Certainly very ironic. But is this line of argument incorrect?
E.g. if I said "I don't believe in the Holy Book because in verse 7 it says that one cannot trust anything written in any books". Isn't that an analogous reasoning?
I think these examples/arguments are ultimately about exposing a liar-paradox statement, and when you can show such a statement you have proven that something isn't right.
It was not an example of a contradiction (I figured that's well enough understood to not mean an example). It was an example of selectively presenting facts in a way to distort reality.
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to form a proposition. Contradiction is merely the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says"
No, it isn't
Yes, it is. You just contradicted me
No, I didn't
Yes, you did
No, no, no
You did just then
That's ludicrous
Oh, this is futile
No, it isn't
I came in here for a good argument
No, you didn't. You came in here for an argument
Well, argument isn't the same as contradiction
Can be
I'm unconvinced. This blog post just seems like a lot of emoting and handwaving and contradiction with a light glazing of feminist theory on top, with no real counterargument or refutation to be found. I'm reminded of two quotes:
"M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
...
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
A: No it isn't" --from Monty Python's argument sketch
"DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help." (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)
reply