Please, call me Rob.Hucker73,
Knock yourself out.whilst not a man of science myself, I am a philosophy graduate who has done a fair amount of history of science and philosophy of science, so feel the need to defend ranting.
Never said it was.Firstly, ranting isn't necessarily illogical.
His name's HeffReading through Hess's rant,
Agreed. In fact I say as much in the post you're disagreeing with. "There were well argued (and valid) points made in your posts"the majority of it actually talks about specific, objective facts about the Dwarf roster (ie. the stats, skills, tactics). These are hardly indications of a lack of logic. In fact they're the opposite.
When arguing a point / debating / ranting, skewing things in your favour is par for the course. But on a factual level, I, like you, agree with most of what he said.You could of course argue that he's skewing the facts to suit his ends, but again, that's not necessarily illogical. (For the record I don't think he is skewing the facts.)
If you ever do, send me a link to it, because I'm gonna want to read that bad boy.Secondly, with regard to having never read a scientific paper that calls people 'ginger tw*ts' and the like, no, nor have I.
Yes. But 'ginger tw*ts' is not an acceptable mechanism. Which was my point. Which you agree with.However, in science papers, and philosophy and history papers for that matter, there are acceptable mechanisms for doing so. For example, accusing someone of being illogical in philosophy can be akin to telling them they're stupid (unless it's some contested/properly hard point of logic). In science the accusation of being dogmatic is similar.
Okay, valid point, using emotive language in an argument does not detract from the argument being made and, if used well can indeed enhance it. I should have been clearer. Extremely emotive insults i.e. the aforementioned 'ginger tw*ts', are a step too far in an argument. It's not far off using racist or sexist language. Or the internet's favourite, calling someone a Nazi. No matter how well you argued your case, as soon as you say these sorts of thing, you lose.Thirdly, I don't think using emotive language in making arguments is necessarily a bad thing (which is the implicit implication I think). It could, in fact, be said to deepen the complexity of the argument.
I haven't been sober in years...Yes, there is something to be said for sober argument,
Yeah, I should have left that bit in the quote box above, but I really wanted to make that sober joke. Should have just deleted this bit. Oh, well, my bad!but by adding in emotive language it increases the intensity with which that argument comes across, heightening the awareness the reader has in the importance of the subject to the writer, and therefore adding in emotive reasons for accepting an argument.
When it comes to important things, yes. That's why surgeons aren't allowed to operate on relatives. Bit of an extreme example, but a good one.Of course, you might say we should keep emotions out of decision making.
Wait a minute... This post... No... It can't be... I'VE TURNED INTO VOODOOMIKE! AAAAARRGGGHH! SOMEBODY! ANYBODY! HELP ME!But without emotive reason it could be, in certain circumstances, logical for everyone to play with dwarves at a tournament (due to how good they are, certain restrictions in place at the tournament etc.), and how rubbish would that be? Very. Very rubbish.
IT BURNS! AND AT THE SAME TIME I'M SO VERY COLD! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! (Loads imaginary shotgun, places it in mouth, pulls trigger).So, yay for ranting!
Ah that's better.
Wait... What was this thread about again?
KISSES!
Thank you, you've been a wonderful audience. Don't forget to tip your moderators. I'll be here all week. Give me some walking off music, Al...
