What do you think is the most common logical fallacy used in this subforum?

[realibrad]

OK, I re-read your initial post, and I can see that you understand "whataboutism" as a fallacy by definition.

As you can see, I agree that the point you made to your gf was not whataboutism. It may still not be a very good analogy. As I said above in a paragraph I added to my post after you replied, I'm uninterested in examining your analogy because people need to get their facts straight before deciding what is and what isn't a valid analogy, and on the topic vaping, too many people simply do not have their facts straight.

My point was to show something that was not whataboutism, but, people would think it was. The point was not to say that whatabouism can be useful. I knew people would see it and think it was though, and I would use them to exemplify my point about people not understanding what is happening.

My larger point was that we cannot have productive conversations when people come in and try to derail and or dismiss the points being made because of a fallacy. When I try to ask people questions to find out their reasoning, its seen as an attempt to shift to a different topic. They cannot understand anything further because they dismiss the expansion as whatabouism.

I believe it has a lot to do with not understanding things in the abstraction. People appear not to be able to get beyond the surface level. People seem to be stuck on either staying vertical or horizontal and not being able to do both.

 

[woolfe9998]

My point was to show something that was not whataboutism, but, people would think it was. The point was not to say that whatabouism can be useful. I knew people would see it and think it was though, and I would use them to exemplify my point about people not understanding what is happening.

My larger point was that we cannot have productive conversations when people come in and try to derail and or dismiss the points being made because of a fallacy. When I try to ask people questions to find out their reasoning, its seen as an attempt to shift to a different topic. They cannot understand anything further because they dismiss the expansion as whatabouism.

I believe it has a lot to do with not understanding things in the abstraction. People appear not to be able to get beyond the surface level. People seem to be stuck on either staying vertical or horizontal and not being able to do both.

Sure, some people may do that. But so far as "asking questions" to try to ascertain someone's reasoning, I would tread lightly on that practice in this kind of forum. De facto, this is a political debate forum. Which means everyone assumes that whatever you are saying, you're trying to argue a point. This isn't your GF who knows you well and may understand how your mind works. Here, people are going to respond to questions as is if they are a veiled form of argument. If you're going to do this, you need to be absolutely clear that this is what you are doing, and even then, some people will still see it as a veiled argument, then respond by identifying whatever fallacy they see based on the assumption that it's an argument.

Also, in some cases, you may be engaging in actual whataboutism.

 

[realibrad]

Sure, some people may do that. But so far as "asking questions" to try to ascertain someone's reasoning, I would tread lightly on that practice in this kind of forum. De facto, this is a political debate forum. Which means everyone assumes that whatever you are saying, you're trying to argue a point. This isn't your GF who knows you well and may understand how your mind works. Here, people are going to respond to questions as is if they are a veiled form of argument. If you're going to do this, you need to be absolutely clear that this is what you are doing, and even then, some people will still see it as a veiled argument, then respond by identifying whatever fallacy they see based on the assumption that it's an argument.

Oh, its quite clear that people come into forum with that perspective. Even though I often say that I'm trying to understand, it means little. People assume that is a fake signal to hide my motives. They see themselves as a hammer and everyone doing anything other than agreeing is just a nail.

As for the debate side, how can you debate if you don't understand what is being said right? So what happens when questioning is anathema discourse?

Also, in some cases, you may be engaging in actual whataboutism.

Lol sure. I'm human and even if I think I'm right matters not to reality.

 

[interchange]

Thought so. If it were true, it would imply that people were unable to grow and or change after the age of 25 which would seem silly.

Now, if I linked an on-line article about fMRI findings supporting functional differences in older people who have undertone psychotherapy we'd really be cooking -- never mind the host of biases in scientific research and the proclivity for media to report on findings that make headlines, often enough finding lower quality research and reporting on things like the author's hypotheses about how to explain a finding that likely enough was a secondary outcome and not statistically significant. But hey, you can see that one picture looks prettier than another, so there you go!

But... Do we seriously need imaging studies (etc.) to show that people are capable of changing past age 25?

