Thread:Goggles99/@comment-4845243-20150310002722/@comment-4845243-20150310154937

Legofrodo12 wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

Legofrodo12 wrote: Obi, you say that adminship is not a political office. If that's so, then why are you acting just like one? Instead of making things more clear, you complicate them. Classic politician trait. =/

And you've been talking down to people, somewhat. Logic is a relative term. You are not the only expert on logic here. Let the individual users decide on whether they think something is logical or not on their own.

Also, to be honest, you've seemed incredulous that not everyone agrees with you, Rio, and Bourg on this issue. People can disagree with you, and still be logical. Is this meant to be a response to my comment on the other thread?

Actually, I'm not making things less clear, unless you mean that by putting up more comments to read through the issue has become ore complicated. If you read my original blog post, I present very clear reasons for why the plan is good for the community. :) Also, my arguments in this post itself are very clear.

Also, politicians usually aren't interested in logic and evidence. They say they are, but then their arguments are actually horrible and dogmatic. That's not my approach at all.

Logic is not relative. Properly defined, it means the art and science of reasoning well. Logic has objective rules and methods for evaluating arguments. It's not a matter of opinion. I know how to identify fallacies (such as red herrings) and invalid argument structures. I may not be the only expert on logic, but I have studied it in school and I know enough to know that your claims about logic are untrue. :P

Yes, they can disagree and be logical. However, no one has presented a logically compelling argument that isn't based on historical errors so far. If you want to give one I'll listen.

For the record, I've studied logicand debates in college too. I do know logic and debates. Calling an opponent illogical is not the way to win an argument.

From what I've seen, you avoid the issues when someone calls you out on something. Again, politician. And your blog wasn't all that clear. That's good, and I agree. This isn't an argument I'm trying to win ("arguments" as I am using them are not the overall debate, but specific sets of premises and conclusions, however), I'm just trying to make some points. I never called Goggles illogical, I called his arguments illogical after explaining why they are. Don't you agree that that is quite different?

Also, please point out any specific issues. I don't avoid issues that people call me out on, although I will point it out if they are not based on any actual examples. :P But as it is, you're making a generalization that is not helpful to me or relevant to our discussion.