Is reductio ad absurdum 'uncivil'?

Kimsang

As the title questions: Is reductio ad absurdum 'uncivil'?

I was having an ongoing 'heated ideological discussion' with another poster.
The discussion was whether words taken out of context should be taken at face value. An example is here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showpost.php?p=110569512&postcount=158
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110539765&postcount=9875
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showpost.php?p=110569559&postcount=161

Originally posted by Kimsang Well you didn't read the quote in its entirety either did you? This only proves how easily things are taken out of context, and you or anyone else who thanked your post didn't even bother to fact check

Originally posted by Kimsang It might help if you include Carlson's comments in full. Dissecting 5 words out of context doesn't seem fair, as I've proved multiple times how readily and easily things are being taken out of context these days to attack such conservative thinkers.

Originally post by Kimsang I think we've seen multiple times already how things can be taken easily out of context, and how those things are used to attack others. Endorsing this kind of politics is playing alongside Trump in the dirt.

We were discussing the topic of Tucker Carlson and one poster mentioned the folllowing:

Originally Post by Professor Moriarty Tucker Carlson made quiet a droll comment about North Korea last year when said that it was a country where the "population is starving and its leader is dying of obesity.”

Instead of replying as I usually do outlining my position carefully, I decided to take a different tact, and instead appeal to reductio ad absurdum.
I choose to take another quote that poster had said, out of context, to show how easily it is done.
I replied

Originally post by Kimsang

Originally Post by Professor Moriarty Tucker Carlson made quiet a droll comment about North Korea last year when said that it was a country where the "population is starving and its leader is dying of obesity.”

You said Donald's integrity is defended.
You said all women are liars.
You said Mueller is a liar.
You said the FBI are liars.
You said the justice department were liars
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110502252&postcount=9376

My post was then deleted, and I was banned. This is the message I received from the moderator(ancapailldorcha):

Deliberately misrepresenting someone's post. This is your fourth sanction in a week. No more please.

I attempted to speak with the moderator immediately, only questioning

PM Sent to ancapailldorcha "Sometimes people misrepresent other's arguments to highlight the absurdity in their argument. This is called reductio ad absurdum, and it was a bate tactic I was employing. Are you saying this is uncivil?'

The answers I received are:

Misrepresenting someone's post is uncivil from my perspective.

and

Hi,
I think that it is sufficiently obvious that that poster was not making the claims you presented.
You are welcome to appeal in DRP.
ACD

Now I clearly have not mis-represented what someone said. I repeated exactly what the poster said, to highlight how easy things are taken out of context. This argument style is called reductio ad absurdum.

I'm sitting here a little confused and dizzy at truly how spectacularly unfathomable this accusation of being 'uncivil' is. Height of ridiculousness!
Now is reductio ad absurdum considered uncivil? Given the conversation, isn't context important?

Beasty

This forum is for appealing cards or bans. Are you launching an appeal against your Politics ban?

If so, have you tried to resolve this directly with the mod?

If not, I'll move this thread to Help Desk

Kimsang

I am appealing the ban, and appealing the moderators actions.

Yes I have attempted to appeal to the mod, she referred me to here, and said she didn't want to discuss with me.
All of our conversation is included above.

Beasty

Very well. I will alert the Politics CMods to this thread

Kimsang

Thank you. Might I note that there seems to be a relationship between the poster and the moderator who sanctioned me, and there is a history of this stuff.

Beasty

Kimsang wrote: »

Thank you. Might I note that there seems to be a relationship between the poster and the moderator who sanctioned me, and there is a history of this stuff.

This thread will deal with your appeal. If you wish to raise other issues please start a thread in Help Desk once this appeal has been dealt with

Kimsang

Beasty wrote: »

This thread will deal with your appeal. If you wish to raise other issues please start a thread in Help Desk once this appeal has been dealt with

Ok, I will delete everything from my appeal that is not relevant to it. And save it until this dispute has been settled. Thank you.

Kimsang

I lost 45mins working on a post, to find out I'm banned and I lost all my work.
I spent about 1 hour working on this post.

6 replies since my post in the thread I was banned for, and all discussion stopped.
The mod in question didn't even contribute anything to the thread, and quite obviously wasn't even reading it.
Not only that, but no attempt to resolves this issue.
Ridiculous

Beasty

You receive separate notifications of bans and cards. The fact you could not make that specific post is irrelevant to this appeal. The fact the mod may not post n the discussion is also largely irrelevant. Indeed we often get complaints about mods modding discussions they are actively involved in

Both points are taking this appeal off topic. This thread is to deal with your ban and actions that may have led up to the ban.

Neyite

Hi Kimsang,
I'll be reviewing your dispute with the mod. Please forward on all relevant private messages relating to the ban or alternatively you can post them here in chronological order if that's easier.

Kimsang

Hi, my thanks for you taking time on this issue. Its not particularly interesting, but here they are.
1st

Moderator Note

Deliberately misrepresenting someone's post. This is your fourth sanction in a week. No more please.

2nd

Hi,
I think that it is sufficiently obvious that that poster was not making the claims you presented.
You are welcome to appeal in DRP.
ACD

3rd

Misrepresenting someone's post is uncivil from my perspective.

