(13-10-2010 11:15 PM)anandinqalab Wrote: My last response was not an attempt to refute your specific arguments. There I just wanted to conclude the debate and mentioned some points to ponder. I have clearly told 'LET'S AGREE TO DISAGREE' as our view point cannot converge if we look the issue from totally different vantage points.
anandinqalab, saying that you want to agree to disagree does not mean that I must shut up and not respond to your arguments. You are simply refusing to abide by the rules of debate that require that you read what others are saying and argue against their actual positions instead of having your own argument with a bunch of straw-men.
Quote:I was attracted towards this forum because it proclaimed to promote free thought in India about which I am also very much passionate about. But to my surprise I found that it is not the 'free thought' which is being encouraged, instead only pragmatic, practical, short term, quick fix solutions within the framework of existing socio-economic, political and ideological framework which is sought.
Congratulations, you've just earned your first troll warning. You may not realize that you're acting trollish, but let me explain why. Firstly, there are plenty of posts on these forums where we have already established what freethought means. Instead of pouring through them all, let me point you to an article that explains in detail why you are a troll.
First regarding the definition of freethought, which you seem to be unaware of going by your statement:
"Contrary to what most people think, the word ‘freethought’ does not simply represent the meaning implied in the coming together of the words ‘Free’ and ‘Thought’. ‘Freethought’ is a concept that has been around for about 300 years. It refers to a set of philosophies that adopt science, reason and logic as tools for understanding the natural world, rejecting sources of authority and tradition such as religion that claim infallible truth and require blind allegiance. The Freethinker magazine was first published in England in 1881 and is still around as a website. Today, the word ‘freethought’ is used as an umbrella term encompassing a number of ideas such as skepticism, the scientific method, naturalism, atheism, rationalism, humanism etc."
Secondly, the reason you're acting like a troll is because of the way you are belittling the entire forum and our purpose here, using a condescending tone. From the article, explaining why you are a troll.
"- Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster’s Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry."
"- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. “You guys are all just [descriptor].” “You’re a lynch mob.” “You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.”"
"- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. Pursued by Troll Bashers (see Natural Predators below), the Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice - all the while continuing to respond to them."
Quote:The topic of this debate was 'Prostitution should be legalised'. Your claim is that only those who support this view are reasonable and if someone says that it does not address the crux of the problem which is the exploitation of the majority of the women who are forced by their circumstances; many of them entered into this flash trade since childhood then according to you it is an 'Appeal to emotion (where the emotional appeal is based on false premises)'.
No, that is not my claim. Please stop blatantly misrepresenting me. This is what is annoying about you. You seem to take extra pleasure in distorting what I and others say to argue against the point that you wish to argue against. In essence, creating straw men. The reason why I first responded to you is because you attacked palaeo's reasoned arguments with generalities that did not address the points she was making, but suggesting that you were. It was you who first entered this debate dismissing someone else's positions with your own positions that did not even address the issues she was talking about.
You still are not getting why setting up false premises makes your particular appeal to emotion particularly egregiousness. Let me explain in the context of your particular response above, which is actually the second time you are making the fallacy, and this time actually in the response to the charge that you are making the fallacy. That is, your defense of the fallacy is to make it again and argue against a straw-man.
The fact that the majority of prostitutes have been forced into prostitution has already been noted multiple times before you entered this discussion. The arguments from palaeo, myself and many others on this thread have made that a central point of debate, and legalization of prostitution was explicitly presented as something that would reduce the suffering caused. Yet you insisted on acting as though your position is the only one that captures this idea that many of those who enter prostitution are forced into it due to circumstances, social, economic and criminal. There are undoubtedly many approaches that governments and other bodies can take to solve the causal problems involved. But legalization is certainly one of the vital steps that makes it possible to fight the causes and effects of forced prostitution. The reason your argument was an appeal to emotion is because you said, and continue to say, that it is only your argument that addresses these issues, when in fact your dismissal of palaeo's positions offered nothing new. That is, you placed yourself on the moral high-ground on the issue, despite the fact that palaeo and others have already addressed the moral point that you are appealing to. You are doing the same thing in your previous comment, by suggesting that the reason I called you out on your appeal to emotion is because you are concerned about "the exploitation of the majority of the women who are forced by their circumstances". We are all concerned about "the exploitation of the majority of the women who are forced by their circumstances", as apparent from our arguments (if you had read them), and positioning yourself as the only one who is concerned about this, in order to dismiss the legalization question, is what makes your argument an appeal to emotion based on false premises.
The appeal to emotion as a fallacy is not simply using emotional arguments, but using emotional arguments that misrepresent the premises of those you are arguing against, in order to claim a moral-high ground and thus dismiss the positions of the others (which may indeed include as premises those very same moral/emotional considerations that you profess) as ignoring those premises and therefore wrong.
Another condescending point from you in response to donatello's post:
Quote:"I was intially under impression that people agree that prostitution is a social evil but when I realised that there is a disagreement on this I decided to conclude this debate. If somebody takes it as a vindication of ones view simpy because majority agrees to it, let it be so. "
This is why I asked you to read the arguments again. Trolls usually are under the impression everyone else is too stupid to have anything meaningful to say. If you had actually read the arguments that people before you had made, you would not have been "under impression that people agree that prostitution is a social evil". You would have know that our positions are a lot more nuanced, and that we were dissecting the notion of prostitution itself before addressing the actual social harms associated with the practice of prostitution in modern society.
Your cheap shot about majority opinion is a classic example of trolling. You have not logically or scientifically refuted a single argument that anyone has made, and yet you think that the reason why I disagree with you is because your view is not the majority one. Delusions of grandeur and arrogance make for a terrible combination. I could get into another long explanation for why logically coherent discourse and reason-based argument are essential in order to discuss complex issues, but I don't think anyone worthy of this forum needs that discussion. There are many other forums you can troll freely, and will perhaps even be welcomed. Here we are freethinkers, and that requires a certain commitment to reason. There is no room for those who are simply intent on derailing the debate.