Hyperbole in debate

[Talentless]

Hyperbole is one of the great banes of my existence. Its commonly presented use is so often ignoring of balanced consideration as to the soundness of the premise upon which it is based that mercy is begged for.

What makes it such a problem in political and philosophical debate is the blatand disregard it often shows toward the difference between cause (more appropriately reason, as in reasoning for something) and correlation.

By the existence of similarities, something is held to be the same, or essentially so, as the other. But, while it is possible that two things can be similar, even having multiple shared features does not make them both same in terms of the correct application of a given label upon them.

For something to be judged solely on its outward appearance is fundamentally unfair; it is suggestive of a related motive and intent even if that has not been proven: Person A did act B, just as person A2 has done act B2, which is "strongly" similar to act B of person A, which means person B is as evil, good, etc., as person A. That reasoning fails to bring into question whether or not the context of person B's actions are comparable to person A's and its actions, and whether or not the proclaimed reasons person B gave for said actions are simiolar to those of person a, and were discredited, let alone disproven. Person B is simply announced as being like Person A because they share somethings in common.

Motive and intent cannot be ignored. Such a notion as justifiable defense greatly depends on it.

Calling others Fascists, Commies; comparing Bush to Hitler, etc., are all examples of common hyperbole.

 

[Talentless]

Such is the fate of long winded pretentious commentary, or however others view it.

Well, I understand what I said. But I suppose if no one wants to at least leave a note, this thread should probably be removed.


I'd do it myself, but it seems that privilege is no longer available to regular members.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I understand what I said.

You did a pretty good job of summarizing. I'd just point out that debates are much more fun (even if less instructive) with a little hyperbole. Plus, it's easy to confuse hyperbole with extreme examples... which can be useful.

 

[Famine]

Tch! Typical bleeding-heart Liberal...

 

[Talentless]

Opinion then, Danoff. Is calling others Fascist, Nazi, comparing Bush or other Presidents with a record not broadly accepted as immoral, usually done in a constructive way in your experience, or the debate tactic of immature persons, or what? I hope I am not coming off as attacking you, and I agree hyperbole can be good, especially for its arguable value of inherent simplicity, but I would like to know more specifically where you stand.

I usually see hyperbole as unfair, weakly based character assassinations, be they directly stated or in the form of a comparison.

 

[Talentless]

Tch! Typical bleeding-heart Liberal...

For the most part, guilty.

 

[Danoff]

Opinion then, Danoff. Is calling others Fascist, Nazi, comparing Bush or other Presidents with a record not broadly accepted as immoral, usually done in a constructive way in your experience, or the debate tactic of immature persons, or what? I hope I am not coming off as attacking you, and I agree hyperbole can be good, especially for its arguable value of inherent simplicity, but I would like to know more specifically where you stand.

I usually see hyperbole as unfair, weakly based character assassinations, be they directly stated or in the form of a comparison.

I'm of the mindset that if you're trying to have a serious discussion and minimize miscommunication, you should try to be as precise as possible - which would rule out hyperbole.

I agree that attempts at stereotyping the person you're talking to or mischacterizing their position are counterproductive and usually used by someone who is incapable of defending their position.

 

[Talentless]

Does that mean you are a Pinko or Fascist?

 

[Danoff]

Does that mean you are a Pinko or Fascist?

Neither. My hyperbolic characterization would be "anarchist". Of course, that characterizes me about as well as "fascist" characterizes republicans. Some of it rings familiar, but mostly it's off-base.

Edit: I see now that you were talking to Famine.

 

[Talentless]

No, I was asking you.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, hyberbole is something that is going to happen from both sides of the political table at some point or another. Obviously, some of it is used to make a point, and other times it borders on slander. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions of certain people, places and things, so I suppose I cannot completely condemn someone for calling Bush a "Modern Hitler."

...But, I can say that I completely dissagree with them, and that it is disrespectful to say that about him, as in my opinion, he is not.

If this was to be a directed action to talk about how Iraq is viewed as "Modern Vietnam" and Bush as "Modern Hitler," its about bloody freaking time.

...Again, given the ammount of time that Bush has been in office, you really cannot forsee how he will be interperated as a President further down the road. Sure, Presidents like Nixon and Truman were hated during their terms, but the History Books have looked back on their Presidencies in a positive manner. Nixon opened up China and lowered tensions between the US and USSR. Truman finished WWII, and set forward American policy for the Cold War.

...With Bush be remembered similarly? He managed to turn the economy around (of course, in a Liberal's mind, that isn't true), improved education (again, debateable), created and adapted to a new form of American foreign policy, and has made America safer from Terrorism (again, debateable).

...As for Hitler comparisons, I don't see any. Bush isn't insane, he isn't executing the "final solution" against Muslims, he isn't invading territory to secure the future for the "master race," etc. So, why is he so comparible to Hitler? He uses nationalism as a tool to increase support for his actions? Guess what, that would mean every world leader is Hitler in some reguard...!

...I also find it quite funny that when Liberals use Hyberbole against Conservatives, it is quite all right. But when the opposite effect happens uppon themselves, the world comes to an end. Double standards? I think so!

 

[Carl.]

Yep, the overuse of some hyperboles, and to a greater extent, the usual stereotyping is quite tiresome. As much as I disagree with Bush foreign policies, and think the war in Iraq is the antithesis of a smart move, Bush isn't Hitler, doesn't have the IQ of a cantaloup (ok, it's close to watermelon levels in public speaking at times). And I have yet to meet someone opposed to the war in Iraq who hates Americans (or is an unpatriotic American), likes to hug trees, hates soldiers serving over there, is supporting terrorism, and has always been a great fan of Saddam Hussein.

As for the usual bipartisan political fights over [insert party here] having done great/poorly in [insert era and topic here], I'm not sure how that relates to hyperboles, but usually there's two answer:

using (Party1 being in power)
a1 = Party1 did a great job!
a2 = 1 / a1

a1 and a2 being, of course, constants. Then there's the real answer, which usually lies somewhere between these two.

Back to hyperboles, I think sometimes it can be useful to highlight a concept by taking it to its limits.

 

[Talentless]

I'll try to see if I can address other things said later, but, Carl, could you elaborate on your formula there? I admit to being pretty retarded on forumlas and math, so I can't really make out what it is you are saying. Sorry.