A Critique on Voxism

[Corinan]

Ah, there we go. Now both of you have also discredited yourself. You people seriously need to stop making statements that we all know to be false. Vladimir has never lost an argument? Perhaps you need to look at his essay threads more. Here is his last one. See how many stars it has? Practically the entire world, Vox or not, came out to argue that he is full of it in that thread. Dozens of alliances. If you look at his last several threads, they've all had a significant amount of people arguing against him (pretty much everyone except NPO) and none have had a rating higher than 3, most of them have been 2.

If you haven't noticed, that's not just Vox Populi's response, it's everyone's.

Please tell me where I stated that Vladimir has never lost an argument. Go ahead. Read what I said a little slower this time.

Also, just because many people come out against one of his arguments does not necessarily make the argument false. I'm pretty sure they have a fancy Latin term for that. Responding to his argument with "lol Vladimir" does not invalidate the argument, either. Anytime that I can remember where someone actually tries to engage Vladimir intellectually, they're defeated.

And just for future reference, West of Eden, you cannot discredit someone simply because you failed to comprehend what they were saying.

[Nintenderek]

Please tell me where I stated that Vladimir has never lost an argument.

It's pretty much right here, crystal clear.

I've known Vladimir for over five years now, spanning the entire existance of this universe and others, and I can say with all honesty that I cannot recall an instance where he's lost a debate.

I think I deserve a prize.

[West of Eden]

Nintenderek, he's going to argue that he doesn't actually say that Vladimir has not lost an argument but only that he's never seen this happen (despite reinforcing this with "I've known him for five years [so I think if it happened I'd know]"). This is the doublespeak they like to do to confuse the issue.

Corinan, if you're going to play semantics, show me exactly where I said that you said Vladimir has never lost an argument. Go ahead. Read what I said a little slower this time.

We can play semantics all day long but it won't recover Vladimir's credibility. You can't keep saying "I am a totally neutral scientist investigating a truth" while your work shows incredible bias and hope that nobody notices.

Edited February 15, 2009 by West of Eden

[Corinan]

Nintendertek, I want you to re-read that quote and then tell me exactly how you failed.

Corinan, if you're going to play semantics, show me exactly where I said that you said Vladimir has never lost an argument.

Ah, there we go. Now both of you have also discredited yourself. You people seriously need to stop making statements that we all know to be false. Vladimir has never lost an argument?

You pretty explicitly implied that I said that there.

[West of Eden]

You pretty explicitly implied that I said that there.

Oh, right and you never implied that Vlad hasn't lost a debate here:

I've known Vladimir for over five years now, spanning the entire existance of this universe and others, and I can say with all honesty that I cannot recall an instance where he's lost a debate. Ever. Can someone name an instance where he lost a debate? I can't.

Keep on trying, maybe you'll be successful at distracting a few people from Vlad's non-existent credibility.

[Vladimir]

Practically the entire world, Vox or not, came out to argue that he is full of it in that thread.

That'll happen when you try to take said world's only historical victory over you away from them. Or, to put it another way:

"Philosophy finds people opposed to it especially when it states truths that strike at vested interests."

"A political struggle is in its essence a struggle of interests and forces, not of arguments."

Regardless, most of those who attacked my position (and most of those who still do so, as was noted of one of Airme's recent radio broadcasts) either failed to read or failed to understand what I was arguing. And in both cases I don't expect that they cared. It did, however, gain some rather important plaudits from among those who had independent high-level knowledge about the issue. I don't recall any significant errors being pointed out in my version of events or any noteworthy holes being poked in the logic leading to my conclusion.

More importantly, however, on a logical note, who is correct in a debate is not determined by popularity (ad populum was the latin phrase Corinan was searching for), and is certainly not determined by how many stars a thread gets (5 votes, invariably from those with specific agendas, isn't even a democratic measure, never mind a scientific one).

However, this is hardly the thread for such a debate. We were already somewhat off-topic with the discussion on Admin (which I didn't expect to drag on as it did). But then, no thread is really the place for this debate. Why are we debating me? What do I have to do with anything? It's all just an indulgence of your earlier fallacy -- that the correctness of a position is determined by your personal feelings on the one taking it rather than on the position itself.

[Nintenderek]

Nintendertek, I want you to re-read that quote and then tell me exactly how you failed.

You pretty explicitly implied that I said that there.

Debate and argument are the same thing on the CN forums pretty much.

[Earogema]

That'll happen when you try to take said world's only historical victory over you away from them. Or, to put it another way:

"Philosophy finds people opposed to it especially when it states truths that strike at vested interests."

