Cris offers the wager to Paul

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
The high-sounding rhetorical babbledygook notwithstanding, this is simply incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the referent of "this"? I assume "Analogy is not argument" because of your next sentence:

[ QUOTE ]
Most practical reasoning is done by analogy, and in fact that is how books on informal logic teach the material.

[/ QUOTE ]

You assert "I'm simply incorrect" -- but don't address, let alone refute, what I said. You just blather in a different direction -- never making the case that my statement "Analogy is not argument" is false. Tedious.


[ QUOTE ]
The pattern of reasoning [employed by CB and PP] is identical. Yet the consensus seems to be that, while Paul was not calling me a cheater, I was calling him a rapist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well. No. That's not the consensus, it's certainly not my view -- it is, unsurprisingly, a position that you wish to attack.

[heavybody]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, my accusation is not hyperbole; I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with any adult male, apart from her father and my sons. Any mother who would leave a 12-year-old daughter alone with an unknown adult male -- and Paul is an unknown adult male in this regard -- is an extremely negligent mother.

Is that unfair to men, the vast majority of whom are not would-be rapists? Well, if the would-be rapists would wear little name badges to identify themselves, the situation might be different. But they don't. So ... I protect my children, and indeed myself, and err on the side of caution.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words you are better at evaluating males fitness to be around girls than other women who have "fathers and sons" because you are implying it is only other women's men who are threats to girls but yours. Are you implying that I would rape your daughter with this statement?,or my brother? I'll bet my mother would like to get you alone and accuse me of that.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
El Diablo,

So what you're saying is, women should take the 199-to-1 shot (or whatever number you choose) of being raped, rather than wait for another elevator?

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, given the rate of plane crashes, never fly in a plane.

Oh, and there's a high likelyhood that you will be in a car accident at some point in your life. So don't drive, or ride in a car or bus, or on a bike. Or walk anywhere near traffic (after all, a car might hit a pedestrian). In fact, you really shouldn't go outside at all. There's all sort of terrible people, and potential for accidents, or getting sick...



The amazing logistical leaps you've taken to defend that stupid 12-year-old rape comparison are astounding.

If you're saying that any given person is as likely to rape a 12 year old as they are to cheat at online scrabble, you're deluded. Yes, both are things one would naturally assume people don't do. Yes, both are things that, despite our natural assumptions, someone is capable of. No, they are not a legitimate comparison. Saying someone is capable of doing something that 1 in 100 people would do is not analagous to saying someone is capable of doing something that 1 in 10000 people would do.

It's absurd. It's not even close. Do you see why?

[Alex Levin]

[ QUOTE ]

You are, by extension, claiming that there is some fault on the part of the raped, or at the very least some sensible or ordinary action that could have been taken to essentially eliminate the risk of being raped (this means 'normal beyond locking yourself in a closet'). You are claiming this for most every 'usual' case of rape - and while I'll cede there are things you can do to lower risk, I think that this kind of generalization is waaaay off base in general.


[/ QUOTE ]
I actually saw this coming, but I thought that by adding "at least in some part," people would understand what I meant. I obviosuly didn't mean that rape is the fault of the victim, or that she is in some way responsible for it; I'm just saying that, if you leave your daughter with an uknown man, you are putting her in a risky situation. In the same way, a victim of a cheater is not at fault, but one does put himself at risk by playing online. So yes, there are steps that can be take to reduce the risk of being raped (not getting into an elevator with an uknown man), but that doesn't in any way detract the blame from the rapist. I hope I'm not offending anyone; I should have made this point more clear.

[ QUOTE ]
It absolutely discounts the analogy.

Overusage of hyperbole is crappy arguing skills. The point of the extreme hyperbole is to completely derail the conversation, and it worked wonders here didn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The hyperbole is in the severity, not in the risk involved.

I'm just making up numbers here, but from my limited knowledge of Paul and Cris, I'd put the odds of Cris cheating at scrabble to be 10:1 and the odds of Paul raping Cris's daughter if left alone with her to be 500:1.

Although the odds are uneven, there are two things to consider. First is how easy it is to avoid the risk. In this case, it's probably just as easy for Paul to not play scrabble as it is for Cris to not leave Paul alone with her daughter, although it might be slightly easier for Cris because of the public pressure Paul is facing to play.

The second point to consider is how harmful the action is. Since rape is much more damaging than the $400 Paul might lose, consequently, Paul has to take on more risk for the analogy to work.

I'm not familiar with the statistical or logical terms for any of this (I haven't taken any of these courses in college yet), but it seems to me that even though rape by Paul is less likely to occur, the fact that it is easier to avoid and more damaging, makes it comparable to the risk of cheating.

