Logic and Rhetoric: Misadventure in the Search for Truth at Free Republic (posted Nov. 6, 2001)

Essay by self | 6 November 01 | AndyJackson

[Jenya]

Bookmarked for later read. This is great stuff!

[swilhelm73]

Call me crazy, but if you wished to argue with another poster's arguments in a thread, why start a new thread as opposed to just replying as per the norm?

[.cnI redruM]

Can he name specific posts? Can anyone else name specific posts? If not, his sentence is a logical error. Right here on Free Republic to boot.

[Bob J]

"I consider, with all due respect, that this dates from the time when FR first began accepting regular donations. The Management felt--understandably--that people who "pay" for access ought to be given the benefit of the doubt."

I can tell you from my experience donations have no relationship to how one is treated by Jim or the mods. I know of many instances where someone would pull the "I donate heavily and will stop if you don't....blah blah."

There are, however, considerations given to long time posters (as opposed to newbies) out of respect for their seniority, but these situations have nothing to do with how much one contributes.

Do the math, the odds any one person in particular is a heavy donor is slight . There are probably a couple hundred thousand FR users in any given month, registered and not, but I would guess less than a couple thousand do all the donating. Every time someone gets a "pass" someone else claims they are getting special treatment because they are a donor.

[Bob J]

Taken one step further, there are probably less than 100 "heavy" donors. Most are the $5-$10/month or $25 at FReepathon time.

[AndyJackson]

Not sure how this resurfaced from the bowels of the archive, but thanks

[WhiteGuy]

"Not sure how this resurfaced from the bowels of the archive"

Bump to read later.

[pageonetoo]

Sorry, no lei...

[AndyJackson]

if you wished to argue with another poster's arguments in a thread, why start a new thread

I did not respond on his original thread, because, as you might have guessed from reading my title, had you done read it, I was not interested in his rather idiotic and trivially wrong argument on abortion.

My point, as conveyed by my title, was to initiate a discussion about logical argumentation, and the dangerous consequences of allowing one's rhetoric to get way ahead of the point one was trying to make. By way of illustration, through a pattern of self-deception, one author - this one - had argued his way into a corner that it is morally wrong of us to defend ourselves against terrorists who had just struck a blow on American soil. For the most part I would like to stay clear of abortion threads - unless they come and hunt me out. I am not, by the way, pro abortion. It is just that I wish folks on my side of the table to shoot straight. Those who don't are more dangerous to their compatriots than the enemy is.

[genpicket1]

I am not sure which hurt my intellect more to read...the posting by Starmaker or the egotistical ramblings of AJ. Just a thought...get over yourself.