I particularly like a version of this termed the "Ideological Turing Test". The idea is to anonymously write both your position and an opposing position, and to see if an audience consisting of people from both sides (and, potentially, those who are neutral or are on some other side) can identify which side you actually support. If you can state both arguments convincingly enough that it's difficult to determine which one you really believe, then (according to adherents of this concept) you've earned the right to be critical. If, on the other hand, one side easily identifies you as an outsider, then you require further listening/study before you'll be capable of criticizing that side on a reasonable level.
While I think the process is more cumbersome than necessary, I agree with the underlying concept -- if you can't state someone else's argument in a way that they think is fair, then you either don't understand it well enough, or you understand but you're being intentionally disrespectful by choosing unfair characterizations.
This is brilliant, I love it.
You only need to be able to understand a valid argument. The problem is that everyone will evaluate "valid" by their own beliefs and worldview.
But there are some it doesn't catch. This is a valid argument:
All animals live on Mars.
All humans are animals.
Therefore, all humans live on Mars.This is what you meant to say:
Suppose all animals live on mars.
Suppose all humans are animals.
Therefore, if all animals live on mars, then all humans live on mars.
> That is not a valid argument, because all animals do not live on mars
It would be more accurate to say that it is not a sound argument because all animals do not live on mars. Validity relates to whether the conclusions follow from the premises, not whether the premises are true. (There are more constraints than that, but that's the basic version.)
Our strict types are Fact, Hypothetical, and Implication. It is only valid to use possibly unsound premises if you admit their type as Hypothetical and not Fact. If our argument includes premises of type Hypothetical then it is only valid to make conclusions of type Implication, which have the form "If <Hypotheticals are True> then <Fact>."
Disguising Hypothetical-type premises as Fact-type, and using that to draw conclusions of type Fact instead of type Implication is how people create strawman arguments in bad faith, and can be prevented at the validity-checking phase by enforcing strict typing.
That meant it either proceeded elsewhere on the TOR network or stayed on his machine, and they had no external way of knowing without checking his hard drives.
If they knew he was running an exit node it smells a bit like a fishing trip, but since they didn't send the SWAT team in through the windows and hold his computers for 4 years out of spite (the Steve Jackson treatment) I have trouble faulting the cops too badly.
They did know. Martin Kaste of National Public Radio [reported](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472...), "Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb says the department understands how Tor relays work, and they knew Robinson was a Tor host."
To support a warrant, the question has to be the other way around. As with any activity the could be in proximity to illegal activity, it's not, by itself, evidence of anything.
Alternatively they could have just been bunch of dicks out to intimidate someone.
Why would anyone do that? If he knows how to install Tor, why wouldn't he download it through somebody IP instead of his own? I can't see any technical advantage to downloading it using your own IP when you could use somebody elses...
Download from somebody elses IP = Probably not at all associated with himself.
Download from his own IP = Definitely associated with himself.
Again. What would be the advantage of doing this? There isn't one...
This a great way of phrasing what I'd been thinking about as "arguing from someone else's shoes".
>I thought that was a nice idea.
Its a truly terrible idea, and not surprising that it stems from someone who found religion worth studying. There is no need to delve into the depths of minutia to dismiss baseless arguments. If you argue that Spiderman is real, and he lives at the Justice League, I don't need to study canon of Marvel comics in order to deal with your argument.
> someone who found religion worth studying
Like it or not, religion has been a cornerstone of history and civilization for about as long as there has been history or civilization. Secularism is a relatively recent invention, and secularism's influence has only been really felt in the last 50 years or so.
Religion is history, and history is definitely worthwhile to study.
Related: you want to face the other person's central viewpoint in its strongest form ("strongest" in the sense of being the best or most compelling variant, not necessarily the variant which has the most supporters or the most vocal supporters.) This is in both sides' best interest, provided both are honest in their motivations.
If someone believes something that's not true, but you only "take down" a misrepresentation of their false belief, you haven't actually helped them, because they know you didn't answer their actual position. It may even strengthen their false belief, because they now have the experience of someone claiming to be able to criticize their position but failing to do so, which they may generalize to "critics of this position have no real argument".
And if someone believes something that is true, but you are able to show a misrepresentation or a weaker formulation of it is false, you haven't done yourself any good. You've missed an opportunity to learn something true, by distracting yourself with a superficially similar position that you can dismiss.
That's a dangerous statement to make. Yes, religion has been hugely influential across societies. But religion has been equally succesful in rewriting history to suit its narrative.
I suspect religion has destroyed as much history as it has informed.
they raided his house because of child pornography.
that he had a Tor node and that fact got him off the hook is the part that needs more analysis. How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by? Shouldn't everybody interested in child pornography operate their own exit node just for this purpose? Keep the kiddy porn collection in RAM for viewing whenever, then give the police the in-RAM-kiddy-porn-deleter password...
I understand that ghkbrew (and MANY other people here, not picking on you) subscribe to the idea that there should be untraceable currency, perfect privacy delivery mechanisms, etc.
But there are other people who live in the same democratic country that like the idea that somebody who bombthreats can be found.
I understand the issues on both sides, and I don't mind there is a spectrum of beliefs and a discussion. But it's so annoying when people write posts slanted like yours that they don't acknowledge the obvious "other side".
I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point.
I thought that was a nice idea.