igorfrankensteen wrote:Thomas. I am NOT NOT NOT "making up all manner of claims about it." I am referring directly to what I found at the posted links about it.

Ok, but that's not what you said in your post:

igorfrankensteen wrote:
Back to the nominal reason for this thread...

First, I still can't find any direct list of "Goldmane's Rules" anywhere, in order to directly address the title question. Nor can I find any indication that this "Goldmane" ever had any recognized authority to go about making or suggesting rules.

The very vague mentions of what this so-called third rule was, make me respond to it by saying "nope, that's bollocks. Next question?"

You say you cannot find the rule directly and can find only very vague mentions. Eventhough I provided a full quote in the 4th post of the thread.

igorfrankensteen wrote: Attack if you like,

I'm not attacking, I'm questioning where you get your interpetations from.

igorfrankensteen wrote: but it would be far more useful to locate the ACTUAL RULE, so that we could all discuss what it actually IS.

Here you are a gain admitting you haven't found the rule, even after I linked it to you.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

Just to address your bit; no, it's conclusive evidence that their idea was bad.
It is however an indication that they cannot defend it and/or address the criticisms.

That's an illegitimate bit if reasoning (even if I assume that you meant to say "it's not conclusive evidence etc").

That's what I meant to say yes, bit of a hasty mistake.

igorfrankensteen wrote: The fact that someone does not respond, doesn't even REMOTELY prove that they CANNOT do so.

Now who's not reading what I posted?
I was talking about someone who is responding, but only ever to criticise the language of his interlocutor, not the arguments put forth by either himself or his interlocutor.
And I did not say it proved, I said it's an indication.

igorfrankensteen wrote: And by claiming that, you are ironically directly supporting what you just finished claiming was me "making things up."

Since I haven't claimed what you're attributing to me, you might want to check yourself before berating me for making things up.

igorfrankensteen wrote:
Simple example: if you, or someone who looks like you, says "The colors of the American Flag are Red, WHite, and Black." and someone who looks like me says "You are in error, the colors are Red, White, and Blue," and you or your doppelganger comes back in response with "only a stupid cunt would claim that it's blue and not black," and my replica moves on to other things (having concluded your twin is a jerk)...

... by YOUR concept, your replicant would then be able to claim that my robotic stand-in was INCAPABLE of proving that the correct color is Blueu.

Nope, not at all analogous to my original statement.
I'll rephrase yours to acurately reflect what I'm talking about:
If you say "The colors of the American Flag are Red, WHite, and Black." and I say "You are in error, the colors are Red, White, and Blue," and you say 'They're really red, white and blue', and I come back in response with "they're fucking blue, white and red," and you respond with "Why are you using swear words?" and I respond with "How is that relevant to what the colours of the US flag are? They're still red white and blue." and you just keep on complaining about my use of fucking which wasn't even a personalised remark, instead of addressing the point...

igorfrankensteen wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I seem to remember it roughly means that people only pretend to take offence at belligerent posts because their arguments are flawed. Seems to me that belief in this rule perpetuates belligerent posting which is a turnoff for many. I also find it to be untrue, in that some people sometimes genuinely withdraw from discourse because the belligerence and foul language of their interlocutor is too much to tolerate, regardless of the veracity of their arguments. Thoughts?

Back to the nominal reason for this thread...

First, I still can't find any direct list of "Goldmane's Rules" anywhere, in order to directly address the title question. Nor can I find any indication that this "Goldmane" ever had any recognized authority to go about making or suggesting rules.

The very vague mentions of what this so-called third rule was, make me respond to it by saying "nope, that's bollocks. Next question?"

Now. I am going by the examples given, and the "recollection statement" above, that the point of this thread is to ask if it really IS legitimate, to declare that someone has LOST an argument, because they were so offended by the language used to argue about it, that they left the discussion. And further, that the technique of using abusive/offensive language to express ideas, specifically in order to win false debate victories, should be respected.

Worst if all, it APPEARS to be so, that this original "goldmane" character actually claimed that the fact that someone gets in a huff and leaves, is, in and of itself, proof that their idea was bad, even if no support is ever presented to directly dispute the idea itself.

Goldenmane is just some guy that was tired of getting tone arguments leveled against him for being kind of rude. The essay is his justification for his language use. I think it's a labored justification, especially given the recent spat of "FUCKING EPIC MANLY INFO" images and things like that, but whatever. Mostly the excessive use of profanity makes posts harder to understand and me more likely to skip them altogether.

Concision, matters.