"A political struggle is in its essence a struggle of interests and forces, not of arguments."

Regardless, most of those who attacked my position (and most of those who still do so, as was noted of one of Airme's recent radio broadcasts) either failed to read or failed to understand what I was arguing. And in both cases I don't expect that they cared. It did, however, gain some rather important plaudits from among those who had independent high-level knowledge about the issue. I don't recall any significant errors being pointed out in my version of events or any noteworthy holes being poked in the logic leading to my conclusion.

More importantly, however, on a logical note, who is correct in a debate is not determined by popularity (ad populum was the latin phrase Corinan was searching for), and is certainly not determined by how many stars a thread gets (5 votes, invariably from those with specific agendas, isn't even a democratic measure, never mind a scientific one).

However, this is hardly the thread for such a debate. We were already somewhat off-topic with the discussion on Admin (which I didn't expect to drag on as it did). But then, no thread is really the place for this debate. Why are we debating me? What do I have to do with anything? It's all just an indulgence of your earlier fallacy -- that the correctness of a position is determined by your personal feelings on the one taking it rather than on the position itself.

This is very true. I addressed all the points of the OP, and ever since then, those points just kinda left the thread, and then the whole admin thing came up.

[Gatherum]

Oh, right and you never implied that Vlad hasn't lost a debate here:

Keep on trying, maybe you'll be successful at distracting a few people from Vlad's non-existent credibility.

Allow me to clarify, for I think I understand what he's getting at. He did not claim that Vlad never lost a debate. He claimed that he had never seen Vlad lose a debate.

Still, that only concerns Vlad's credibility when it comes to Corinan's opinions, so I must wonder how that has any purpose in this debate.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Gatherum

[West of Eden]

Allow me to clarify, for I think I understand what he's getting at. He did not claim that Vlad never lost a debate. He claimed that he had never seen Vlad lose a debate.

I know this, I said that this was going to be his argument a few posts up. But this is merely semantics, his point was obviously that Vladimir has never lost an argument. If he wants to play semantics, he can show me where it is that I said that he said that Vladimir never lost a debate. Because just like he never says that Vlad never lost explicitly, I never say that he said Vlad did explicitly either. But again, he's playing semantics to distract from the issue.

More importantly, however, on a logical note, who is correct in a debate is not determined by popularity (ad populum was the latin phrase Corinan was searching for), and is certainly not determined by how many stars a thread gets (5 votes, invariably from those with specific agendas, isn't even a democratic measure, never mind a scientific one).

Indeed, the most popular side is not necessarily the correct one. However who won a debate and who lost is not an exact science, it's an opinion. And thus we can judge who won and who lost based on what the majority says.

However, this is hardly the thread for such a debate. We were already somewhat off-topic with the discussion on Admin (which I didn't expect to drag on as it did). But then, no thread is really the place for this debate. Why are we debating me? What do I have to do with anything? It's all just an indulgence of your earlier fallacy -- that the correctness of a position is determined by your personal feelings on the one taking it rather than on the position itself.

I believe you are trying to say that I am using ad-homs (a favorite tactic of NPO). Thing is, the credibility of the person does have something with the argument, especially when your argument includes obvious lies. If I claimed I was Moo and then immediately said I am disbanding NPO, nobody would believe me. This is akin to nobody believing (myself included) anything you say after you claim that your goal is not to destroy or discredit Vox. I will repeat advice already offered - stop inserting obvious lies into your arguments if you want anyone to take them seriously.

[Machiabelly]

Ah, there we go. Now both of you have also discredited yourself. You people seriously need to stop making statements that we all know to be false. Vladimir has never lost an argument? Perhaps you need to look at his essay threads more. Here is his last one. See how many stars it has? Practically the entire world, Vox or not, came out to argue that he is full of it in that thread. Dozens of alliances. If you look at his last several threads, they've all had a significant amount of people arguing against him (pretty much everyone except NPO) and none have had a rating higher than 3, most of them have been 2.

If you haven't noticed, that's not just Vox Populi's response, it's everyone's.

If you only count it as a loss when you admit you lost, then Vladimir has never lost a debate and NPO has never lost a war.

[Vladimir]

Indeed, the most popular side is not necessarily the correct one. However who won a debate and who lost is not an exact science, it's an opinion. And thus we can judge who won and who lost based on what the majority says.

No, we can't: especially not when it comes to matters of political history where vested interests abound. If 51% of Soviestanis were suddenly to start believing in creationism (notwithstanding that they would all be immediately executed for crimes against General Secretary Vladimir's patience), that would not make evolution incorrect, nor would it mean that evolution 'lost the debate' -- it would only mean that it lost popular opinion (two distinctly different things). There are many reasons that such opinions may be held, most of them having nothing to do with objective understanding of the issue.

