God's purpose

16.5 said:
The Rule of So is a commonly used description of a all to typical fallacy whereby one strawmans a post with an off topic rant, such as here.

In this case the topic is God's purpose.

Paul said, "God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work"
Click to expand...

So, are you arguing that an off-topic post is a strawman, or that a strawman post is off-topic?

Sorry- I had to do it. Do I win the Trifecta?

But it is a real question. I can see that there can be an overlap, but I don't see how one is logically an inherent part of or linked to the other.
 
Giordano said:
16.5 often uses the "rule of so" to dismiss other people's posts without responding to any of the post itself. Oddly, I find that if I compose a post that happens to have the word "so" in it, and then just delete the word "so" before I post it, I have to deal a lot less will these silly exchanges.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the purpose of the Rule of So! It encourages a person to evaluate one's own post to determine whether it has a strawman in it!

By the way, the Rule of So refers to a particular type of Strawman, so your edited comment was completely unnecessary.

Thus endeth the lesson.
 
Giordano said:
So, are you arguing that an off-topic post is a strawman, or that a strawman post is off-topic?

Sorry- I had to do it. Do I win the Trifecta?

But it is a real question. I can see that there can be an overlap, but I don't see how one is logically an inherent part of or linked to the other.
Click to expand...

the former
 
Giordano said:
16.5 often uses the "rule of so" to dismiss other people's posts without responding to any of the post itself. Oddly, I find that if I compose a post that happens to have the word "so" in it, and then just delete the word "so" before I post it, I have to deal a lot less will these silly exchanges.

Straw man is also a popular exclamation that "allows" a post to be dismissed without discussing any of the actual arguments in it...

[edited]: oh- would you look at that! There it is: the "strawman" dismissal. I hadn't seen it before I posted this. Warned you!
Click to expand...

I just happen to start a lot of sentences with the word "so". I also say "like" a lot. Has a lot to do with growing up in the US in the 1980s.
 
16.5 said:
That is exactly the purpose of the Rule of So! It encourages a person to evaluate one's own post to determine whether it has a strawman in it!

By the way, the Rule of So refers to a particular type of Strawman, so your edited comment was completely unnecessary.

Thus endeth the lesson.
Click to expand...

We have discussed in other threads what are "strawmen" and what are not; therefore I do not wish to re-tread that discussion here.

My point, if you read my post again, is not that your frequent use of "The Rule of So" encouraged me to evaluate my own posts to eliminate any strawmen in them- just that it has encouraged me to eliminate the word "so." In my experience deleting this single word has been sufficient to substantially reduce the chances of a knee-jerk rhetorical dismissal, even though the remainder of my post remained completely unchanged.
 
RogueKitten said:
I just happen to start a lot of sentences with the word "so". I also say "like" a lot. Has a lot to do with growing up in the US in the 1980s.
Click to expand...

Often "so" is used just as a verbal link to the prior statement or a verbal place holder. It is much better than "um" or, god help us, "like you know??"
 
Giordano said:
We have discussed in other threads what are "strawmen" and what are not; therefore I do not wish to re-tread that discussion here.

My point, if you read my post again, is not that your frequent use of "The Rule of So" encouraged me to evaluate my own posts to eliminate any strawmen in them- just that it has encouraged me to eliminate the word "so." In my experience deleting this single word has been sufficient to substantially reduce the chances of a knee-jerk rhetorical dismissal, even though the remainder of my post remained completely unchanged.
Click to expand...

Well as long as one is mindful of it, that is all that one asks.
 
16.5 said:
Rule of so! Excellent.
Click to expand...


There is no "rule of 'so'". The objection is ******** from people who like to feel superior but have no point to suggest such to others.

Your facile adoption of this trick reflects poorly on you.

It's like the reactionary complaints about "political correctness" from people who don't like progressive change in society threatening their mindless privileges inherent in their bigotry etc.
 
16.5 said:
Pointing out fallacious reasoning (such as yours) is ALWAYS relevant and helpful.
Click to expand...

And yet you haven't. You have simply stuck a label on her without engaging with the statement which you have simply rejected with no explanation of your reasoning.

Her reasoning was sound. If you can demonstrate exactly how it's fallacious, I will accept your reasoning, as long as it is sound.

The fact that you cling to catholicism leads me to have low expectations of your reasoning.
 
abaddon said:
Make one up. That is what religion does.
Click to expand...

Make one? No thanks, as there is no need.

asydhouse said:
There is no "rule of 'so'". The objection is ******** from people who like to feel superior but have no point to suggest such to others.

Your facile adoption of this trick reflects poorly on you.

It's like the reactionary complaints about "political correctness" from people who don't like progressive change in society threatening their mindless privileges inherent in their bigotry etc.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a Rule of So, it has been discussed at lenghth on this website. Please endeavor to research it.

/your PC "mindless privilege" thing gave me the giggles, tho.
 
16.5 said:
Apparently....

What then is God's purpose for us?
Click to expand...

For the reasons I noted up-thread:
1. No God, and
2. Even if there is a Biblical God, then there cannot be a purpose because it would have been achieved by now.

Sad how people who want to believe that there is q god and that this entity has a specific purpose for us will attempt to apply desperate "well, perhaps" imaginary arguments and logical fallacies to justify their own pre-formed beliefs (which are, 90% of the timel, linked not to any logical examination of multiple religions and philosophies but just an acceptance of whatever their own particular parents believed).
 
Last edited:
asydhouse said:
And yet you haven't. You have simply stuck a label on her without engaging with the statement which you have simply rejected with no explanation of your reasoning.

Her reasoning was sound. If you can demonstrate exactly how it's fallacious, I will accept your reasoning, as long as it is sound.

The fact that you cling to catholicism leads me to have low expectations of your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I cling to what?

I think if you endeavor to research the issue that certain words and phrases become part of the community's lexicon, and Rule of So is just such an example. If you don't agree, that is fine, of course but please do not mistake your unfamiliarity with the shorthand phrase as a substantive attack on the merits.

Her comment was also a Gish Gallop. Do I need to explain that concept as well?
 
Giordano said:
For the reasons I noted up-thread:
1. No God, and
2. Even if there is a Biblical God, then there cannot be a purpose because it would have been achieved by now.
Click to expand...

The purpose would have been achieved by now? Well you are going to have to explain then what you think the purpose is, because from what I know based on the Scriptures, your comment makes no sense.
 
16.5 said:
Make one? No thanks, as there is no need.



Yes there is a Rule of So, it has been discussed at lenghth on this website. Please endeavor to research it.

/your PC "mindless privilege" thing gave me the giggles, tho.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there is a "Rule of So" as a term. Whether it is an accurate logical formulation or not is a totally different matter. I have argued that the "rule" (which was originally meant tongue in cheek) is an enormous exaggeration, and in common with asydhouse, I believe that it has become a method for certain people to dismiss entire arguments not based on their logic but on the bases of a single "trip" word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom