The other day a friend was visiting from Wisconsin. As has become tradition he brought down an assortment of bottles, as well as a few growlers from Bull Falls Brewery. A growler, for those in need of edification, is a 1/2 gallon bottle, typically used at breweries that do not sell pre-bottled beer. Bull Falls is one of those; although they are looking at introducing bottles. (Please)
We were conversing alternately about technology, politics, and beer, (we only agree on beer) when he mentioned something along the lines of: "When you are a craft brew drinker..." I cut him off there with frantic hand motions. By then I had time to think it through and realized he was, of course, right. Also he did not mean it as an insult, which is what I thought at first. (I get called pretentious on occasion)
I generally now avoid the major label breweries. While I would like to think that my palate has matured and refined, the truth is that is my mind that has matured, if not refined. See in my younger days, as I'm sure most of us did, I laughed at the idea that beer could get better than an MGD. I had tried, once, to buy a pitcher of Leinenkugel's red for my table. It was left half full. For the record they advertise their red as the only one that's different. It is. I have loved every other red beer I have ever tried. I have tried it since, it is still bad. Sorry guys. It really is the only thing you make I don't adore.
I had sworn off anything of the sort... then I tried a Killian's... At any rate that opened up a whole new world for me, beer-wise. But it occurs to me that there is no clear delineation between a craft brew, a micro brew, a regional beer, a brewery, a brew-pub, etc. There really is not a clear-cut definition either, so lets start with what we know.
Brewery: A place that makes beer. Major breweries are Miller, Anhueser Busch, Coors, etc. We will use these as the example of a Major Brewery.
Brew-Pub: A place that makes beer that is for sale only on premises. Some also sell growlers, which confuses things. Most are primarily restaurants.
Based on that, and other prior knowledge we can infer:
Regional Brewery: A place that makes a fair amount of pre-bottled product, but is not available outside a certain range. Lone Star beer is an example of this. (Edit: I was using
Leinenkugel's as an example, but they are wholly owned by a major label)
Micro-Brewery: Oddly most of what we consider "Micro-brews" are either regional brews, or nationally distributed. There are those who would say that Micro-brew, and craft brew are the same thing, and the term Micro-brew is simply becoming unpopular, but I disagree. Lakefront Brewery in Milwaukee is a micro-brew. Not a good one by the way.
Craft Brewery: This is a brewery that is owned and operated by beer lovers. Many do not care if they turn a profit. Bull Falls and New Glarus are good examples. They have a very limited distribution range, and some of the best, most flavorful beers money can buy.
Now I will never turn down a free beer, and sometimes still drink the occasional major label. But really, in the end, I derive much more pleasure from my select favorite Craft brews. There are those who swear that such beers are "fine, if you're only having one." I used to be one of them. That is the lie we tell ourselves when we can't set aside childhood prejudices. (I count childhood to 25, 30 for some of you.)
Cheers!
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Different types of Argument
This is not about the way you fight with a spouse, (mostly) it is about a classification of the arguments themselves. Better minds than mine have devoted much more time to this; and for my part, I have ignored them. I will only be covering tactics and methods used in discussions, not sales tactics, and not actual violence. Instead I present a half-assed overview of the way people try to make a point, or perform stage magic. More on that in a bit.
First, we will present the Mathematical Argument. A+B=C. This is also referred to as "Reason" It is the most rare and precious of arguments. Never seen in the wild, and only a few examples exist in captivity, in the groves of academia. The reason being that if your argument is so easily proved, you normally don't have to make it at all.
A close cousin is the False Mathematical Argument. These are typically multi-step equations, that introduce an error, that may go unnoticed. This is not necessarily intentional.
Next is the Geometric Proof. It begins with items which are "Given". Based on those, other items are Proven. (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Testing-for-Parallel-Lines.topicArticleId-18851,articleId-18780.html) (for example). This argument, which is also fact based, is almost as rare as the Mathematical Argument.
This brings us to the False Geometric Proof. It follows the same methodology as the Geometric Proof, but begins with assumptions, rather than facts. It can be hard to identify since the false assumption can be shared by both parties and it superficially resembles...
Circular Reasoning. The difference is that in circular reasoning, the loop is closed. A cunning debater can even use so large of a circle that it no longer seems round, and the other party quite forgets that A proved B, which proved C, and so on,... and therefore Z proves A, cannot possibly be correct.
We have now seen the two types of reasoning, and three types of false reasoning. We will now examine the stage magic. Each of these types of argument are designed to make you look elsewhere, so you forget what the point of the argument was. This is broadly termed, "Derailing".
The Emotional Plea: This is the one most used by politicians and other weak-minded imbeciles, who do not want you to examine the facts. (See Mathematical Argument, above) There is typically tears, imagery, or both, involved. This takes advantage of the strong emotional response most people have toward certain topics. It is designed to make the facts appear irrelevant.
Next up is the Attack. This tactic is as simple as it is effective. It involves berating the other party about anything and everything in general, to distract them from the point being discussed. This is also known as Arguing like a Man. It is designed to make you forget the point of the discussion.
Then we have the Dredging Tactic. In this tactic one party brings up a time in the past when the other party was wrong, in order to "Prove" they are wrong now. It need not be related, or even have been previously discussed. Also, the second party need not even have been wrong. They will normally be so blindsided by this tactic as to concede the point being dredged up, just to see where the discussion is headed. This is also known as Arguing like a Woman. It is designed to change the point of the argument.
Next is Button Pushing. This can only be used when at least one party has intimate knowledge of the other's points of irritation. It is another derailing tactic, and the lowest of all of them, as there is no premise of ever trying to make a point. Much like the Emotional Plea, it is designed to make you forget about the argument that was begun.
I will close with the Forced Agreement. This employs the same method as Button pushing, but leads one party to a point where both agree. At this point one of the other methods is introduced to convince the second party that despite appearances, they actually agree. This, most insidious of arguments, can be employed whether there is actual agreement or not. It cannot be used by itself.
There are more, so feel free to add some in the comments. Please though, keep it clean, no personal attacks, and above all, well reasoned. In this case please also insure that you are not just calling a tactic a different name. Thanks, and happy arguing.
First, we will present the Mathematical Argument. A+B=C. This is also referred to as "Reason" It is the most rare and precious of arguments. Never seen in the wild, and only a few examples exist in captivity, in the groves of academia. The reason being that if your argument is so easily proved, you normally don't have to make it at all.
A close cousin is the False Mathematical Argument. These are typically multi-step equations, that introduce an error, that may go unnoticed. This is not necessarily intentional.
Next is the Geometric Proof. It begins with items which are "Given". Based on those, other items are Proven. (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Testing-for-Parallel-Lines.topicArticleId-18851,articleId-18780.html) (for example). This argument, which is also fact based, is almost as rare as the Mathematical Argument.
This brings us to the False Geometric Proof. It follows the same methodology as the Geometric Proof, but begins with assumptions, rather than facts. It can be hard to identify since the false assumption can be shared by both parties and it superficially resembles...
Circular Reasoning. The difference is that in circular reasoning, the loop is closed. A cunning debater can even use so large of a circle that it no longer seems round, and the other party quite forgets that A proved B, which proved C, and so on,... and therefore Z proves A, cannot possibly be correct.
We have now seen the two types of reasoning, and three types of false reasoning. We will now examine the stage magic. Each of these types of argument are designed to make you look elsewhere, so you forget what the point of the argument was. This is broadly termed, "Derailing".
The Emotional Plea: This is the one most used by politicians and other weak-minded imbeciles, who do not want you to examine the facts. (See Mathematical Argument, above) There is typically tears, imagery, or both, involved. This takes advantage of the strong emotional response most people have toward certain topics. It is designed to make the facts appear irrelevant.
Next up is the Attack. This tactic is as simple as it is effective. It involves berating the other party about anything and everything in general, to distract them from the point being discussed. This is also known as Arguing like a Man. It is designed to make you forget the point of the discussion.
Then we have the Dredging Tactic. In this tactic one party brings up a time in the past when the other party was wrong, in order to "Prove" they are wrong now. It need not be related, or even have been previously discussed. Also, the second party need not even have been wrong. They will normally be so blindsided by this tactic as to concede the point being dredged up, just to see where the discussion is headed. This is also known as Arguing like a Woman. It is designed to change the point of the argument.
Next is Button Pushing. This can only be used when at least one party has intimate knowledge of the other's points of irritation. It is another derailing tactic, and the lowest of all of them, as there is no premise of ever trying to make a point. Much like the Emotional Plea, it is designed to make you forget about the argument that was begun.
I will close with the Forced Agreement. This employs the same method as Button pushing, but leads one party to a point where both agree. At this point one of the other methods is introduced to convince the second party that despite appearances, they actually agree. This, most insidious of arguments, can be employed whether there is actual agreement or not. It cannot be used by itself.