4th

I have no interest in debating semantics with you. You made out that Professor Moriarty made claims which he did not.
You are welcome to appeal. I consider this matter resolved and will not be responding further.

Neyite

Do you have your messages to the mod also?

Kimsang

I don't know why, but messages don't save to my outbox.

The first message, slightly more hysterical from me, i can't remember. But something along the lines of the other two.

the second message (from memory) read

"Is reductio ad absurdum un civil?"

I did save the third most comprehensive message though, when I remembered the don't save.
It read

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Misrepresenting someone's post is uncivil from my perspective.

Sometimes people misrepresent other's arguments to highlight the absurdity in their argument. This is called reductio ad absurdum, and it was a debate tactic I was employing. Are you saying this is uncivil?

Neyite

That's ok, I can contact the mod for a copy of the ones you cant find. It may take today /this evening for me to get up to speed on the context of the thread ect, so hopefully that's ok?



Thanks

Kimsang

Neyite wrote: »

That's ok, I can contact the mod for a copy of the ones you cant find. It may take today /this evening for me to get up to speed on the context of the thread ect, so hopefully that's ok?
Thanks

I really appreciate that. No rush however take your time. Time is of no essence

Neyite

Hi Kimsang,

"is reductio ad absurdum uncivil" Strictly speaking, no, it's not. But that was chosen from a limited drop down list of reasons the mod must choose to apply the sanction. This does appear to be the closest fit

Now, you admit that you used it as a bait tactic in a debate. We are a discussion site and the job of the mod is to keep the discussion calm and flowing and not let it get derailed or heated and step in before posters start at each other. Politics especially expects that discussion is of a high standard and civil. So your intention to bait could be seen as provocative and that's not what we would consider civility on a thread.

It's a long running and fast moving thread. In another calmer thread it's possible that reductio ad absurdum would be effective in it's application but in this one it's easy to see that it looks like misrepresentation and like you say was used to bait someone.

So I feel I have to uphold the ban. However you can appeal and an admin can review and adjust my decision as they see fit, just post it as a request on thread here.

Kimsang

Honestly, the discussion we were currently discussing was taking things out of context. It was a point I had made at least 3 times in the last 2 pages of that thread.

Then the poster made another comment using a few words out of context, as if that poster was just trolling.

I honestly don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

I only repeated exactly what the poster said, to highlight how easily things are taken out of context. If this is now a crime, civil society is dead.

Bate does not equal bait.
I don't know what you are insinuating saying 'I was baiting the poster' this is ridiculous.

Bate is an uncommon term that has largely been replaced by abate, meaning “to lessen, diminish, moderate, restrain, or take away from.” However, bate is still preserved in modern English in the idiomatic phrase “with bated breath,” which means “nervously, excitedly, or anxiously, as if holding one’s breath.” For example:
“We waited with bated breath while they announced the results of the competition.”
Because bate is so uncommon in all other usages, it is a frequent mistake to write “with baited breath.” Just be sure to remember than one can only have “bated breath,” while we use bait in all other circumstances
BATE
: to reduce the force or intensity of : RESTRAIN
: to take away : DEDUCT
archaic : to lower especially in amount or estimation
archaic : BLUNT

To clarify: me saying it was a 'bate tactic' means I think it was a tactic meant to diminish or restrain the purposefully inflammatory nature of professor moriartys post .
I'm not going to be caught on a silly technicality like the last time I made a point about inconsistent moderation.

This was the PM i sent to ACD

This is called reductio ad absurdum, and it was a bate tactic I was employing.

I am calling reductio ad absurdum a bate tactic, a tactic that diminishes or restrains the purposefully inflammatory nature of professor moriarty's post.

I am not reckless in my choice of words; any check over my posts will reveal my close attention to spelling.

Kimsang

Not relevant

dudara

Kimsang - to get back to Neyite’s question, do you want an Admin review on your appeal?

Please stop bringing other mod actions into this appeal. They are not relevant as DRP deals with individual cards/bans.

Kimsang

Yes please. I would continue this objection as far as I can until I get a reasonable answer! I was not baiting anybody, I resent the insinuation!

[sorry, i don't mean to be inflammatory, it just seems every-time I highlight a larger argument, I get nitpicked due to a technicality and the over-arching themes of my argument get ignored- I appreciate Neyites help, and assume it was an accidental mis-interpretation of the word I used "bate"]

dudara

I am happy to take on the review. Please give some time as I will need to request copies of the PMs from Neyite or the mod.

Kimsang

Ok thank you.

dudara

I’ve dug out the post for which you were banned, as well as reviewing the posts leading up to it and the PMs exchanged between you and the mods.

It’s pretty clear that you misrepresented another poster’s post. You presented it as fact and you did not make any effort to flag it as reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, I do agree that it appears that you were attempting to bait the poster by deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting his post.

In and of itself, this is not the worst breach of the forum charter that I have seen. However, you picked up a three day ban for this post based on the concept of escalating actions. Your previous record in the Politics forum was 1 warning, 1 infraction and 1 one day ban. As it didn’t appear that you were amending your posting in any way, the mods applied the next action available to them.

Mod decision upheld.