Weighing Sides

[fast]

I'm beginning to think (just beginning, I know--cut me some slack) to think it's less of a science and more of an art--when weighing different sides to an issue or decision.

Sure, we can put our thinking caps on, buckle down, pull out the pen and paper and literally write down the advantages and disadvantages of taking a particular position or course of action. We can strengthen our understanding of the pros and cons. We can sift through contorted statistics with misleading or bizarre interpretations and latch onto some numerical fact we can manipulate and amend or strengthen our outlook. We can sternly face ourselves in meditative thought, stare into the mirror and contemplate the dangers, the risks, or be more worldly in our considerations. We can be open-minded (but not so much our brains fall out). We can make an assessment after going through a risk analysis. We can ask ourselves what's important and if it's worth it. We can prioritize. We can evaluate our every thought as we make our way through the maze of the complexities that life throws at us.

But, it's not a math problem. There's a subjective element that seems to defy quantitative methodology alone. There's a discompute (I made that word up) of sorts that leaves the final outcome or decision hanging in the balance of uncertainty--with no real world probabilities to factor with numerical rigor.

Yet, the same roadblock/barrier keeps me chugging along in the noncommittal scenery of life. I play devils advocate and argue against (at least in my mind) whatever position that comes my way. You can't tell where I'm at because it seems to me a function of antagonism. I really hate to give an example even though it might better explain my thoughts because the example analogy leads us down the wrong path, and the path is what's so esoteric, as clarity of thought is often lost in the misty midst of unspoken thinking.

Whether it's to buy a handgun, what position to take on abortion, or whether Trump was the best possible pick for presidency or any number of issues, so (so) many people here will lose sight of the issue when their buttons are pushed or switches flipped.

So, do tell, and hate as I might, what is better, "good credit" or "no credit?" The issue has not a thing to do with that. I could actually care less, and whatever your position is, I vehemently deny the grounds upon which you come to your position. See, it doesn't matter, even as the reasoning for your position must by default be attacked from the rip. Why? Why? Because I'm not looking for specifics. When there is an underlying principle at play, that might score some bonus points for paying more attention, but when opposing positions are both based on some principle, the analysis is just beginning for me.

I don't want to be concreted into dogma. I think good credit is better than no credit, but there are principles at work that make that position STUPID, yet if we didn't behave as most financially do, there can be exceptions for beneficially swimming with alligators that are off in the distance. I guess what I'm after is a more analytical method for traversing the qualitative problems that we run up against. I'm tired of remaining so self combative against even the positions I lean towards.

I could go on, but I'm going to leave this in the haze and see what comes from it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have to be sorry for myself here. I'd liked it if I could just lash out at some stupid thing you wouldn't have actually said but no. OK, I'm a bit lenient these days but you seem to have said it all, which is really not fair play. It's supposed to be at least some kind of conversation from two different points of view if not necessarily a juicily crimson mortal combat. But there's nothing I could possibly disagree about your presentation of your piece. And just written so to remind us we're not just beastly animals. And I have a meal to prepare, sort of. So, I have to vehemently disagree your notion that Mr. Trump is a fascist nut with a very small zigouigoui , or zigounette, as we say in French. Mr. Trump is walking on water and performing all sort of miracles and we do need miracles, at least once in a while. One can have a small zizi and perform miracles, such is God's forgiveness and benevolence and farsightedness. I really have to go and eat something. You just made sure I couldn't possibly say anything. Not fair play at all, that. I'll go and light a candle in Notre-Dame to ask Marie to cast a protective veil over Mr. Trump's path wherever He chooses to put His blessed footsteps. But, I'll be back and I will find something you said to flame down to cinder and I will feel the extasie of the instant release of the unbearable tension I feel right now just because of this stupid post of yours. Just wait!
EB

 

[fast]

You're alright; I liked that!

- - - Updated - - -

I think

 

[untermensche]

What is the scientific position about the worth of a human life?

 

[fast]

What is the scientific position about the worth of a human life?