 

[dank69]

Now, if I linked an on-line article about fMRI findings supporting functional differences in older people who have undertone psychotherapy we'd really be cooking -- never mind the host of biases in scientific research and the proclivity for media to report on findings that make headlines, often enough finding lower quality research and reporting on things like the author's hypotheses about how to explain a finding that likely enough was a secondary outcome and not statistically significant. But hey, you can see that one picture looks prettier than another, so there you go!

But... Do we seriously need imaging studies (etc.) to show that people are capable of changing past age 25?

To be fair, nobody claimed people can't change past the age of 25. The claim is that brain development slows dramatically after 25. It is considered fully developed at that point. That doesn't mean there are no changes.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh, its quite clear that people come into forum with that perspective. Even though I often say that I'm trying to understand, it means little. People assume that is a fake signal to hide my motives. They see themselves as a hammer and everyone doing anything other than agreeing is just a nail.

They may also base their reactions on a poster's history. Since we're discussing you as an example, you have a tendency to pop into threads with counter-examples seemingly meant to show inconsistent reasoning based on partisanship. This can be frustrating to people who don't see a "symmetry" between the two "sides." IMO, there are good factual reasons to reject this notion of symmetry.

Throughout my 10 years posting here (on this and a prior handle woolfe9999), I have often been critical of the left. While I'm occasionally maligned over it, I can get away with it for the most part because I also spend a lot of time discussing the damage that Trump and his supporters are doing to the country. No one here should be in the least bit confused about my overall stance on our political climate, as well as on specific issues.

You OTOH seem mainly interested in popping into a threads when you think you have an argument that liberal posters are ignoring bad things happening on the left, or are being unfairly critical of Trump and the right. You will often throw in a rhetorical aside like "well of course conservatives are worse" but people pay more attention to what you seem most interested and least interested in criticizing on an ongoing basis then those kinds of statements which seem meant to "cover your ass" rhetorically.

For example, were you at all interested in saying anything about Trump giving a pass to Saudi Arabia for murdering a dissenting journalist in a foreign diplomatic sanctuary? Would you have commented on the topic if you could find an example of a liberal who seemed to give a pass to something like this in the past? There's good reason based on your history to suggest that the answer to the first question is no, while the answer to the second is yes.

This pattern will cause some people to think you are either a closeted conservative or have a "centrist bias" where you are invested in playing devil's advocate in order to prove your objectivity to the world. In your case, I would reject the first interpretation but I think there may be something to the second. You may have a bias of which you are not consciously aware.

I don't mean to seem too critical. I think your posts often generate useful discussion and are probably maligned more often than they should be. But you have a tendency to not take a stand on things, and many people feel this is not a time to fail to take a stand. As I sit here, I honestly do not know what policies you do and do not support, and that's quite strange considering your extensive posting history. Your questioning and devil's advocacy might be better received if you also showed that you have affirmative beliefs - not just a vanilla belief that there is some bad on both sides - and a little passion for them.

 

[realibrad]

Now, if I linked an on-line article about fMRI findings supporting functional differences in older people who have undertone psychotherapy we'd really be cooking -- never mind the host of biases in scientific research and the proclivity for media to report on findings that make headlines, often enough finding lower quality research and reporting on things like the author's hypotheses about how to explain a finding that likely enough was a secondary outcome and not statistically significant. But hey, you can see that one picture looks prettier than another, so there you go!

But... Do we seriously need imaging studies (etc.) to show that people are capable of changing past age 25?

The brain is amazing. I was just watching something on how people can see even when their brain is damage and do not realize they are seeing. There was a test where people were asked what it was that was being held up. They had frontal brain damage and were functionally blind, yet, information was getting to the brain and they were right more than what chance would predict. That gives me another rabbit hole to go down.

 

[interchange]

To be fair, nobody claimed people can't change past the age of 25. The claim is that brain development slows dramatically after 25. It is considered fully developed at that point. That doesn't mean there are no changes.

