[Osiri]

Jesus loves me this I know
For the Bible...

[phreak]

alright, these should work

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/sod/speakenglishordie.html#16
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/corrosionofconformity/blind.html#7

[LtNarol]

I prefer to to think that everyone is a little misinformed, and thus that everyone is wrong.

Yay for apathy.

[Osiri]

Everyone knows that they do not know everything and thus they all are lying in a way.  The question is who is lying because they are disregarding the truth and who is lying because they just don't have all the right sources.

[karajorma]

Or maybe some of us aren't lying but are mearly voicing an opinion based on as much fact as we can get on the matter at hand.

[Osiri]

No its still spouting untruth.  The qualifier you are suggesting is how much we try to avoid spouting untruth.  Speaking the truth is really a matter of how little untruth you spout.  

It has nothing to do with the real truth.

[karajorma]

Being incorrect != lying. Lying implies malice.

[Osiri]

The lie is when you are trying to support your opinion.

Which I think almost all of us do.

[aldo_14]

An opinion can't be a lie unless you believe it.  The truth/untruth lies with your stated justification.

If I say I think the moon is made of cheese, then that's not a lie.  If I say it's made of cheese becase they brought some back via Apollo, then it's a lie.

I've, personally, never lied to support any opinion I've expoused.  I don't think there are many here who have (at least not intentionally).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
The lie is when you are trying to support your opinion.

Which I think almost all of us do.

By your own argument your last two posts (supporting your opinion) were lies.

Therefore I can completely ignore you since you've already stated that you must be lying


And I've never lied to support my opinions either. If they can't stand without me having to lie then they aren't worth holding.

[Osiri]

lol do you give opinions that you do not believe.

This is philosophical.

Lying is telling something that is not true suspecting it is not completely true.

Lying with malice is misrepresentation, fraud, or etc.  

Lying to mislead someone to their determent is fraud.  

You are correct that it needs intent.  However, we all know we do not know everything and every valid study on every single thing.  

As such, we all suspect there is falsehood or misleading conclusions in anything we say or write.

Believe me as a lawyer, we have so many cases to study and work into a valid precedent.  There are always inconsistencies.  As a good argument it downplays the inconsistencies or weakness in the argument.  The other side does the same.  Some lawyers go to far to misrepresentation to a court. (Osiri <----  slaps the guy next to him)

Neither has really lied.  Both have lied.

It is a matter of perspective.

Further we have all played down a valid point or something of that sort.

[Osiri]

EDIT: ooops sorry for the double post.

Its not a morally wrong type lie I am refering to.

Further, I am absolutely lying.  

I don't know you.  I don't know of all the things you have ever done.  You may not support your opinions and downplay any weakness in your argument.

I know you do to some extent aldo.  I have been debating with you long enough to know.  

You downplay weakness and emphasize for your side. This is too some extent a misrepresentation that you know you are committing.

This is fine and expected.

[aldo_14]

[q]
You downplay weakness and emphasize for your side. This is too some extent a misrepresentation that you know you are committing.
[/q]

Does it not occur to you that what you regard as a weakness, is something that is simply of a lower priority in my opinion?  Of course I'm going to emphasise for my own opinion; if I didn't emphasise with it, it wouldn't be my opinion.  Likewise, what you perceive as a weakness, may be something that doesn't matter all that much to me, within the context of why I hold a particular opinion.

(Cite an example please, so I can be sure you're saying what I think you're saying here)

To be honest, you've not really debated with me on any subject that is especially close to my heart; so I'm not sure that you could make a fair judgement on my 'style' within this context.  Look for, say, a thread on ID cards, the Iraq war, or evolution and that'd be a better example.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
lol do you give opinions that you do not believe.

Nope I don't. I actually find it very hard to play devil's advocate as I see the flaws in my own arguments and trim them out as stupid.

Originally posted by Osiri
Believe me as a lawyer

Well that explains a lot.


Basically the answer I have for you is the same one I gave Tin Can. Just because you do it don't assume that everyone else does.

[Flipside]

I don't think the issue at hand here is whether or not people weigh arguments in their own favour, that is a given, and will never change. I consider a 'lie' to be anything said with conviction that is actually without conviction, we all do it.. 'You look nice tonight!', 'Wow, I'd have never have guessed you were any older than 40!' etc, little harmless lies that can actually be more helpful than the truth.

I suppose the first post is an example of the real problem 'I didn't win so the game must be fixed' is quite a frequent accusation I see made on these boards, fortunately though, most members realise that it isn't a game, and there is no winning or losing, we aren't making decision or having debates that will change the world, they very rarely even change the people who are having them, but that is the nature of the beast, as it were, but my own personal feeling is that the publics right to have an opinon may not make the world a better place, but I'm pretty sure it stops it from being a lot worse.

[Janos]

I just love logic and fallacies. Combined with idiotic internet toughguys they provide us all with our daily dose of laughter and joy.