Eschew obfuscation

Boyle wrote:Goldenmane is just some guy that was tired of getting tone arguments leveled against him for being kind of rude. The essay is his justification for his language use. I think it's a labored justification, especially given the recent spat of "FUCKING EPIC MANLY INFO" images and things like that, but whatever. Mostly the excessive use of profanity makes posts harder to understand and me more likely to skip them altogether.

That is my impression as well, of this Goldenmane person anyway.

I see this: that some people debate and discuss for the sake of coming to a consensus as to what is true, or what is factual, or what is accurate, or what it logical. Others do it to "win" the discussion/debate.

I am firmly in the "to get to what is accurate and logical" camp, and have zero interest in who "wins."

That means that I dislike BOTH the people who try to "win" by preventing someone from posting, who is unwilling or unable to write in a "couth" fashion, AND I dislike those who use "salty" language as a ploy to "empty the room."

You either MAKE a rational and logical point, or you don't. The experience of dealing with an angry, sullen, or vitriolic person is draining, and annoying, because in my experience, it is a 99.9% waste of time. This is why I like to have forums which firmly defend against ad hominem posts, by deleting them promptly, and by ejecting people who refuse to refrain from them.

I would LIKE that to be extended slightly, to refusing to accept all obvious slurs and name-calling, since no statement which includes such self-indulgence, ever qualifies as rational or factual or logical. But I know how much people enjoy calling their favorite Demons childish names, so I don't anticipate ever finding a forum where such is completely eliminated.

I would also prefer if DISGUISED ad hominem attacks were prohibited as well. That is, the posts where someone goes to great lengths to say that something that someone else posted is idiotic (or worse), rather than saying HOW the post is false or illogical.

Again, not because I have delicate sensibilities about either crude language, or about aggressive behavior; but because such discourse NEVER contributes positively to ANY discussion topic.

You know what annoys me more than the use of expletives, profanities, blasphemy, cursing, cussing, effing and blinding? Bad spelling, and not employing the spell/grammar checkers that come with computer software. I'll take a long lecture using only expletives and blasphemy without blinking an eye, but insert one inappropriate noun, or adjective, or one badly-spelt word, and I stop reading.

I see some people still blindly assert that the use of explitives can only mean anger or an attempt to attack people rather than the ideas they're proposing.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I see some people still blindly assert that the use of explitives can only mean anger or an attempt to attack people rather than the ideas they're proposing.

I think the main point made was that expletives don't constitute part of any argument, they just add emphasis equally to good or bad arguments, so as far as actually making a point goes, they are a distraction and waste of space. Which is why they are rare in scientific journals. But this is an internet forum, not a scientific publication, it would be hopelessly dull without distractions, and a fair number of people (?most people on occasion) enjoy expletives, so OK.

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I see some people still blindly assert that the use of explitives can only mean anger or an attempt to attack people rather than the ideas they're proposing.

I think the main point made was that expletives don't constitute part of any argument, they just add emphasis equally to good or bad arguments, so as far as actually making a point goes, they are a distraction and waste of space.

They're only a distraction to people who get distracted by them and ignore the point being made to complain about the language being used.

zoon wrote: Which is why they are rare in scientific journals. But this is an internet forum, not a scientific publication, it would be hopelessly dull without distractions, and a fair number of people (?most people on occasion) enjoy expletives, so OK.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I see some people still blindly assert that the use of explitives can only mean anger or an attempt to attack people rather than the ideas they're proposing.

I think the main point made was that expletives don't constitute part of any argument, they just add emphasis equally to good or bad arguments, so as far as actually making a point goes, they are a distraction and waste of space.

They're only a distraction to people who get distracted by them and ignore the point being made to complain about the language being used.

zoon wrote: Which is why they are rare in scientific journals. But this is an internet forum, not a scientific publication, it would be hopelessly dull without distractions, and a fair number of people (?most people on occasion) enjoy expletives, so OK.

Looking again at your post #4 in this thread, where you quote one of the longer justifications for Goldenmane's Rule #3:

Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and it’s all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.

I find myself agreeing with the point igorfrankensteen makes in post #65 above, where he doesn't approve of profanity used as a deliberate ploy to drive people away from discussion:

That means that I dislike BOTH the people who try to "win" by preventing someone from posting, who is unwilling or unable to write in a "couth" fashion, AND I dislike those who use "salty" language as a ploy to "empty the room."

I don't think that being offended and driven away by large amounts of swearing is a reliable filter for people who are not prepared to argue as reasonably as they can, this sounds altogether too much like an excuse for non-stop expletives for those who like them. Enjoying expletives is one thing, trying to claim they add to rationality is another.

