[MD] Misunderstandings are driven by what we value not by the logic we use.

[X Acto]

djh responds to Dmb:
You have misunderstood my argument dmb. By all means - feel free to discuss logical inconsistencies with those who value similar things to you and are happy to discuss them... All I'm saying is that when discussing something intellectual with someone who doesn't value similar things to you *or* isn't interested in logic- a logical discussion with them is pointless.

It's tiring watching you two go at one another when you're both talking from different values..  Until you discuss those values - then things will go nowhere..
 
[Ron sez]
I believe what is being refered to is informal logic, in other words meaning. Logic is traditionaly a tool contributing to the 
ability to dissect arguments and avoid the deceptions of deceitful rhetoric. DmB is essentially saying that Marsha is
Intellectualy deceitful, she does not engage in an intellectual discussion but indulges in a selfish mission to win an arguement 
using any means no matter how contradictory or out of context. 
 
Granted, one may only reason with those who are willing to be reasoned with, but, part of engaging in Philosophy is
nurturing the love of wisdom. Simply getting off on winning arguements really is not part of that endeavor, as RMP
rails against. It's not a chess game or a duel and as you point out it's about your motives and your values but as
DmB points out, if you value winning over the clarification of thoughts then perhaps a philosophy forum, particularly
this one, is not the place for you. This forum is dedicated to the clarification of Bob Pirsigs thoughts not Marsha's
 her values or anyone elses.
 
Understanding someones values may explain their motives, intellectual deceitfulness and dishonosty but that offers
nothing within the context inwhich this forum is dedicated to. 

djh responds to dmb:
To translate a misunderstanding into a 'strawman' is sinister as it presumes ill intentions of the person who misunderstood.  That's all well and good to casually throw around such wild emotive alligations - if your goal is the truth - but what if your goal is what's good? Is it good to accuse someone of bad intentions when bad intentions are very rarely the cause of disagreements in intellectual discussions?  This just speaks to my larger point about values and dialectical discussions.  Speak to folks values - then you'll change their mind and things will get better - but not before..

 
[Ron sez]
If the true is the highest good, in this case, bad intentions (arguement with the goal of winning) indeed are the root of the disagreement.
The goal is not to persuade those who do not wish to be persuaded, the goal is to persuade and reason with those who are willing
to be persuaded and reasoned with. If you are an ego climber with an inferiority complex and superiority is your aim then you are not
interested in logic, truth and clarity in meaning.
To be clear, the criticism of the rhetorical device of the strawman is to dismiss an explanation without addressing the content.
To translate or otherwise rhetorically paint an arguement as a strawman that indeed does address and criticize the content
is to use the term dishonostly or without understanding of the meaning of the term. In this case Dmb is indeed justified in the
use of this term because it does directly point to the context of the criticism.