Mark, I enjoyed both aspects of your post, and will only reply to one right now. Thank you for the length and thought of your remarks.

Mark Wrote:
"RE: Please read my posts and comment on what I say, not on what you infer about my position. I try to do the same for you and would appreciate it.

Perhaps I need some routine disclaimer. I frequently state what seem to me to be logical extensions of other posters logic to demonstrate it is faulty. I do not mean to claim those comments were actually made. The statements are often more clearly faulty than what the posters said, but forcing them to follow the flaws in their own logic is precisely the point. You've may have seen how much this pisses off other people on topics you and I probably agree on. I've found most people here have at least one topic they are blind to reason on and get quite irate when it is exposed. All of us will get pissed off at blatant misrepresentations of our stances so I appreciate how my style can be irritating when people feel that is what I am doing. Any suggestions on how to clearly state that I am extrapolating someone's point rather than trying to misquote them?"

Mark:

Extrapolations are rarely a valid argumentative technique. To construct one you are often relying upon your own subjective (and quite possibly but not necessarily biased) interpretation of their premises. The conclusion you draw for your partner/adversary (depending on how you look at it) may or may not be derivable from their argument. In general, I think you should let your opponent argue his case and attack only his case. Where one makes derivations from the premises of your adversary/partner, they should not be stated with the certainty that "this is what you are saying by X, Y and Z", and certainly the words should not be crammed down the throat of the partner/adversary.

In general, in my neck of the woods (Formal Logic, Informal Logic/Rhetoric and Philosophy), we call such technique 'slippery slope' arguments, or when the bias in interpretation of argument is obvious, a 'Strawman' argument. Again, in my neck of the woods, the mere pointing out of the employment of such a fallacy would loose the case... More specifically, one would be laughed loudly out of the room.

Regardless of the fact that these discourse techniques are employed and tolerated in Media, Political debate and informal discussion, they should be avoided in discussions that honestly seek to establish the truth of a matter. The reason they should be avoided is that they abuse logic. In arguing a slippery slope, you are more often then not re-interpreting the premises of an argument. In arguing a strawman, you are more often than not making a flase or invalid inference WRT the case of your partner/adversary.

In general, when attributing an implicated statement to someones argument, you should say "Would you agree that, by your argument, X follows directly" If they say "yes", THEN nail them to the wall with their own hobnails. Its much more effective. If they say "No", then you can do the derivation for them, in public and in front of their face (IF you are correct and IF you actually grok their case). THEN you can nail them. Again, it is much more effective.

An honest person will re-evaluate their premises when inconsistency is exposed, or when those premises are shown to not stand to empirical testing. Only the weak willed and cowards will re-evaluate their positions when someone misinterprets them and then tries to blast them on that misinterpretation.

So, in the end, my suggestion is that when we draw inferences about eachothers positions, we should make sure those inferences CAN be drawn from eachothers cases, and get eachother to commit to that in public. It will remove all wiggle from the debate and really clear matters up.

so the statement from yourself:

ME: "Overthrowing a murderous dictator does not equate to overthrowing a freely elected government and it is ridiculous to imply the two are moraly equivalent or that civil rights of Iraqis are being violated in doing so."

Becomes:

Do you imply that Overthrowing a murderous dictator does equates to overthrowing a freely elected government and that the two are moraly equivalent or that civil rights of Iraqis are being violated in doing so?

Or we could screw all notions of form and all hopes of getting anywhere and duke it out until it just gets stale and pointless. This is sometimes fun, but more often then not a pain!

Davin