Indeed, if the 'victor' of a debate is chosen by vote then I should stop entering debates altogether, since I generally only take on controversial issues where public assumptions are already against me -- not much point in writing an essay on the obvious. Though there have been a number of debates where popular opinion has been against me initially and then come to agree with my position later on (ie. Slavery of International Rights); does that mean that I lost the debate, and then without any further discussion it turned into a 'win' a year later? It makes no sense.

The difference here is that you are discussing populism, and taking the only important thing to be popularity. I am discussing science, and taking the only important thing to be logic. Two diametrically opposing positions, so I doubt we are going to come to an agreement (though since Corinan agrees with me (making it 2 vs 1), does that mean I win the debate? ).

I believe you are trying to say that I am using ad-homs (a favorite tactic of NPO). Thing is, the credibility of the person does have something with the argument, especially when your argument includes obvious lies. If I claimed I was Moo and then immediately said I am disbanding NPO, nobody would believe me. This is akin to nobody believing (myself included) anything you say after you claim that your goal is not to destroy or discredit Vox. I will repeat advice already offered - stop inserting obvious lies into your arguments if you want anyone to take them seriously.

I'm not trying to say that you are using an ad-hom --- I explicitly stated it several posts ago. Let us look at what an ad-hom is:

Source A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Source A

Therefore claim X is false

Or:

Vladimir makes the claim that asserting Admin as an objective truth is in contradiction with the rest of Voxism.

West of Eden doesn't like Vladimir's politics.

Therefore Vladimir's claim regarding Admin and Voxism is false.

This applies even if there are obvious lies in an argument. If the lie is relevant to the topic then the correct debate tactic would be to point out the lie, demonstrate why it is a lie, outline how it affects the argument, and then put forward a conclusion based on the correct data. It shouldn't be used to say X lied about Y, therefore everything X says is a lie and should be ignored. Logic doesn't work that way. That's an ad-hom.

And I've already broken down why that gem of a lie you caught me in wasn't a lie -- because I never said it! I thought, that since I put it into language that a 3 year old could understand, that you might catch on. My apologies, next time I'll dumb it down by another couple of years. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1269392

Additionally, the point I was making -- and that you are trying to discredit through your ad-hom attack -- has already been conceded by the one I was debating with (even if he didn't take my advice on the logical response). So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. If you were just trying to demonstrate your dislike for me, you really could have waited until after Valentine's Day.

[Machiabelly]

It is after Valentines day.

HA!!!! I beat Vladimir in a debate.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Vladimir]

He entered the thread the day before Valentine's Day.

[West of Eden]

No, we can't: especially not when it comes to matters of political history where vested interests abound. If 51% of Soviestanis were suddenly to start believing in creationism (notwithstanding that they would all be immediately executed for crimes against General Secretary Vladimir's patience), that would not make evolution incorrect, nor would it mean that evolution 'lost the debate' -- it would only mean that it lost popular opinion (two distinctly different things). There are many reasons that such opinions may be held, most of them having nothing to do with objective understanding of the issue.

If 51% of the Sovietstanis were to suddenly start believing in creationism right after a debate on it, it would mean that the creationism side won the debate. Thank you, please drive through. The victor of a debate is indeed chosen by a vote, although that does not necessary make the victor correct, it does indeed mean he won the debate. You can write essays on the subject all you want but it will not change this simple truth.

I'm not trying to say that you are using an ad-hom --- I explicitly stated it several posts ago. Let us look at what an ad-hom is:

Oh, I am sorry for getting your argument right......oh wait, should I really be apologizing for that?

Vladimir makes the claim that asserting Admin as an objective truth is in contradiction with the rest of Voxism.

West of Eden doesn't like Vladimir's politics.

Therefore Vladimir's claim regarding Admin and Voxism is false.

I think it goes more like this:

Vladimir makes a claim

West of Eden points out that Vladimir is lying in his claim

Therefore Vladimir's is a liar [and due to repeated lies, nobody takes anything he says seriously but that's another story]

Logically, to mend #3, you need to mend #2 - ie, stop claiming you're an objective "scientist" with no agenda.

PS: You may note that I never said your argument is false because you're lying through your teeth in half of it, that would border on an ad-hom. I simply said you're lying.

Edited February 15, 2009 by West of Eden

[Machiabelly]

He entered the thread the day before Valentine's Day.

Yes, but the ad hom attack/statement (not trying to take sides) that you quoted happened after Valentine's Day and that was what you referenced when you asked him to attack you after Valentine's Day.