And what do you mean by "development"? The problem is taking abstract cognitive concepts and imagining we could translate that to a concrete, measurable biological model. If you mean structural changes in volume or functional changes in connectivity, then we can readily study that although not so easily at the individual level. Indeed a lot has been made of findings suggesting significant changes in the prefrontal cortex from teens into adulthood, bolstered by a general idea of the prefrontal cortex's importance in decision making/impulse control. Yet there is precious little actual evidence of specific measurable brain changes and how it influences behavior. But what does it matter? We can readily behaviorally describe changes in impulse control across various ages without a lick of neuroscience understanding. We can readily compile statistics on teen violent offenders and their likelihood of criminality as adults. But while that can be and has been done for ages, what is making waves in changing people's minds about things are these imaging findings. But why? Shouldn't our reasoning about how to judge the operation of the mind be based upon our observations about what the mind does and not the brain? Certainly the mind is derived from brain function, but choosing that as our lens to view the mind is like choosing to watch a Fox news report on something that is happening right in front of you. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we're having a new perspective on seeing people's behavior in a developmental context even into adulthood. But I think we could challenge ourselves to look at our own behavior and deal with the abstractness of it instead of trying to find what appear to be objective answers because they are concrete and cutting edge technologically.

 

[dank69]

And what do you mean by "development"? The problem is taking abstract cognitive concepts and imagining we could translate that to a concrete, measurable biological model. If you mean structural changes in volume or functional changes in connectivity, then we can readily study that although not so easily at the individual level. Indeed a lot has been made of findings suggesting significant changes in the prefrontal cortex from teens into adulthood, bolstered by a general idea of the prefrontal cortex's importance in decision making/impulse control. Yet there is precious little actual evidence of specific measurable brain changes and how it influences behavior. But what does it matter? We can readily behaviorally describe changes in impulse control across various ages without a lick of neuroscience understanding. We can readily compile statistics on teen violent offenders and their likelihood of criminality as adults. But while that can be and has been done for ages, what is making waves in changing people's minds about things are these imaging findings. But why? Shouldn't our reasoning about how to judge the operation of the mind be based upon our observations about what the mind does and not the brain? Certainly the mind is derived from brain function, but choosing that as our lens to view the mind is like choosing to watch a Fox news report on something that is happening right in front of you. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we're having a new perspective on seeing people's behavior in a developmental context even into adulthood. But I think we could challenge ourselves to look at our own behavior and deal with the abstractness of it instead of trying to find what appear to be objective answers because they are concrete and cutting edge technologically.

I'm having a little trouble with the idea of separating a mind from a brain.

 

[realibrad]

They may also base their reactions on a poster's history. Since we're discussing you as an example, you have a tendency to pop into threads with counter-examples seemingly meant to show inconsistent reasoning based on partisanship. This can be frustrating to people who don't see a "symmetry" between the two "sides." IMO, there are good factual reasons to reject this notion of symmetry.

The Left and Right are similar in some ways, but not in scope. I do not say they are equal in all ways, but, I also don't deny that both sides do bad things. I also say often that one side does it a hell of a lot more, and that would be the Right.

Throughout my 10 years posting here (on this and a prior handle woolfe9999), I have often been critical of the left. While I'm occasionally maligned over it, I can get away with it for the most part because I also spend a lot of time discussing the damage that Trump and his supporters are doing to the country. No one here should be in the least bit confused about my overall stance on our political climate, as well as on specific issues.

I feel the same way.

You OTOH seem mainly interested in popping into a threads when you think you have an argument that liberal posters are ignoring bad things happening on the left, or are being unfairly critical of Trump and the right. You will often throw in a rhetorical aside like "well of course conservatives are worse" but people pay more attention to what you seem most interested and least interested in criticizing on an ongoing basis then those kinds of statements which seem meant to "cover your ass" rhetorically.

When I first came to P&N, I came to talk mostly about economics. That shifted to be more, but, for sure I would be considered on the Left. That all changed when Trump won. I went from being squarely on the Left to being labeled on the Right.

Check out this post.

"It was the same thing with Romney. The voters pick partly based on who they think will win. The Left thinks Hilary has the best chance. The right has gone full retard and is going with Trump right now. I think as push comes to shove, they will pick someone other than Trump, but its the left so maybe not. "

That last part should have been Right not left, and was a typo.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...nest-public-poll.2444659/page-2#post-37784769

That should pretty clearly indicate my position, yet, saying that mattered little to people. As Trump was gaining steam, you were either 100% anti Trump and the Right, or you were in full support.

For example, were you at all interested in saying anything about Trump giving a pass to Saudi Arabia for murdering a dissenting journalist in a foreign diplomatic sanctuary? Would you have commented on the topic if you could find an example of a liberal who seemed to give a pass to something like this in the past? There's good reason based on your history to suggest that the answer to the first question is no, while the answer to the second is yes.

In all honesty, I avoided that thread because FIVR started it. I will give my take on it now. The fact that nothing is going to happen to SA shows how fucked up our "friends" are. SA has been a horrible bag of shit for a while, and has done a massive amount of things that should be punished, and yet nothing happens because oil. What Trump is doing is sad, but not unexpected. The fact that they could murder someone, get caught, and little to nothing happen says a lot about SA and a lot about the US.

I also find FIVR to be a troll, and for the most part skip him completely.

This pattern will cause some people to think you are either a closeted conservative or have a "centrist bias" where you are invested in playing devil's advocate in order to prove your objectivity to the world. In your case, I would reject the first interpretation but I think there may be something to the second. You may have a bias of which you are not consciously aware.

And it would be more of a confirmation bias. There are far fewer people on the Right than on the Left in this forum. That means if I engage with someone, its far more likely to be with someone on the Left. I see little to no reason to circle-jerk with people that I agree with, so you are likely not going to see me posting in threads where I agree. Given that so many people on the Right have left this section, any disagreement will thus likely be on something from the Left.

But, if you want to find examples of me arguing with people on the Right, its not hard to find.

I don't mean to seem too critical. I think your posts often generate useful discussion and are probably maligned more often than they should be. But you have a tendency to not take a stand on things, and many people feel this is not a time to fail to take a stand. As I sit here, I honestly do not know what policies you do and do not support, and that's quite strange considering your extensive posting history. Your questioning and devil's advocacy might be better received if you also showed that you have affirmative beliefs - not just a vanilla belief that there is some bad on both sides - and a little passion for them.

This is why we cant have nice things. Every topic you must take a stand on. There is never time to take in different perspectives and try to work through it.

As for giving my position, well, why would I do that? I'm interested in other's options and how they think. Posting my position happens but, its not going to happen all that often because its not what I'm looking for. You can see above where I gave it because you asked for it, but, I'm not likely to give it unsolicited because who cares? If people want my opinion, they will ask. I'm not going to go around giving my opinion on things unless I feel strongly, and I almost never feel strongly because I feel I'm too uninformed.

Now, you want to see how I used to be pre Trump, check out this thread.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-we-need-to-live-more-modestly.2418063/page-3

 

[woolfe9998]

The Left and Right are similar in some ways, but not in scope. I do not say they are equal in all ways, but, I also don't deny that both sides do bad things. I also say often that one side does it a hell of a lot more, and that would be the Right.



I feel the same way.



When I first came to P&N, I came to talk mostly about economics. That shifted to be more, but, for sure I would be considered on the Left. That all changed when Trump won. I went from being squarely on the Left to being labeled on the Right.

Check out this post.

"It was the same thing with Romney. The voters pick partly based on who they think will win. The Left thinks Hilary has the best chance. The right has gone full retard and is going with Trump right now. I think as push comes to shove, they will pick someone other than Trump, but its the left so maybe not. "

That last part should have been Right not left, and was a typo.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...nest-public-poll.2444659/page-2#post-37784769

That should pretty clearly indicate my position, yet, saying that mattered little to people. As Trump was gaining steam, you were either 100% anti Trump and the Right, or you were in full support.




In all honesty, I avoided that thread because FIVR started it. I will give my take on it now. The fact that nothing is going to happen to SA shows how fucked up our "friends" are. SA has been a horrible bag of shit for a while, and has done a massive amount of things that should be punished, and yet nothing happens because oil. What Trump is doing is sad, but not unexpected. The fact that they could murder someone, get caught, and little to nothing happen says a lot about SA and a lot about the US.

I also find FIVR to be a troll, and for the most part skip him completely.



And it would be more of a confirmation bias. There are far fewer people on the Right than on the Left in this forum. That means if I engage with someone, its far more likely to be with someone on the Left. I see little to no reason to circle-jerk with people that I agree with, so you are likely not going to see me posting in threads where I agree. Given that so many people on the Right have left this section, any disagreement will thus likely be on something from the Left.

But, if you want to find examples of me arguing with people on the Right, its not hard to find.



This is why we cant have nice things. Every topic you must take a stand on. There is never time to take in different perspectives and try to work through it.

As for giving my position, well, why would I do that? I'm interested in other's options and how they think. Posting my position happens but, its not going to happen all that often because its not what I'm looking for. You can see above where I gave it because you asked for it, but, I'm not likely to give it unsolicited because who cares? If people want my opinion, they will ask. I'm not going to go around giving my opinion on things unless I feel strongly, and I almost never feel strongly because I feel I'm too uninformed.

Now, you want to see how I used to be pre Trump, check out this thread.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-we-need-to-live-more-modestly.2418063/page-3

Why should you state your positions? Because this is a forum for political discussion and debate and that's what people do. How common do you think it is for people to put up thousands of posts over several years on a political forum and no one could say what you do and do not believe in on most topics of interest? You have to admit that's a bit unusual, no?

Look, if you want to be a blank canvas, that's fine. But then you have to accept that people are going to project whatever they infer onto you. That's what happens when you play coy about what you really believe. It isn't the questioning and devil's advocacy per se that is getting you criticized. It's doing only that and little else.

BTW, posting a liberal viewpoint in a thread where it's mostly liberals posting isn't "circle jerking" which is mindless "me tooing." Sometimes you may agree with the consensus but for different reasons, or you may just have a better way of explaining it than others with the same opinion.

 

[realibrad]

Why should you state your positions? Because this is a forum for political discussion and debate and that's what people do. How common do you think it is for people to put up thousands of posts over several years on a political forum and no one could say what you do and do not believe in on most topics of interest? You have to admit that's a bit unusual, no?

I gave my opinions a lot more before Trump. Giving my opinions now seems pointless. I linked you to an example of my stance on Trump, and there are more where I say he is an idiot, and that I thought for sure he would not win. You can also find me saying much of the same after he won. That does not matter though, as its dismissed as fake. So why give my opinions when either they are dismissed or seen as a lie?

Look, if you want to be a blank canvas, that's fine. But then you have to accept that people are going to project whatever they infer onto you. That's what happens when you play coy about what you really believe. It isn't the questioning and devil's advocacy per se that is getting you criticized. It's doing only that and little else.

Playing coy is not right. I don't pretend to not have opinions, I just don't give them unless I am asked for it. I'm also not trying to argue both sides, so much as trying to figure out how someone could believe things that appear to me to be conflicting.

BTW, posting a liberal viewpoint in a thread where it's mostly liberals posting isn't "circle jerking" which is mindless "me tooing." Sometimes you may agree with the consensus but for different reasons, or you may just have a better way of explaining it than others with the same opinion.

You realize I am accused of quibbling right? If I do not fully agree, I am either quibbling if the disagreement is small enough, or, I'm pretending with an agenda. So me chiming in seems pointless. If I start in with something that is in agreement other than something small, or I have a slightly different perspective, its just a quibble.

 

[pmv]

What else contributes to emotional and intellectual adulthood beside the brain? What else determines the moral-and-political question of who gets to make choices?

But in putting _all_ the emphasis on this 'brain development' claim, you are smuggling in the assumption we know everything there is to know about the brain and how it relates to mind. We clearly do not. And in general there's this ridiculous tendency to assume that if one finds some physical marker in the brain that correlates in some way to a change in the mind, that that, in itself, represents some profound discovery. So often, it seems to me, these claims that 'such and such' 'changes the brain' is taken as adding something important to what we already know - that the thing in question changes people's personalities or habits of thought or way-of-thinking - and that pointing at the physical signs of that somehow makes it more serioius. Hence "using computers a lot changes children's brains" - well, every new habit or way of thinking we acquire must be embodied in some sort of physical change in the brain or CNS, but so what? What does the switch to speaking of brains rather than minds actually add to the argument?

The 'brain development' thing is another factor to consider, but it doesn't really change our ideas as to, for example, whether we think a 16 year-old should be able to vote or not. That's a social and political question, not a neurological/biological one.