What makes this discussion both important and irritating to me, is that the world, and the United States in particular, and most forums (too often including this one) has become heavily infested with non-logic-based arguments. People keep trying to "game the system," by playing peripheral tricks, instead of directly addressing the actual subject at hand.

When I was a kid, people would try to win arguments, not by proving the other person directly wrong, but by questioning their patriotism. Later they added questioning sexuality, religious affiliation, even their DNA. Then a newer energized group protested those distraction-based "arguments," by introducing the "you are offending people" ploy.

For as far back as I can remember, I have been impatient, annoyed, and eventually angry at people making decisions and claiming to have built intelligent support for their cause or project, by such tricks. Perhaps because I am too grounded in the mechanics of reality, or maybe because I have inherited some sort of Midwestern American sense of practicality (if there is such a thing), I want to have all our lives built on foundations of what is ACTUALLY true and supportable, and not what someone tricked or blustered their way in to having rule the system.

It's pure practicality.

So I don't like semantics-based trick arguments. And I don't like stubborn, thick-headed repetition based arguments. And I don't like "poor me, you've injured my sensibilities" arguments. And I don't like "he cheated on his wife, so he couldn't possibly be right about how Fusion reactors work" kinds of arguments.

And so on.

I oppose all use of debate TRICKS. Make up a new trick, and I'll oppose that too.
Some debate rules ARE valid, because they go to the heart of the goal of using facts logically and comprehensively to support a proposal.

The one that this thread was started about is not. That's it.

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I see some people still blindly assert that the use of explitives can only mean anger or an attempt to attack people rather than the ideas they're proposing.

I think the main point made was that expletives don't constitute part of any argument, they just add emphasis equally to good or bad arguments, so as far as actually making a point goes, they are a distraction and waste of space.

They're only a distraction to people who get distracted by them and ignore the point being made to complain about the language being used.

zoon wrote: Which is why they are rare in scientific journals. But this is an internet forum, not a scientific publication, it would be hopelessly dull without distractions, and a fair number of people (?most people on occasion) enjoy expletives, so OK.

Looking again at your post #4 in this thread, where you quote one of the longer justifications for Goldenmane's Rule #3:

Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and it’s all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.

I find myself agreeing with the point igorfrankensteen makes in post #65 above, where he doesn't approve of profanity used as a deliberate ploy to drive people away from discussion:

That means that I dislike BOTH the people who try to "win" by preventing someone from posting, who is unwilling or unable to write in a "couth" fashion, AND I dislike those who use "salty" language as a ploy to "empty the room."

I don't think that being offended and driven away by large amounts of swearing is a reliable filter for people who are not prepared to argue as reasonably as they can, this sounds altogether too much like an excuse for non-stop expletives for those who like them. Enjoying expletives is one thing, trying to claim they add to rationality is another.

Fair enough, but at the same time there's also the opposite notion among some people, that if your post contains profanity or negatively describes someone else's claim, it must mean you're angry and trying to insult the poster. Neither of which is necesarrily true.

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I see some people still blindly assert that the use of explitives can only mean anger or an attempt to attack people rather than the ideas they're proposing.

I think the main point made was that expletives don't constitute part of any argument, they just add emphasis equally to good or bad arguments, so as far as actually making a point goes, they are a distraction and waste of space. Which is why they are rare in scientific journals. But this is an internet forum, not a scientific publication, it would be hopelessly dull without distractions, and a fair number of people (?most people on occasion) enjoy expletives, so OK.

While you are entitled to opinion, there are many forums/communities on the internet where such hmm distractions are not allowed and such forums/communities are not necessarily dull. Maybe even less dull than this one.

I am sorry and I see the question mark but I am sceptical of your "fair number" assessment. Also not only in scientific publications but almost everywhere, now you can be sceptical :), where rational discourse is taking place, its hard to find such distractions. Where entertainment takes place is different story.

ad populum.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

zoon wrote:
I think the main point made was that expletives don't constitute part of any argument, they just add emphasis equally to good or bad arguments, so as far as actually making a point goes, they are a distraction and waste of space.

They're only a distraction to people who get distracted by them and ignore the point being made to complain about the language being used.

zoon wrote: Which is why they are rare in scientific journals. But this is an internet forum, not a scientific publication, it would be hopelessly dull without distractions, and a fair number of people (?most people on occasion) enjoy expletives, so OK.

Looking again at your post #4 in this thread, where you quote one of the longer justifications for Goldenmane's Rule #3:

Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and it’s all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.

I find myself agreeing with the point igorfrankensteen makes in post #65 above, where he doesn't approve of profanity used as a deliberate ploy to drive people away from discussion:

That means that I dislike BOTH the people who try to "win" by preventing someone from posting, who is unwilling or unable to write in a "couth" fashion, AND I dislike those who use "salty" language as a ploy to "empty the room."

I don't think that being offended and driven away by large amounts of swearing is a reliable filter for people who are not prepared to argue as reasonably as they can, this sounds altogether too much like an excuse for non-stop expletives for those who like them. Enjoying expletives is one thing, trying to claim they add to rationality is another.

Fair enough, but at the same time there's also the opposite notion among some people, that if your post contains profanity or negatively describes someone else's claim, it must mean you're angry and trying to insult the poster. Neither of which is necesarrily true.

Yes. Again, you are describing a trick argument. The "you are insulting, therefore your facts and logic are suspect or invalid" ploy.

HOWEVER. NO TRICK ARGUMENT EXCUSES ANOTHER, OR VALIDATES ANOTHER. The fact that some people abuse, or try to abuse concerns about verbal attacks, DOES NOT mean that we should therefore tolerate them.

I think it's a bit like shooting at a target. The fact that the first person missed ten times to the right, does NOT mean that the second person can aim ten times to the left, and declare that the target has now been hit. We need someone to ACTUALLY SHOOT AT AND HIT THE TARGET.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
They're only a distraction to people who get distracted by them and ignore the point being made to complain about the language being used.

Looking again at your post #4 in this thread, where you quote one of the longer justifications for Goldenmane's Rule #3:

Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and it’s all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.

I find myself agreeing with the point igorfrankensteen makes in post #65 above, where he doesn't approve of profanity used as a deliberate ploy to drive people away from discussion:

That means that I dislike BOTH the people who try to "win" by preventing someone from posting, who is unwilling or unable to write in a "couth" fashion, AND I dislike those who use "salty" language as a ploy to "empty the room."

I don't think that being offended and driven away by large amounts of swearing is a reliable filter for people who are not prepared to argue as reasonably as they can, this sounds altogether too much like an excuse for non-stop expletives for those who like them. Enjoying expletives is one thing, trying to claim they add to rationality is another.

Fair enough, but at the same time there's also the opposite notion among some people, that if your post contains profanity or negatively describes someone else's claim, it must mean you're angry and trying to insult the poster. Neither of which is necesarrily true.

Yes. Again, you are describing a trick argument. The "you are insulting, therefore your facts and logic are suspect or invalid" ploy.

HOWEVER. NO TRICK ARGUMENT EXCUSES ANOTHER, OR VALIDATES ANOTHER. The fact that some people abuse, or try to abuse concerns about verbal attacks, DOES NOT mean that we should therefore tolerate them.

I never said anything of the sort.

igorfrankensteen wrote: I think it's a bit like shooting at a target. The fact that the first person missed ten times to the right, does NOT mean that the second person can aim ten times to the left, and declare that the target has now been hit. We need someone to ACTUALLY SHOOT AT AND HIT THE TARGET.

My point is that, as long as the 'profanity' isn't actually aimed at anyone personally, just used sometimes to emphasize a point, I don't see what's wrong with it.
Yes, thinly veiled personal attacks are wrong, as is profanity in lieu of actual arguments. But there have been plenty of people on this board and others that use the use of certain words/language to attack said language instead of addressing the points being made.

My point is that, as long as the 'profanity' isn't actually aimed at anyone personally, just used sometimes to emphasize a point, I don't see what's wrong with it.
Yes, thinly veiled personal attacks are wrong, as is profanity in lieu of actual arguments. But there have been plenty of people on this board and others that use the use of certain words/language to attack said language instead of addressing the points being made.

I have no argument with that. It's not what I understood this thread to be about, though.

My two cents.

I personally have no real problems with name calling, no matter how personalised, as long as it is accompanied with an actual argument.

If someone decides my post is annoying or whatever and calls me a "dickhead" while pointing out my mistakes, even if I disagree, I have no problem with that. On the contrary, the namecalling prompts me to evaluate my position more critically.

I find ridiculing without the support of a decent argument more problematic to proper discourse.

I love namecalling. The more personalised insults flung without the accompaniment of an argument relevant to discussion, the better.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I love namecalling. The more personalised insults flung without the accompaniment of an argument relevant to discussion, the better.

You would say such a thing wouldn't you, Penelope. That's right. I called you "Penelope" for no reason whatsoever. How'd you like it?