That comes across as kinda vague. I'm speculating that your question is supposed to invoke the idea that there is no such position per se. Fine, but what is your message? That?

In analyzing your question, I can see (plainly see) it's about life--but not just any life but rather human life. What then about human life? You talk of worth. That invokes the idea of value. But, (and this is why I mentioned your question being vague), there are different kinds of value! What could you mean, and what underlying question should I seek to answer?

And, that's not all, as you also speak of not just any ole position that might can be taken but rather one of the scientific sorts. Wow! What am I to make of this? I feel as though I'm fishing for a specific fish in an ocean of questions. When we examine a topic, any number of questions can arise, and any upper level marketing class that even broaches the subject of questionnaires discuss the importance of carefully wording the questions, as even nuanced differences in even word choice can greatly alter results.

I'd very much like to keep my eye on the ball with the question you've posed, but pray tell if I've hit the target. Somehow, someway, I have this scratching feeling that you think you've somehow made a decisive counter argument to the difficulties I've proposed exist.

Maybe an example is in order. Every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. Whether the killing is justified or not might very well be pivotal in determining whether or not we should claim that a particular homicide is a murder. A justified homicide is not murder whereas an unjustified homicide may very well be.

Now, people like to say certain things are wrong. Often times, generally speaking, certain things are wrong, but having the wherewithal to distinguish between "generally speaking" and speaking about "a particular instance," some of us grasp that in life there is what we call exceptions.

For instance, killing is wrong (not as an absolute objective fact) as there are exceptions. Murder is wrong, but not every homicide (which is a killing) is necessarily wrong--especially in light of the fact some are (oh, what's the word) "justified."

In determining whether a particular homicide (or hmmm, perhaps even a very specific abortion) is wrong might require more than a blanket statement of passing thought. We can lean upon scientific reasoning. Ooh, what's that? You are the one that uttered the words, "scientific position." Well, we can be methodological in our pursuit of the truth and analyze the merits of a case with concerted effort and no slopppy haphazardness. We can look upon it and be judged to have examined it with a scientific bent. The point is that we can be objective. That is at least in the same stadium from where scientific positions are born.

Scientific inquiry is like a tool. A handy little booger. Used with care, we very well could come up with a position in regards to a particular question ... even about the worth of human life, but, we better damn well understand precisely what question that tool can or can't be used for.

As one eluded to in another thread, I might can't tell you with objective clarity which tastes better, Pepsi or Coke, (such that the answer applies equally to everyone), but I can surely tell you that Pepsi has 2mg more sugar content than Coke.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is the scientific position about the worth of a human life?

Pepsi has 2mg more sugar content than Coke.

Congratulation! You've managed to provide a clear, broadly scientific answer to a Sphinx' riddle: A human life on average is worth, objectively, no more than a can of Pepsi.

That's not much.

That's not much certainly compared for example to how I subjectively value my own particular human life. I would never drink Pepsi or Coca-Cola, or indeed anything like that. I don't put sugar in my beverages. Never. On average, people consume 100 g of sugar a day! And that may be in France, I don't remember, so the U.S would be, I don't know, 50% higher if not more. On average. That tells you what objectively is the value of a human life: the price of a can of Coke. Me, I may have around 40 g of sugar a day at most and that's all from actual, real fruits. And it would be really hard to do better than that. I can go without fruits at all but I would suppose it's not such a good idea.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

It has been said genius is being able to take opposites being simultaneously true. TRying to prove the oyjer side true at least temporarily can make an opposing argument easier.

Often I'd go to a white board and str writing pros and cons. Writing forces thinking. Sometimes quantified knowledge decides. sometimes it is subjective based on experience.

 

[fromderinside]

Not that I have anything against rational rule following discourse but an argument is either won or lost. An argument that is self evident and simple is most likely to win the day. Unfortunately such an argument can be subject to an appeal to fear. The rational opponent might not concede but the audience, those who determine if one won or lost, will take the side of the one who made them fear the other, even of the one who presented self evident simple, argument.