 

[dank69]

But in putting _all_ the emphasis on this 'brain development' claim, you are smuggling in the assumption we know everything there is to know about the brain and how it relates to mind. We clearly do not. And in general there's this ridiculous tendency to assume that if one finds some physical marker in the brain that correlates in some way to a change in the mind, that that, in itself, represents some profound discovery. So often, it seems to me, these claims that 'such and such' 'changes the brain' is taken as adding something important to what we already know - that the thing in question changes people's personalities or habits of thought or way-of-thinking - and that pointing at the physical signs of that somehow makes it more serioius. Hence "using computers a lot changes children's brains" - well, every new habit or way of thinking we acquire must be embodied in some sort of physical change in the brain or CNS, but so what? What does the switch to speaking of brains rather than minds actually add to the argument?

The 'brain development' thing is another factor to consider, but it doesn't really change our ideas as to, for example, whether we think a 16 year-old should be able to vote or not. That's a social and political question, not a neurological/biological one.

I'm still not clear on the distinction between mind and brain. I mean, I understand you are trying to separate the plumbing from the function and I understand why you want to separate them, but I don't necessarily believe the two can be separated unless you can at least tell me what else affects the mind other than the brain.

I also never implied that we know everything there is to know about the brain. That is something you inferred. We just know when the brain stops developing, with developing obviously defined for this discussion as the changes associated with physical maturation.

Of course the brain continues to change, in that at the very least we add new memories every day. We just aren't going to develop significant new capabilities that weren't previously possible.

 

[pmv]

A little primer about "whataboutism." I had never heard the term until maybe last year. I thought it was literally coined to refer to arguments now common on the right during the Trump era. Evidently it's been used in modern political debate at least since the 1990's, but the term may actually date back hundreds of years.

It is closely associated with Russian propaganda, and is considered their primary tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

It's Putin's staple form of propaganda, and has recently become the single most repeated logical fallacy among American conservatives. This is not a coincidence.

To me, it mostly relates to Northern Ireland. That's where the term first became widely used in the UK press at least - to describe the way arguments about terrorist atrocities would invariably go. Condemn an IRA killing and someone will point at a British Army or Loyalist one. and vise-versa.

I don't believe it is, strictly, a logical fallacy. In fact, I think the problem with all the logical fallacies is that they presume the conversation has a particular purpose in the first place, some sort of strictly logic-based dialogue to establish 'the truth'. I don't see why one should presume that is what the purpose of any given conversation is. I'm not even sure in political disputes there necessariily _is_ a truth to be established. A lot of the time it's about conveying emotion or achieving some sort of propaganda advantage, or the underlying disagreement isn't the one that is ostensibly being discussed anyway.

 

[pmv]

I'm still not clear on the distinction between mind and brain. I mean, I understand you are trying to separate the plumbing from the function and I understand why you want to separate them, but I don't necessarily believe the two can be separated unless you can at least tell me what else affects the mind other than the brain.

I also never implied that we know everything there is to know about the brain. That is something you inferred. We just know when the brain stops developing, with developing obviously defined for this discussion as the changes associated with physical maturation.

Of course the brain continues to change, in that at the very least we add new memories every day. We just aren't going to develop significant new capabilities that weren't previously possible.

You miss my point entirely, as it is the opposite of what you say. I'm not separating the mind and brain, I'm saying that the two go together is so clear that its banal to note that changes in one relate to changes in the other, but _we don't know the nature of the relationship between them_ and noting the changes in the brain adds very little, in most cases, to what we already know of the changes in the mind.

(Edit, the exception being where changes in the brain are clearly primary, driven by a strictly physical process like a brain-injury...where it's interesting to see changes in personality and behaviour may follow)

i'm saying there's no compelling argument that says 'brain development stopping' (whatever that actually means, because 'brain development' is rather a huge topic, of which neurologists still have a limited understanding) means 'you aren't capable of choosing a political candidate to vote for', or 'you can't choose to join the army'. That's jumping from neurons to social rules, and I don't see where that jump is justified. The biology is worth being taken into consideration, but really, we already knew young people aren't fully mature, that's why we already have age limits for things.

 

[dank69]

You miss my point entirely, as it is the opposite of what you say. I'm not separating the mind and brain, I'm saying that the two go together is so clear that its banal to note that changes in one relate to changes in the other, but _we don't know the nature of the relationship between them_ and noting the changes in the brain adds very little, in most cases, to what we already know of the changes in the mind.

