[MD] Knockouts

[Michael Hamilton]

Good to hear from you again Case,

Okay, I suppose I was aking for that. Here's the point where I'm
supposed to say "Aha, well spotted! I was testing you!" but that would
a lie.

My reasoning (which I should have made explicit) goes like this: if
bringing up Hitler always consititutes knocking oneself out, on what
grounds? The only grounds I can think of would be that Hitler is never
an applicable analogy in any situation, because Hitler is in the past
and nothing similar could ever occur in the present or future. This I
find to be a dangerous assumption. But if you can think of other
possible grounds for Hitler being a knockout, then I DID knock myself
out just there (by distorting Adams's point into something ridiculous
and then arguing against it).

Or maybe you were just kidding :)

Regards,
Mike

On 2/8/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> OMG, Mike I think you just knocked yourself out.
>
> Case (Lurking Still)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hamilton
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:30 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: [MD] Knockouts
>
> This is from the blog of Scott Adams, cretor of Dilbert
> (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/12/index.html)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with debates on the Internet is that there's no objective
> way to judge who won - no equivalent of a knockout. In fact, there's
> not even a word that means knockout when you're talking about an
> exchange of ideas. But there should be. I recommend using the word
> "knockout."
>
> I always consider myself a winner by knockout whenever someone
> distorts my point to something ridiculous and then argues against the
> ridiculous thing. That seems like an acknowledgement that my real
> point is unassailable. Why else would someone need to invent a whole
> new point to argue against?
>
> Knockout!
>
> Likewise, when anyone brings into the debate Hitler, or the slippery
> slope, or guilt by association arguments, I consider that a victory by
> knockout too. And if someone ignores a simple and direct question,
> that's the cleanest victory there is.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a useful subject to consider, and I think Adams is pretty much
> on the mark, with the exception of Hitler. Considering that
> Hitler-ishness is something that only happens in the past strikes me
> as dangerous. However, we should obviously scrutinise any analogies to
> Hitler very carefully before recognising them as relevantly similar.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>