As far as I can tell there is very little rational argument about thees days. Most arguments are yelling matches between those wanting to make us fear that view or this view and those who wind up in the majority as fearing one or the other fearing are determining winners and losers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not that I have anything against rational rule following discourse but an argument is either won or lost. An argument that is self evident and simple is most likely to win the day. Unfortunately such an argument can be subject to an appeal to fear. The rational opponent might not concede but the audience, those who determine if one won or lost, will take the side of the one who made them fear the other, even of the one who presented self evident simple, argument.

As far as I can tell there is very little rational argument about thees days. Most arguments are yelling matches between those wanting to make us fear that view or this view and those who wind up in the majority as fearing one or the other fearing are determining winners and losers.

I fear you may be right.



Still, life is first and foremost based, or even grounded, on the use or possible use of physical violence. That's true of human relationships, too, even in this enlightened era, even in our so-called democratic countries, even in peaceful countries like America and Switzerland, both among the countries with the highest rates of private gun ownership. Included between spouses and between parents and children. It's much more often potential than actual physical violence, fortunately, but that remain central in our lives.

So, let's just take a second look at our lives and the choices we make. I propose that we adopte today a scientific outlook in our relations. Should make things easier.

Problem solved.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

It has been said genius is being able to take opposites being simultaneously true. TRying to prove the oyjer side true at least temporarily can make an opposing argument easier.

Often I'd go to a white board and str writing pros and cons. Writing forces thinking. Sometimes quantified knowledge decides. sometimes it is subjective based on experience.

I'm really conflicted on this.
EB

 

[fast]

Debates are won or lost. Arguments are not. To think otherwise takes an interpretation that lies just beyond the truth.

 

[fromderinside]

Victors win arguments, debaters don't. Well, King, this case is closed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Debates are won or lost. Arguments are not.

I can see what you mean but dictionaries have their own ways with words...

argument
2. a discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate: the argument on birth control will never be concluded.
3. (sometimes plural) a point or series of reasons presented to support or oppose a proposition
5. (Logic) logic
a. a process of deductive or inductive reasoning that purports to show its conclusion to be true
b. formally, a sequence of statements one of which is the conclusion and the remainder the premises

EB

 

[fast]

If someone has the common cold and you are called upon to cure the cold, a gunshot to the head does not CURE the cold. There's a difference between avoiding a problem and solving a problem. Kill her; problem solved; it is not.

If there is a victor, the argument may be over, and the particular fight/duel is won, but no, not the argument, and by argument, I mean logical argument. Discussions are not won or lost. It's not the kind of thing that we do with them. We do not have a discussion and win. We can play a game and win. We can have a race and win, but we do not eat and win. We can have an eating contest and win, but it's the contest, not the eating that is won.


And debates (again), they are won or lost. As to birth control, well, the issue might well go into next century, just like the sport of baseball, but the individual debates that come and go, like the specific games that will be held are won or lost.

 

[steve_bank]

The purpose of debate and argument is not always to win. Back in the 70s I watched William Buckley's show Firing Line where he debated topics with gussets. When he was losing he'd attack the opponent's grammar and word usage, winning was everything.

Sometimes the point of argument and weighing sides is to reach a consensus and solve a problem.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The purpose of debate and argument is not always to win. Back in the 70s I watched William Buckley's show Firing Line where he debated topics with gussets. When he was losing he'd attack the opponent's grammar and word usage, winning was everything.

Sometimes the point of argument and weighing sides is to reach a consensus and solve a problem.

Sure, there are all sorts of reasons to engage in an argument but in the end you still need to win the argument even when the objective was all along to produce a consensus.

If you offer an argument which you don't intend to win then it was never a real argument to begin with, just as a lie isn't the truth even though it may look like it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If someone has the common cold and you are called upon to cure the cold, a gunshot to the head does not CURE the cold. There's a difference between avoiding a problem and solving a problem. Kill her; problem solved; it is not.

