The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US • Hacker News Board

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#241

Post by rbarooah » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 1:46 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #239

rbarooah wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By asking a question in the negative form ("don't you think...") you are implicitly asserting what follows is your interlocutor's opinion. This is where you are wrong. By phrasing it in the negative form I am implicitly asserting that I think that what follows is not my interlocutors opinion. So, no straw man.

Oops, forgot the "not" there. The rest still holds.

No, not a word of what you said holds.

You're flat out wrong, and it's clear that you don't understand what a strawman is. It is more than just 'misrepresenting' your opponent's argument, which in any case I didn't do.

A straw man is where you present a weakened form of your opponent's argument in order to more easily defeat it.

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

As you have now acknowledged, I did not present any form of my opponent's argument at any time, let alone argue against it. What I did was to ask a question to put his statements into context.

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#242

Post by olalonde » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 4:58 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #241

olalonde wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oops, forgot the "not" there. The rest still holds.

No, not a word of what you said holds. You're flat out wrong, and it's clear that you don't understand what a strawman is. It is more than just 'misrepresenting' your opponent's argument, which in any case I didn't do. A straw man is where you present a weakened form of your opponent's argument in order to more easily defeat it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As you have now acknowledged, I did not present a…

> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism?

This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative form question. Regardless, you were attempting to use this misrepresented position to win an argument as you later demonstrated in the thread.

All conditions are met to qualify your comment as a straw man fallacy.

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#243

Post by rbarooah » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 9:08 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #242

rbarooah wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not a word of what you said holds. You're flat out wrong, and it's clear that you don't understand what a strawman is. It is more than just 'misrepresenting' your opponent's argument, which in any case I didn't do. A straw man is where you present a weakened form of your opponent's argument in order to more easily defeat it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As you have now acknowledged, I did not present a…

> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative for…

That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written.

The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too.

Whichever way my interlocutor responded to my question would neither invalidate his own position, nor 'win' an argument for me.

You are mistaking this form of discussion for a straw man because you are seeing things in black and white, when instead the question was intended to provide context.

Sometimes people ask provocative questions in order to better understand where other people are coming from. Dialog consists of more than just direct argument. Not every exchange is about gaining rhetorical advantage.

If you try playing back the comments in your head as if they are being spoken by a collegial group involved in a discussion, you'll see what I mean.

Your judgement is incorrect because you have misidentified the nature of the conversation. You are imagining there to be an argument where instead there is actually a discussion.

And on this note, do you really think it's helpful to throw comments like "straw man" into conversations you aren't constructively participating in?

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#244

Post by ktizo » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 9:20 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #242

rbarooah wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not a word of what you said holds. You're flat out wrong, and it's clear that you don't understand what a strawman is. It is more than just 'misrepresenting' your opponent's argument, which in any case I didn't do. A straw man is where you present a weakened form of your opponent's argument in order to more easily defeat it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As you have now acknowledged, I did not present a…

> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative for…

Just to interject, but the us and british protectionism started a long time before maoism, or even marxism.

Surely since there are two different periods here is it not sensible to suggest that the two are not directly comparable in effect, although both have contributed to the history of the country.

One important question in this could well be whether imperial attitudes by the uk and us might partially be responsible for the development of maoism in the first place, and on reflection it seems more than obvious that they must be to at least some degree.

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#245

Post by rbarooah » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 9:48 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #244

olalonde wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative for…

Just to interject, but the us and british protectionism started a long time before maoism, or even marxism. Surely since there are two different periods here is it not sensible to suggest that the two are not directly comparable in effect, although both have contributed to the history of the country. One important question in this could well be whether imperial attitudes by the uk and us might partially be responsibl…

Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development.

Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root cause of rural poverty in China, do we have any reason for believing that unilaterally abandoning it would alleviate the poverty?

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#246

Post by ktizo » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 10:00 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #245

ktizo wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to interject, but the us and british protectionism started a long time before maoism, or even marxism. Surely since there are two different periods here is it not sensible to suggest that the two are not directly comparable in effect, although both have contributed to the history of the country. One important question in this could well be whether imperial attitudes by the uk and us might partially be responsibl…

Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development. Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root cause of rural poverty in China, do we have any reason for believing that unilaterally abandoning it would alleviate the poverty?

Opium and cannon.

There was a reason the sun didn't set on the British Empire.

God doesn't trust the British in the dark.

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#247

Post by rbarooah » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 10:06 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #246

rbarooah wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development. Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root cause of rural poverty in China, do we have any reason for believing that unilaterally abandoning it would alleviate the poverty?

Opium and cannon. There was a reason the sun didn't set on the British Empire. God doesn't trust the British in the dark.

So basically war.

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#248

Post by ktizo » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 10:14 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #247

ktizo wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opium and cannon. There was a reason the sun didn't set on the British Empire. God doesn't trust the British in the dark.

So basically war.

I think that is one of the root causes, both internal and external. Also I think that europe was extraordinarily lucky in retaining its lead once it got it.

[edit] and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy.

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#249

Post by rbarooah » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #248

rbarooah wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically war.

I think that is one of the root causes, both internal and external. Also I think that europe was extraordinarily lucky in retaining its lead once it got it. [edit] and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy.

and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy.

Why isn't protectionism just part of the terms that nations negotiate when they trade?

Re: The Beer Game -or- Why Apple Can’t Build iPads in the US

#250

Post by olalonde » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 10:57 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #243

olalonde wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative for…

That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written. The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too. Whichever way my interlocutor responded to my question would neither invalidate his own position, nor 'win' an argument for me. You are mistaking this form of discussion for a straw man because you are s…

> That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written.

You are right, thanks for correcting me, I'm a bit tired. Luckily, it was just an example and not central to my point. The key point here is that this way of formulating a question attributes an opinion to your opponent that he may or may not have. Fixed it: "Decades of isolationist Maoism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism."

> The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too.

At this point, there's nothing I can do but question your intellectual honesty. The least I can say is that you come across as someone who disagrees with your interlocutor's opinion. If you are not willing to admit that, I will call this conversation over.

> And on this note, do you really think it's helpful to throw comments like "straw man" into conversations you aren't constructively participating in?

Yes. Fallacies are subtle and it's important to highlight them.