Quibbling. It’s also a discussion relating to hate speech. — NOS4A2

Lol. It's not quibbling, that's the main focus of the entire discussion, and pointing out that it's a discussion about hate speech misses the point.

The topic is about whether hate speech should be allowed and I’m arguing that it should be. Your quibbling is a red herring.

The topic is about whether hate speech should be allowed and I’m arguing that it should be. Your quibbling is a red herring. — NOS4A2

Which is a matter of law, so stop going around in circles, get back on track, and respond to my point.

This point?

Should drink driving become legal again because you've driven home over the limit a number of times without accident?

I’d rather not. It has nothing to do with the topic.

As I said, how do you suppose scientific knowledge progresses if correlation is not taken to imply the possibility of causation. — Isaac

lol again--now at the fact that you're inserting "the possibility of causation" in there.

I’d rather not. It has nothing to do with the topic. — NOS4A2

Of course it does, analogically. Are you daft or trolling?

Not even analogically. Hate speech is legal in some jurisdictions.

Hate speech is legal in some jurisdictions. — NOS4A2

That's beside the point. I made a point showing the error in the reasoning behind your conclusion. You can either respond properly or continue to waste time.

I’m sorry, maybe I misinterpreted your argument. Could you reformulate it without false analogies and quibbling?

now at the fact that you're inserting "the possibility of causation" in there. — Terrapin Station

I'm not 'inserting' it. This isn't an essay competition. I'm allowed to correct and clarify errors. It is part of the substance of my argument. Whether the term was present initially is irrelevant to the position as it stands right now.

If the best response you've got is to compare my posts for inconsequential inconsistencies in terminology then I think that speaks volumes about your ability to actually counter the argument as presented.

I'm not 'inserting' it. — Isaac

Yeah, you are. You realized you made a gaffe, and you're doing typical Internet conversation moves of trying to spin it into a save.

You realized you made a gaffe, and you're doing typical Internet conversation moves of trying to spin it into a save. — Terrapin Station

Why is correcting an error a 'spin'? Why would you conduct a debate in such a bizzare fashion?

Why is correcting an error a 'spin'? Why would you conduct a debate in such a bizzare fashion? — Isaac

I have zero interest in "debating."

I have zero interest in "debating." — Terrapin Station

That is becoming clear. When this website is renamed "Stuff Terrapin Reckons" then I will leave you to it. Until then I intend to continue presenting the flaws in your arguments as best I can. I take it from your inability to actually counter it that we're done here.

Until then I intend to continue presenting the flaws in your arguments as best I can. — Isaac

Sure, and I'll keep commenting as I do. Glad we have that sorted out. Maybe we can end the metadiscussion now.

Maybe we can end the metadiscussion now. — Terrapin Station

Sure... So your counter-argument to my position as it currently stands is...?

I’m sorry, maybe I misinterpreted your argument. Could you reformulate it without false analogies and quibbling? — NOS4A2

It's not a false analogy, and the quibbling is coming from you. You haven't bothered to explain yourself one iota. I gave you a comparable example showing the fault in the kind of reasoning you're relying on, and you have yet to explain what your problem is with that; you've just made false accusations and hand waves.

Why should I reformulate something that doesn't need to be reformulated? It isn't difficult to understand, unless you're a simpleton or something.

Sure... So your counter-argument to my position as it currently stands is...? — Isaac

To laugh at the fact that you weren't familiar with "correlation does not imply causation" and then to laugh again at your eventual attempt to claim that you were arguing that it "implies the possibility of causation" as if that were somehow material to what you want to claim in the first place, or as if we were somehow having a conversation about what is and isn't possible.

What was the fault in my reasoning?

What was the fault in my reasoning? — NOS4A2

It was a fallacy of relevance, and more specifically a hasty generalisation if you were suggesting that the fact that hate speech such as Hitler’s speeches do not incite you to hatred or violence, but rather incite you to the opposite, meaning to the hatred of Hitler, is sufficient grounds for concluding that hate speech should therefore be allowed.

I should not have had to spell that out. You should work on your critical thinking skills.

To laugh at the fact that you weren't familiar with "correlation does not imply causation" and then to laugh again at your eventual attempt to claim that you were arguing that it "implies the possibility of causation" as if that were somehow material to what you want to claim in the first place, or as if we were somehow having a conversation about what is and isn't possible. — Terrapin Station

So none then.

lol

"sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence. Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation."

- from further down in the Wikipedia article whose existence caused you such amusement earlier.

But no doubt the authority of Wikipedia to determine what is the case does not apply to you.

-Post redacted as I simply retyped the whole thing below thinking it was deleted-

I created a reply that was on topic, neutral and constructively written. It was removed within seconds.
How can I find out why this was the case?

Through the Feedback category or by contacting forum staff. The forum categories can be found via the menu on the home page.

It was a fallacy of relevance, and more specifically a hasty generalisation if you were suggesting that the fact that hate speech such as Hitler’s speeches do not incite you to hatred or violence, but rather incite you to the opposite, meaning to the hatred of Hitler, is sufficient grounds for concluding that hate speech should therefore be allowed.

I should not have had to spell that out. You should work on your critical thinking skills

I never said my contrary reaction meant hate speech should be allowed. A straw man. I was making the point that the theory that hate speech incites hatred against the victims of hate speech can be falsified.

Do continue making up what you think I'm arguing.

I never said my contrary reaction meant hate speech should be allowed. A straw man. — NOS4A2

I never said you said so, so there's no straw man. There was an "if" in my last reply that you seem to have missed. That was one possible interpretation, and it fits, given the context. But even if it wasn't a hasty generalisation, then it was nevertheless a fallacy of relevance, more broadly.

I was making the point that the theory that hate speech incites hatred against the victims of hate speech can be falsified. — NOS4A2

It can't, and it most certainly can't by merely appealing to the experience of you or I, as you did in your original comment, as that would obviously be too small a sample group, and would fail to account for more relevant cases where people have actually been convicted of hate crimes.

Do continue making up what you think I'm arguing. — Terrapin Station

Um... What alternative do you think I have apart from what I think you're arguing? Telepathy?