If there is a victor, the argument may be over, and the particular fight/duel is won, but no, not the argument, and by argument, I mean logical argument. Discussions are not won or lost. It's not the kind of thing that we do with them. We do not have a discussion and win. We can play a game and win. We can have a race and win, but we do not eat and win. We can have an eating contest and win, but it's the contest, not the eating that is won.


And debates (again), they are won or lost. As to birth control, well, the issue might well go into next century, just like the sport of baseball, but the individual debates that come and go, like the specific games that will be held are won or lost.

I'm not sure you're going to win this argument.

Google Search for "win the argument": About 11,200,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Google Search for "win the debate": About 8,830,000 results (0.40 seconds)
EB

 

[fast]

If someone has the common cold and you are called upon to cure the cold, a gunshot to the head does not CURE the cold. There's a difference between avoiding a problem and solving a problem. Kill her; problem solved; it is not.

If there is a victor, the argument may be over, and the particular fight/duel is won, but no, not the argument, and by argument, I mean logical argument. Discussions are not won or lost. It's not the kind of thing that we do with them. We do not have a discussion and win. We can play a game and win. We can have a race and win, but we do not eat and win. We can have an eating contest and win, but it's the contest, not the eating that is won.


And debates (again), they are won or lost. As to birth control, well, the issue might well go into next century, just like the sport of baseball, but the individual debates that come and go, like the specific games that will be held are won or lost.

I'm not sure you're going to win this argument.

Google Search for "win the argument": About 11,200,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Google Search for "win the debate": About 8,830,000 results (0.40 seconds)
EB

If 11,000,000 people get the same wrong answer on a math problem, ...

 

[Juma]

If someone has the common cold and you are called upon to cure the cold, a gunshot to the head does not CURE the cold. There's a difference between avoiding a problem and solving a problem. Kill her; problem solved; it is not.

If there is a victor, the argument may be over, and the particular fight/duel is won, but no, not the argument, and by argument, I mean logical argument. Discussions are not won or lost. It's not the kind of thing that we do with them. We do not have a discussion and win. We can play a game and win. We can have a race and win, but we do not eat and win. We can have an eating contest and win, but it's the contest, not the eating that is won.


And debates (again), they are won or lost. As to birth control, well, the issue might well go into next century, just like the sport of baseball, but the individual debates that come and go, like the specific games that will be held are won or lost.

I'm not sure you're going to win this argument.

Google Search for "win the argument": About 11,200,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Google Search for "win the debate": About 8,830,000 results (0.40 seconds)
EB

If 11,000,000 people get the same wrong answer on a math problem, ...

Do you even know what language.
Give up. You have lost the argument.

 

[fast]

If 11,000,000 people get the same wrong answer on a math problem, ...

Do you even know what language.
Give up. You have lost the argument.

We can speak as if we won an argument, but especially when it comes to a logical argument, there is no winner or loser. A deductive argument is sound or unsound. A deductive argument is either valid or not valid. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. A nondeductive argument is weak or strong. There's no target. I can fail to make a good argument, but failing to make a good argument doesn't mean I lost an argument.

Maybe you should explain what it looks like to win an argument. If a couple fight over whether they're eating out or at home, the woman hasn't won the argument because she gets her way. They speak as if that's so, but what has the truth of that have to do with anything? I've made it clear that I'm talking about logical argumentation. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna win this argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If 11,000,000 people get the same wrong answer on a math problem, ...

Do you even know what language.
Give up. You have lost the argument.

We can speak as if we won an argument, but especially when it comes to a logical argument, there is no winner or loser. A deductive argument is sound or unsound. A deductive argument is either valid or not valid. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. A nondeductive argument is weak or strong. There's no target. I can fail to make a good argument, but failing to make a good argument doesn't mean I lost an argument.

Maybe you should explain what it looks like to win an argument. If a couple fight over whether they're eating out or at home, the woman hasn't won the argument because she gets her way. They speak as if that's so, but what has the truth of that have to do with anything? I've made it clear that I'm talking about logical argumentation. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna win this argument.

If you're speaking specifically of "logical argument", then you're correct.

Show

So, alright, you won the argument...

EB