I will accept that you may have meant 2010, but that seems a bit of a stretch

[Vladimir]

Actually, I pointed out the ad hom attack the day before Valentine's Day as well, here.

If 51% of the Sovietstanis were to suddenly start believing in creationism right after a debate on it, it would mean that the creationism side won the debate. Thank you, please drive through. The victor of a debate is indeed chosen by a vote, although that does not necessary make the victor correct, it does indeed mean he won the debate. You can write essays on the subject all you want but it will not change this simple truth.

This is getting repetitive, my previous response applies (and I still win this debate with my 2:1 majority... you get someone else into the thread? So will I, etc, etc, etc. Very scientific). Though I would add the point that in your attempt to make use of my example you assume that everyone was on the fence to start with and that they held a disinterested position. In fact neither of these is true -- in creating the thread I never had any doubt -- and was proven correct -- that the vast majority would reject it for political reasons without even reading it.

Oh, I am sorry for getting your argument right......oh wait, should I really be apologizing for that?

Not everything is a competition. You made it sound like I was sneakily trying to suggest something; I was pointing out that I was not only suggesting it, I had already stated it directly. We're all winners!

I think it goes more like this:

Vladimir makes a claim

West of Eden points out that Vladimir is lying in his claim

Therefore Vladimir's is a liar [and due to repeated lies, nobody takes anything he says seriously but that's another story]

Logically, to mend #3, you need to mend #2 - ie, stop claiming you're an objective "scientist" with no agenda.

PS: You may note that I never said your argument is false because you're lying through your teeth in half of it, that would border on an ad-hom. I simply said you're lying.

And we're even more repetitive here.

You came into the thread and started lobbing attacks against me without daring to touch on the argument at hand (an argument that both sides have agreed I was correct about!). I have already demonstrated, and you have once again ignored, that the 'lie' you keep attacking me with is a complete fabrication. My 'agenda' wasn't even at question before you turned up waving your arms around and yelling about the evil Vladimir seeking to take down Vox -- an alliance that has nothing to do with this thread, MegaAros's theory, or my queston. The only thing remotely related was MegaAros's fear that my question had some hidden plan behind it -- a fear that he has since stated was unfounded.

Do you even know what we were discussing before you jumped head first into this lead pipe and tried the drag the rest of us behind you?

[Machiabelly]

I will say that if popularity decided debate than Mrs Doubtfire is twice as good a movie as Schindler's List as twice as many people voted with their money to go see it.

[West of Eden]

This is getting repetitive, my previous response applies (and I still win this debate with my 2:1 majority... you get someone else into the thread? So will I, etc, etc, etc. Very scientific).

This thread isn't particularly representative because there are like 5 people reading it total. Sometimes it's not clear who wins a debate because of the lack of people participating (ie, you need a sample size of more than 3). Sometimes it's quite clear like your thread where the entire CN came out to tell you that you are wrong.

You came into the thread and started lobbing attacks against me without daring to touch on the argument at hand.

I don't care about your argument regarding Voxism - you may notice this from my lack of comments on it. I came into the thread to point out that you were clearly lying in a post where you said you were not out to destroy or discredit Vox.

I have already demonstrated, and you have once again ignored, that the 'lie' you keep attacking me with is a complete fabrication. My 'agenda' wasn't even at question before you turned up waving your arms around and yelling about the evil Vladimir seeking to take down Vox -- an alliance that has nothing to do with this thread, MegaAros's theory, or my queston. The only thing remotely related was MegaAros's fear that my question had some hidden plan behind it -- a fear that he has since stated was unfounded.

We go round and round. Vox does have something to do with this thread - A) The theory is called Voxism, B) It was written by a member of Vox. As I have already said, your goal is to destroy or discredit Vox and one sure fire way to do this is by attacking its members and the papers we put out (in this case MegaAros' Voxism). You can keep on screaming you're an objective scientist and you only seek the truth but you're not fooling anyone.

I will say that if popularity decided debate than Mrs Doubtfire is twice as good a movie as Schindler's List as twice as many people voted with their money to go see it.

A movie isn't a debate. A debate is when two people discuss a certain topic. There is only one way to judge who won a debate - that would be what the public thinks. There are rare cases when one person will admit he won and one will admit he lost but debates truly won based on public opinion. This does not make the person who won the debate correct, it means that he convinced the majority of people that he was correct. How would you judge who won or who lost a debate?

OOC: One example of the public clearly deciding who won or lost a debate are presidential debates with the polls that come out.

Edited February 16, 2009 by West of Eden