[ExI] Bad news for US customers of Intrade

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I see nothing there that disproves the notion that you were presenting
>> a contrast between two absolutes, and thus implicitly denying the
>> possibility of anything between.
>
> "Rather" is not an absolute qualifier,

As Omar pointed out, the positions you were
contrasting are extreme enough to preclude
consideration of the middle.  Consider your
words:

"In your world people have to act through gatekeepers
of power (elected officials, unelected bureaucrats)
rather than through individual acts of trade."

That means, any time there could be an individual
act of trade, according to you I would not allow said
acts, and instead have people go through
gatekeepers.

Perhaps I should have pointed out that "have to"
lessens the relative comparison.  "It has to be X,
rather than Y" means that it has to be X and it
has to not be Y.

> You should realize that the word "have " could
> mean not only "experience" but also "exert"

Could, yes.  But again, consider your words:

"more government control of our lives, compared
to what we have now"

It is the government that exerts this control.  Are
you part of the government?  If not, then "exert" is
not the meaning you started out using.  (You have
very strongly indicated that you consider the
government to be something you are not part of.)

This would appear to be one example of where you
redefine words in the middle of the argument.  I
wonder if you are consciously aware that you have
been doing this: quite a few I have encountered
who did this didn't know they were, and wondered
why people couldn't understand them.

> Now, we are discussing some very basic issues in English usage - is
> this perhaps your second language?

Nope.  Native English speaker here.  Then again,
many English as a second language people I have
known, speak English at least as well as most
native speakers (once they have been speaking it
for at least five years - and that cutoff may be too
high).

However, I see that people who confuse issues and
try to redefine words mid-argument, are often the
same people who resort to logical fallacies (such as
believing that personally discrediting the opposing
speaker proves anything about the point being
discussed) and making up "facts" that just aren't
true.  This is a favored tactic of creationists, climate
change deniers, and others who are opposed to
humanist views, especially transhumanist views,
which is why I have picked up experience dealing
with them, but we can fall into this trap too.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Omar Rahman <rahmans at me.com> wrote:
> - Rafał said in some clarification response somewhere (sorry for not taking
> the time to dig that out) that his position isn't for some sort of
> theoretical absolute freedom, but generally for 'more' freedom

I wasn't contesting that.  I was contesting his
misrepresentation of my position.

> yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white      (Website not responding, which
> is a shame because I love sending people there.)
>
> I hope that site comes up again soon, it is a simple reference that is worth
> reviewing from time to time.

Quite!  I'd been avoiding linking to it since I thought
it might be too downputting, but that is one of the
fallacies I have been pointing out in Rafal's responses.

I acknowledge that there is a middle ground between
"no control" and "absolute control".  In fact, my main
point here has been that "no control" tends to devolve
to "absolute control", but a little control does not do
this, therefore it is the closest we can practically get
to no control over the long term, at least with current
technology.

Rafal's responses seem to be that defense of any
control amounts to defense of absolute control.  In
other words, he seems to be committing this fallacy
when appraising my defense of limited control.