued with why he thought xDaunt was providing a loaded question, it would be tame, because that construction is fairly well-known and I think I've used it myself in the thread.
|
The problem with the "when did you stop beating your wife" post is that it had no logical relation structurally to the question that I had asked. Questions aren't loaded just because you don't like the answer or don't want to have to make the admission. In short, the poster should have been warned for his stupidity if nothing else.
|
Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both.
Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest.
A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.
You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..?
To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered.
|
On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Show nested quote +Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. Show nested quote +A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you.
The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded.
You're smarter than this.
|
On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this.
The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest.
Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad."
You are clearly smart enough to understand this.
|
On September 06 2017 21:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this. The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest. Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad." You are clearly smart enough to understand this.
Of course you can reduce things to binary binary good/bad assessments. I'm sure you'd have no trouble saying "slavery is bad" or "racism is bad." Your problem is that you lack either the courage to say that "illegal immigration is good because I get cheap lettuce out of it" or the savvy to say "yes, illegal immigration is bad, but we need it so that I can get my cheap lettuce."
|
United States43751 Posts
On September 07 2017 00:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 21:51 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this. The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest. Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad." You are clearly smart enough to understand this. Of course you can reduce things to binary binary good/bad assessments. I'm sure you'd have no trouble saying "slavery is bad" or "racism is bad." Your problem is that you lack either the courage to say that "illegal immigration is good because I get cheap lettuce out of it" or the savvy to say "yes, illegal immigration is bad, but we need it so that I can get my cheap lettuce."
You were getting exactly the kind of answers you're now insisting that you wanted but you rejected them as dodging the question at the time.
You can't rewrite history like this. We all read the topic.
|
On September 07 2017 00:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 21:51 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this. The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest. Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad." You are clearly smart enough to understand this. Of course you can reduce things to binary binary good/bad assessments. I'm sure you'd have no trouble saying "slavery is bad" or "racism is bad." Your problem is that you lack either the courage to say that "illegal immigration is good because I get cheap lettuce out of it" or the savvy to say "yes, illegal immigration is bad, but we need it so that I can get my cheap lettuce."
So taxes? Good or bad? Remember, if you give any kind of qualified "good to a point" or "necessary evil" or such, you're intellectually dishonest and lack the courage to answer the question instead of dodging. Either you want the government to be an unpaid volunteer organization, or you think all tax rates should be 100%.
Was Henry Ford good or bad? Remember that if you answer "good" you're celebrating anti-Semitism, and if you answer "bad" you hate industrial efficiency and the automotive age.
|
On September 07 2017 01:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 21:51 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this. The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest. Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad." You are clearly smart enough to understand this. Of course you can reduce things to binary binary good/bad assessments. I'm sure you'd have no trouble saying "slavery is bad" or "racism is bad." Your problem is that you lack either the courage to say that "illegal immigration is good because I get cheap lettuce out of it" or the savvy to say "yes, illegal immigration is bad, but we need it so that I can get my cheap lettuce." So taxes? Good or bad? Remember, if you give any kind of qualified "good to a point" or "necessary evil" or such, you're intellectually dishonest and lack the courage to answer the question instead of dodging. Either you want the government to be an unpaid volunteer organization, or you think all tax rates should be 100%. Was Henry Ford good or bad? Remember that if you answer "good" you're celebrating anti-Semitism, and if you answer "bad" you hate industrial efficiency and the automotive age.
Let me show you how easy this is and how cowardly and intellectually lazy your whining about my original question is:
Taxes are bad. Though they may be a necessary evil for government operations, they still are an appropriation of personal property and infringement upon civil liberty.
Henry Ford was good. He was a titan of industry and a key part of the arsenal of democracy that beat the fascists in WW2.
The critical point that you keep missing is that there is no right answer (my lettuce hypothetical above should have been a big tip off). This is about form, not substance. I don't care what answer people give. I just want them to give an honest answer. It is quite clear that you and 80% of the other liberal posters in the thread aren't quite up to par on this point.
|
and yet you still qualify your answer. and even further, continue to pretend other people are not giving you the answer you want.
suddenly you're willing to not see things in black and white, where earlier you insisted there was gray area in defending nazis. how quickly you'll say anything to support yourself is paralleled only by our dear president. your hypocrisy is endless.
to go so far as to say 'it's about form, not substance' and 'i don't care what the answer is' only further demonstrates your inability to have a discussion in good faith and that your concern lies mostly within thinking you've won an argument on the internet instead of having any kind of meaningful discussion on matters concerning the livelihood of other people. not that we needed any such reminder.
|
On September 07 2017 02:13 brian wrote:
and yet you still qualify your answer. and even further, continue to pretend other people are not giving you the answer you want.
suddenly you're willing to not see things in black and white, where earlier you insisted there was gray area in defending nazis. how quickly you'll say anything to support yourself is paralleled only by our dear president. your hypocrisy is endless.
to go so far as to say 'it's about form, not substance' and 'i don't care what the answer is' only further demonstrates your inability to have a discussion in good faith and that your concern lies mostly within thinking you've won an argument instead of having any kind of meaningful discussion on matters concerning the livelihood of other people. not that we needed any such reminder.
I didn't qualify my answers. My answers were unequivocal. I only supplied my reasoning.
And if you think that I am arguing in bad faith, then feel free to fuck off and ignore me. I already have to deal with an overabundance of subpar posters. I'd welcome a lighter load so that I can focus on the good stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