There are more, so feel free to add some in the comments. Please though, keep it clean, no personal attacks, and above all, well reasoned. In this case please also insure that you are not just calling a tactic a different name. Thanks, and happy arguing.
Monday, January 2, 2012
The Evangelical Atheist.
I have a friend who is an avowed atheist. Most people who know him do not know this. Not because he hides it, but because, like most normal people, it just doesn't come up much in his conversations. Most atheists are fairly quiet on the topic unless asked, just like most Christians, most Buddhists, most Jews, most Muslims, Wiccans, etc. Most people don't throw out opinions on potentially sensitive issues. Most won't share unless directly asked.
This is not about them. This is not a critique of atheism. Atheism, believe it or not, is a religious viewpoint. It is therefore a personally held belief (or lack thereof). It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Unless you are "that guy". You know who you are. The one who just has to "correct" people who are discussing religion, or God, or anything of that nature.
There is only one objection most people of one religion, raise against another. The need some members have to "convert" you, to their way of thinking. Evangelism is annoying, pig-headed, ignorant behavior, that assumes no-one else's view could possibly be correct. To evangelize, in the modern world, is the most insufferable kind of behavior. We all have access (in the first world anyway) to all the information we require to make an informed decision about our belief in the God, or gods of our choosing.
The only time that behavior is worse, is when it is embodied by an atheist. That's right, atheists can be evangelical. We have all met at least one. "What is wrong with you? How can someone, who is otherwise so smart, believe in God?" Now aside from the obvious flaw in that logic, (smart person disagrees with me on only one single point, yet they are obviously wrong here) it is also indicative of someone who is incapable of either empathy, or the ability to even value another's opinion. Something akin to a sociopath.
Pascal's Wager aside, (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/) (scroll down to the decision matrix for a quick shot) there is no need to try to convert believers into non-believers. For someone to have faith in anything, despite the world functioning the way it does; and despite the number of people who believe something else, means that one more yammering moron will not convince them otherwise. So stop trying. If you are right, and there is nothing else, be content with being right. But I will contend that, just as in religious circles, evangelism is a sign of weak faith. You need others to believe you are right in order to believe it yourself. Belief that requires validation, is not belief. It is trying to convince yourself by convincing others.
I will state again, I do not think this of all atheists. Mostly, they are a good lot. But the ones who feel a RELIGIOUS NEED, to CONVERT me to their way of thinking need a psychological examination. (And yes, I fell the same about religious types, thanks for asking.) It is comical to hear someone evangelize about the lack of a religion. Those people need a name, so I am humbly suggesting the title above. "The Evangelical Atheist."
This is not about them. This is not a critique of atheism. Atheism, believe it or not, is a religious viewpoint. It is therefore a personally held belief (or lack thereof). It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Unless you are "that guy". You know who you are. The one who just has to "correct" people who are discussing religion, or God, or anything of that nature.
There is only one objection most people of one religion, raise against another. The need some members have to "convert" you, to their way of thinking. Evangelism is annoying, pig-headed, ignorant behavior, that assumes no-one else's view could possibly be correct. To evangelize, in the modern world, is the most insufferable kind of behavior. We all have access (in the first world anyway) to all the information we require to make an informed decision about our belief in the God, or gods of our choosing.
The only time that behavior is worse, is when it is embodied by an atheist. That's right, atheists can be evangelical. We have all met at least one. "What is wrong with you? How can someone, who is otherwise so smart, believe in God?" Now aside from the obvious flaw in that logic, (smart person disagrees with me on only one single point, yet they are obviously wrong here) it is also indicative of someone who is incapable of either empathy, or the ability to even value another's opinion. Something akin to a sociopath.
Pascal's Wager aside, (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/) (scroll down to the decision matrix for a quick shot) there is no need to try to convert believers into non-believers. For someone to have faith in anything, despite the world functioning the way it does; and despite the number of people who believe something else, means that one more yammering moron will not convince them otherwise. So stop trying. If you are right, and there is nothing else, be content with being right. But I will contend that, just as in religious circles, evangelism is a sign of weak faith. You need others to believe you are right in order to believe it yourself. Belief that requires validation, is not belief. It is trying to convince yourself by convincing others.
I will state again, I do not think this of all atheists. Mostly, they are a good lot. But the ones who feel a RELIGIOUS NEED, to CONVERT me to their way of thinking need a psychological examination. (And yes, I fell the same about religious types, thanks for asking.) It is comical to hear someone evangelize about the lack of a religion. Those people need a name, so I am humbly suggesting the title above. "The Evangelical Atheist."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)