Also it is possible to argue for something that is somehow logical yet we personally find it repulsive or immoral.

Also, relativism does not apply to facts. And it's paradoxal, kinda like science.

[Osiri]

Aldo,

I was not trying to insult you.  I was merely pointing out that you have done what I am talking about.  Let me explain.  

If you back up an opinion with facts interpreted to your beliefs that is a weakness in an argument.  When you declare that patent laws for CS hurts CS in general you are doing what I am saying.  In debate a opinion is a weakness.

On the other hand, I did it too.  I represent the facts as I see them as not harming the science if applied correctly.  In many situations on that thread I didn't back up my statments and that made what I said opinion or forecasting.

We have differing opinions.  We represented the facts skewed slightly to each of our sides.  This is still a slight misrepresentation.  You have no direct knowledge of what patent laws effect on computer science is.  You however, see very bad possibilities.  You state them almost, if not as fact.  This is not wrong or lying it is slight misrepresentation.

There is nothing wrong with it.

As far as real debate you should not judge me by mine either.  Half of that was me playing around.  As far as ID cards, the Iraq war, or evolution, I am almost sure we would agree.  Except on ID card I am not sure what issue you are talking about.


karajorma

First, it is highly misrepresentative to say that because I am a lawyer I lie.  In fact, as a lawyer, I have more vested interest in only speaking the "truth" than in most other professions.  We will get disbarred if we are caught making a material misrepresentation to a court.  
If you are refering to the misunderstanding of lawyers that most people have that by representing a side repulsive to our own beliefs we are supporting that side, you need to meet a few lawyers.  The reason we represent murders, criminals, and the civilly liable is that they deserve the same quality of representation regardless of thier guilt.  If see a lawyer get an obviously guilty person acquited two things have happened.  First, he has done his job.  Second, the other side did not do their job in proving guilt.  Popular opinions of guilt or innocence should not instantly convict someone.  If we allowed representation of those who seem guilty to weaken, many innocent people would be convicted.  The adversary system demands we do not lie but that we make the best case for our client.

Do not tell me that lawyers are liars, cheats, or thieves because that just shows your ignorance.

I assume that everyone makes arguments for thier sides because that is reality.  A weakness in an arguement does not mean your argument is wrong.  There are always weaknesses in arguments.  If this were not true, there would be no need for debate, legislatures, or governments in general.  If everything is clearly decidable because only one side has flaws or weaknesses, there would not be judges, lawyers, legislature, governemental agencies, executive branches, or even researchers.  This is because those entities jobs are to sift through arguments and find the best one.  Both sides inevitably have flaws or else it would not be up for decision as everyone would instantly see the validity of the arguement.

Playing devil's advocate does not mean there will instantly be flaws in your argument.  Any time you assume that role there should be a valid argument on both sides or there is no point in being an advocate for it.

Originally posted by Janos
I just love logic and fallacies. Combined with idiotic internet toughguys they provide us all with our daily dose of laughter and joy.

Also it is possible to argue for something that is somehow logical yet we personally find it repulsive or immoral.

Also, relativism does not apply to facts. And it's paradoxal, kinda like science.

I hope you don't paint me as an internet tough guy.  I have only been posting for like 7 days.  This is for fun and relaxation.

It is very possible to argue for something that you find repulsive or immoral.  I haved done it.  As a advocate(no not lawyer), it is your job to further your client to the fullest extent of your abilities.  

Flipside makes my point as far as everyone lies.

I take it one step further and say that everyone represents facts in a light best representative of thier cause.

Also I truly believe you are entitled to your opinion.  I don't like it when someone tells me my opinion is wrong and does not give me hard cold facts to prove why.  Telling me you have different opinion is one thing.  Telling me directly that my assertion is wrong is another.

I may question someone elses opinion but I usually refrain from telling someone they can't have that opinion.  However, if someone hands me opinions about why I am wrong I will argue that thier reasoning is wrong.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Aldo,

I was not trying to insult you.  I was merely pointing out that you have done what I am talking about.  Let me explain.  

If you back up an opinion with facts interpreted to your beliefs that is a weakness in an argument.  When you declare that patent laws for CS hurts CS in general you are doing what I am saying.  In debate a opinion is a weakness.

On the other hand, I did it too.  I represent the facts as I see them as not harming the science if applied correctly.  In many situations on that thread I didn't back up my statments and that made what I said opinion or forecasting.

We have differing opinions.  We represented the facts skewed slightly to each of our sides.  This is still a slight misrepresentation.  You have no direct knowledge of what patent laws effect on computer science is.  You however, see very bad possibilities.  You state them almost, if not as fact.  This is not wrong or lying it is slight misrepresentation.