[Avatar of Wine]

[ QUOTE ]

I actually saw this coming, but I thought that by adding "at least in some part," people would understand what I meant. I obviosuly didn't mean that rape is the fault of the victim, or that she is in some way responsible for it; I'm just saying that, if you leave your daughter with an uknown man, you are putting her in a risky situation. In the same way, a victim of a cheater is not at fault, but one does put himself at risk by playing online. So yes, there are steps that can be take to reduce the risk of being raped (not getting into an elevator with an uknown man), but that doesn't in any way detract the blame from the rapist. I hope I'm not offending anyone; I should have made this point more clear.


[/ QUOTE ]


OK - your clarification is fine, but it doesn't address the fundamental flaw in the argument, and that is one of equivocation, as I addressed in a previous post (page 11 or so).

Rather than repeating that, feel free to go back and read. Either way, I think the comparison fails miserably when you attempt to reconcile the "risk reduction" aspect of the comparison with the role that risk reduction actually plays in each part of the argument. Yes, apples and antelopes both have 'skin' - but can you really compare?

[CrisBrown]

uw,

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
So what you're saying is, women should take the 199-to-1 shot (or whatever number you choose) of being raped, rather than wait for another elevator?

[/ QUOTE ]

You replied:

[ QUOTE ]
Also, given the rate of plane crashes, never fly in a plane.

Oh, and there's a high likelyhood that you will be in a car accident at some point in your life. So don't drive, or ride in a car or bus, or on a bike. Or walk anywhere near traffic (after all, a car might hit a pedestrian). In fact, you really shouldn't go outside at all. There's all sort of terrible people, and potential for accidents, or getting sick...

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely false argument. Note the italicized text in my argument above. What do I lose if I wait for another elevator? A minute, maybe two, maybe five, getting to where I was going. That loss is negligible. What do I stand to lose by getting on that elevator with an unknown man? Being raped. That harm is immeasurable.

What is the probability that this unknown man will indeed rape me? It is irrelevant, because I can avoid that risk altogether with only a negligible loss of time spent waiting for another elevator. There is no compelling reason for me to undertake that risk -- however remote the possibility might be -- because there is a less risky alternative for which the additional cost (inconvenience, etc.) is negilgible.

Let me offer you a hypothetical. There is before you a chasm filled with razor blades mounted on stakes. There is a rope bridge across the chasm. There is also a solid foot bridge 100 meters to your left. You'll have to walk an extra 200 meters to cross the solid foot bridge and get to the same point on the other side. You are 99.99999% sure the rope bridge would support you and that you will not fall.

Which bridge do you take?

If you remove the solid foot bridge from the scenario, then of course you will take the rope bridge. Yes, there is a small risk that it might break, or that you might slip and fall, but it's a very miniscule risk. But with the solid foot bridge nearby, even that miniscule risk on the rope bridge is an unnecessary risk.

To me, getting into an elevator with a lone, unknown male is an unnecessary risk, because there will be a safer alternative minutes from now.

Cris

[uw_madtown]

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Stuff about having an alternative from dangerous behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point:

[ QUOTE ]
All behaviors, even alternatives, are inherently dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps by waiting for another elevator, a rapist will find you waiting alone and pull you into a closet/hallway/whatever. Perhaps by waiting, you will take an elevator mere feet away and the cable will snap, sending you to your death. There are any NUMBER of "perhaps, maybe, what if" scenarios.

More important here is that you percieve that there is an increased risk by riding in an elevator alone with a man. Unless you follow this statement with some sort of qualifier, like that you're in a bad part of town, or the guy looks shady, or the building isn't well-lit or surveiled, or there are few people in the building at the time, then it is a sweeping generalization that will automatically be picked apart by anyone with any amount of common sense.

It's all situational. There are certainly times when a woman is better off waiting for another elevator. There are others when to do so would be utter paranoia. From what I can tell, you make no such differentiation.

[astroglide]

roooooofle

[gergery]

This has got to be the stupidest, most pointless thread I've read in some time.

Why are normally intelligent, rationale posters trying to argue with someone who has already admitted that they are only doing so for entertainment, and have clearly demonstrated through multiple posts that they're clueless?

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
This has got to be the stupidest, most pointless thread I've read in some time.

Why are normally intelligent, rationale posters trying to argue with someone who has already admitted that they are only doing so for entertainment, and have clearly demonstrated through multiple posts that they're clueless?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fun?

I was always that kid in high school that loved getting into long-winded arguments over stupid crap with my friends.

I seem to remember getting a few nasty looks from other tables in the cafeteria. Killjoys.