(Edit, the exception being where changes in the brain are clearly primary, driven by a strictly physical process like a brain-injury...where it's interesting to see changes in personality and behaviour may follow)

i'm saying there's no compelling argument that says 'brain development stopping' (whatever that actually means, because 'brain development' is rather a huge topic, of which neurologists still have a limited understanding) means 'you aren't capable of choosing a political candidate to vote for', or 'you can't choose to join the army'. That's jumping from neurons to social rules, and I don't see where that jump is justified.

You are right, the jump as you describe it would be illogical. However, it is perfectly logical to say that typically before the age of 25, a human's brain is not developed enough to fully understand all the implications that follow from joining the military. Fully understand defined as the maximum understanding the same adult can accomplish after age 25 since the human brain is not capable of truly understanding all implications even when fully "developed."

 

[Vic]

Straw man, particularly when used with guilt by association. As in, "you're a (insert group here), therefore your arguing position is (whatever self-serving BS I want to think that group believes), and I'm going to keep arguing against that position regardless of how contrary it is to what you're actually saying."

 

[ivwshane]

"Catch and release" is viewed as open borders. You're simply not agreeing on the terms used to describe it.

That's because you are making up shit. Catch & release refers to releasing a migrant while they await trial as opposed to keeping them in a detention facility until they go to trial.

 

[realibrad]

I'm still not clear on the distinction between mind and brain. I mean, I understand you are trying to separate the plumbing from the function and I understand why you want to separate them, but I don't necessarily believe the two can be separated unless you can at least tell me what else affects the mind other than the brain.

I also never implied that we know everything there is to know about the brain. That is something you inferred. We just know when the brain stops developing, with developing obviously defined for this discussion as the changes associated with physical maturation.

Of course the brain continues to change, in that at the very least we add new memories every day. We just aren't going to develop significant new capabilities that weren't previously possible.

You can have all the tools, but, the mind may not be there. The mind is an emergent property of our brains, but, its not only about the structure of our brains. That is, unless you believe biology is 100% responsible for all personality traits.

 

[dank69]

You can have all the tools, but, the mind may not be there. The mind is an emergent property of our brains, but, its not only about the structure of our brains. That is, unless you believe biology is 100% responsible for all personality traits.

You are talking about nature vs. nurture but when you get down to the nitty gritty the environment just alters the biology.

 

[Moonbeam]

My point was to show something that was not whataboutism, but, people would think it was. The point was not to say that whatabouism can be useful. I knew people would see it and think it was though, and I would use them to exemplify my point about people not understanding what is happening.

My larger point was that we cannot have productive conversations when people come in and try to derail and or dismiss the points being made because of a fallacy. When I try to ask people questions to find out their reasoning, its seen as an attempt to shift to a different topic. They cannot understand anything further because they dismiss the expansion as whatabouism.

I believe it has a lot to do with not understanding things in the abstraction. People appear not to be able to get beyond the surface level. People seem to be stuck on either staying vertical or horizontal and not being able to do both.

How do you feel about all of this? Sounds to me like you might be sad you can't escape the feeling of being rejected. If that were right I would ask you to consider if it really matters. Everything we try to avoid we try to avoid because it has already happened.

 

[Muse]

Uh, probably that you know what you're fucking talking about.

 

[Muse]

On top of that, I'd say equivocation is a serious problem on the forum. See: the Trump apologists who think Antifa is as bad as or worse than neo-Nazis.

Yeah, that's a tough one. Personally, I find it impossible to understand the denigration of "liberals" and "progressives" in the name of "conservatism." I think that perfectly retarded and and that this was accomplished by nothing short of slight of hand by the right wing propagandists.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, that's a tough one. Personally, I find it impossible to understand the denigration of "liberals" and "progressives" in the name of "conservatism." I think that perfectly retarded and and that this was accomplished by nothing short of slight of hand by the right wing propagandists.

How about the use of language to connect the idea of liberal with the visceral and natural protective reaction of disgust. How many children wretch at the sight of food that is green? What if you could be made to find yourself revolting if you challenge authority and real authority is conservative?