Well, I don't think it is misrepresentation, you see.  I don't see how a possibility can be, any more than postulated advantage can be.  When one thing exists and can be cited, and the other doesn't but can be reliably estimated, I don't think the latter should be ignored.  If I cite such a possibility as fact, it's because I absolutely and positively believe it to be true and common sense; it is a fact of my opinion.

If we deconstruct what I (IIRC) said in that thread, it was roughly along the lines of  'patents restrict the ability to reuse and repeat, hence place restrictions on the evolution of technology arising through that reuse'.  I don't think that basis is proveably false, especially not placed within the context I put it in (applying to lower level algorithms termed as building blocks or tools; I'll note that how low a level quantifies this can be a point of dispute).  I simply postulated an effect with an observable and proven cause.  Now, you may disagree with the effect - which is fine, because it is a postulation - but I don't think there is anything which can say which effect is or is not more 'true'.

Skew is a natural part of opinion, but it also is opinion.  I've never changed my view of a possibility based upon opinion, but I've changed my opinion based on what I view to be a likely possibility, based on actual observation.  i.e. upon the facts I observed and knew.

To me that's not misrepresentation or skew, that's just supporting an opinion.  I have never, ever reinterpreted or skewed anything to support my opinion on a subject, because to do so would automatically invalidate that opinion.  

Have I selected facts to support that?  Of course - but only because to me they are key facts which are and have been of influence.  I think I mentioned the ISNOT patent in that thread, for example.  I didn't select that to back myself up, I selected that because I'd seen it before and it had influenced my position on the issue.

So, the point being, I don't think I misrepresented or skewed anything.  I said my opinion, explained my basis for it, and argued why I disagreed with your position.  What's dishonest about that?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
First, [SNIP]  

First, dial down the rhetoric. You've made an assumption as to what I was saying it explained and you've got it all arse about face in your hurry to leap up and defend your profession from slights and insults that only exist in your head.  

The fact is that a lawyer is someone who often accepts money to argue a point of view that may not be his own. That's not always the case but the fact is that unless you're the Perry Mason kind of lawyer who always accepts cases where he knows the client is 100% correct and the opposing side is 100% wrong the fact is that you can't get very far in the profession without doing that. In fact you even argue the point that it's fine to get someone off even if they are guilty and you know it because it was the other guy's job to stop you.

Now I'm not saying that is wrong but you're assuming that because you're like that everyone else must be. And that's where you're wrong.

I'm a scientist. I may work in IT now but the fact is that I was educated as a scientist and that will always be my mindset. A true scientist doesn't hold any view unless he can prove it with fact. If I can't prove it at least to myself I'll sit on the fence. If I have to make a choice between two equally well evidenced viewpoints I'll pick the choice that fits best with the rest of the world and use that until someone proves it wrong.

Since I'm pretty much sitting on the fence over the matter I'm not going to espouse either viewpoint as correct and I'll point out the flaws in any argument I make for it. I suggest you go back and actually read some threads on which Aldo and I have posted and you'll notice that we both do exactly that when we're discussing something. We'll also both say "I don't know" when we don't know and more often than not we'll actually try to find out the answer because we can't defend a point we're not certain about.

That's not the way a lawyer does things and most of the people you've been arguing with lean towards the science view which is why I said it explained everything when you revealed your background.

Originally posted by Osiri
Playing devil's advocate does not mean there will instantly be flaws in your argument.  Any time you assume that role there should be a valid argument on both sides.

Wrong. The term devil's advocate denotes that you are espousing a point of view you do not hold. Now re-read what I wrote above. If for some reason I don't hold a view it's because I see the flaws in it. If I felt that there were valid arguments for that opinion I would not be playing devil's advocate. I would be sitting on the fence over the whole thing. If for some reason I were to enter such a discussion I'd point out the pros and cons of both/all the arguments in a bid to get to the truth.

Again for a lawyer it's easy to take a viewpoint that they don't agree with. You've been trained to do that. That's why the term isn't Devil's Chiropodist or Devil's Interior Decorator.

Don't make the assumption that because you do it everyone else does. For a scientific mindset, arguing a point for which you can see flaws is anathema.

[Osiri]

representing an opinion as fact.

QUOTE
By your standards, 90% of the work that I did for my degree should havce been already under patent. Bye-bye Computer Science departments, then. (opinion and may I say a wrong one)

A misrepresentation of my opinion skewed to an extreme that you had no reasonable expectation that was true.  I rest my case.

Ok ok, so I don't feel like searching.  My point is that just that little smart remark there is part of an argument with a misrepresentation.

Further, stating opinion as fact just because you believe it is absolutely true is not a valid defense.  If this were so no one would criticize religious fundamentalists.  We would just listen to them about how evolution could not be true and how Iraq needed to be blown to hell.

These are convictions that they firmly hold.  They state them as cold fact.  In fact they are trying to have children taught creationism now.  They say this is because evolution is wrong and it has no basis.  They know here is a basis but there opinion is that it does not because thier absolute belief says so.