[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Understood; like most all your posts, you really say nothing of a contributory nature. So your post was pointless.

I just don’t engage with straw man arguments

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Lol. I was waiting for you to bring up strawman; its part of the internet argument trio: logicall fallacy, ad hominem, and strawman. Dude, you are the King of straw man arguments.

Hey, you make ‘em. Don’t kill the messenger

Not my fault that people predisposed to making logical fallacies seem to commit more than one.

And just fyi. Ad hominem and straw man are types of logical fallacies lol

[chad86tsi]

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Oh yeah, that's another great one too. Though in this thread it seems to get incorrectly identified after a straw man. Shame

[M5Rick]

Moving the goalposts, now we see

[fcman]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Moving the goalposts, now we see

It is very common to see an incorrect accusation of "moving the goalposts" after a straw man. Considering a strawman is, by definition, shooting at a different goal.

So I can see why it's easy to get confused

[chad86tsi]

Perhaps there is lack situational awareness. Here is the sequence:

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Another Tes EV shocker, new battery needed after just 48 hours after purchase, so car is a write off.

Originally Posted by fcman

The car has 252k miles, pretty good tbh.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Eh, not impressed.

I'm at 421,000 miles on my 2006 E90. Still on original engine, original transmission, and original fuel pump. The E90 has maintained 98.8% of its original MPG average of 27.46 from 0 to 12,700 miles; now overall MPG is 27.14 (0 to 421,000 miles),

Originally Posted by fcman

For every e90 over 200k miles there are a hundred that didn’t even make it to 120k though. I say that as a former N55 car owner and a sister with a busted N52 car, both under 75k miles and both had tons of issues. And I am meticulous with maintenance, had a 2nd gen turbo rx7 that was running strong at 200k.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

High mileage BMWs are common place. They literally have that reputation.

Originally Posted by fcman

Maybe in BMW circles they do. I don't think I've ever talked to someone in person who thought BMWs were reliable, especially amongst the people I know who have owned BMWs. I don't hang out in BMW enthusiast circles though

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You lack situational awareness, apparently.

Originally Posted by fcman

You must spend way too much time online if you truly believe the average person considers BMWs reliable.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Typical of a person of such political persuasion; changes what I said then tries to argue my point is wrong. LOL.

>>>


Just imagine if we asked for proof of this claim:

Originally Posted by fcman

For every e90 over 200k miles there are a hundred that didn’t even make it to 120k though.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Perhaps there is lack situational awareness. Here is the sequence:


Just imagine if we asked for proof of this claim:

OOO, fun. You certainly can, maybe I'll provide it, maybe I'll conceded the claim, or maybe I'll take a page from your or some of the others' book and provide a strawman.



First "Strawman" is not a strawman. lol Nor is it moving the goalposts. It's a rejection of a claim. The claim is "High mileage BMWs are common place. They literally have that reputation." A strawman would require me to post counter evidence of a similar but not equivalent claim (such as posting reliability reports instead of evidence of BMWs reputation )

NEXT.

Here you miss the ad hominem logical fallacy

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You lack situational awareness, apparently.

2nd strawman is also not a strawman, the claim in debate is still "High mileage BMWs are common place. They literally have that reputation." I have provided no evidence or argument relating to anything else, only anecdotes which set a basis for my opinion (and I never alluded to that opinion being fact)

Again another rejection of the claim. Goalpost is still "provide evidence of BMW's reputation", there has been no evidence posted at this point (or to date lol)

NEXT

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Typical of a person of such political persuasion; changes what I said then tries to argue my point is wrong. LOL.

Another Ad hominem, this comment is arguably a red herring fallacy to claim the argument was always about actual reliability/durability rather than BMW's reputation. You fell for it, I didnt. The claim in question is still "High mileage BMWs are common place. They literally have that reputation."

Any more? Or is that all you got?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

First "Strawman" is not a strawman. lol Nor is it moving the goalposts. It's a rejection of a claim. The claim is "High mileage BMWs are common place. They literally have that reputation." A strawman would require me to post counter evidence of a similar but not equivalent claim (such as posting reliability reports instead of evidence of BMWs reputation )

What If I told you I'm known as a good welder/fabricator, I literally have that reputation...

You then refuted that you have never heard of me or my skills, and that you have talked to others that know about welding/fabrication and they don't tell you about me either.

You would then have changed the terms of my claim as I never set terms at all. You took a vague statement, further defined it (moving goal posts), then set about burning it as a straw man.

Here you miss the ad hominem logical fallacy

pointing out a flawed narrowed approach as the cause for misunderstanding is not the same as a character attack. It's defining the root cause of misunderstanding. The fact that you defined yourself as having a narrow perspective is especially relevant here : I don't hang out in BMW enthusiast circles though. It's not AD-Hom, it's pointing out your self-description, agreeing with it, and pointing out it is a factor.

2nd strawman is also not a strawman, the claim in debate is still "High mileage BMWs are common place. They literally have that reputation."

Again another rejection, of the claim. Goalpost is still "provide evidence of BMW's reputation"

Funny, it was proof, now it's just evidence, another goal post move?

you added that the belief must come from the general population = moved the goal post to the "general population" side of the field.

Another Ad hominem

Any more? Or is that all you got?

Is pointing out your logical fallacy of strawmanning an adhom? If so, you ought to review your own postings.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

What If I told you I'm known as a good welder/fabricator, I literally have that reputation...

You then refuted that you have never heard of me or my skills, and that you have talked to others that know about welding/fabrication and they don't tell you about me either.

You would then have changed the terms of my claim as I never set terms at all. You took a vague statement, further defined it (moving goal posts), then set about burning it as a straw man.

Man, you are so close, I thought you were gonna get there.

How about you try to answer it for yourself? A welder tells you they have a great reputation. And actually you have heard of him and you have heard not great things. You ask him how he knows he has a great reputation so he shows you some things he welded. How exactly does that tell you anything about his reputation? He may be a great welder who likes to murder his customers or he may steal, maybe he's a Nazi well know around town. The quality of work is only 1 piece of an entity's reputation.

pointing out a flawed narrowed approach as the cause for misunderstanding is not the same as a character attack. It's defining the root cause of misunderstanding. The fact that you defined yourself as having a narrow perspective is especially relevant here : I don't hang out in BMW enthusiast circles though. It's not AD-Hom, it's pointing out your self-description, agreeing with it, and pointing out it is a factor.

According to what? Do you know what I mean by "hanging out in BMW circles"? Unlikely. Straw man, and calling it a "lack of self awareness" to dismiss the argument = ad hominem.

Funny, it was proof, now it's just evidence, another goal post move?

I allowed you and him to move the goalposts, not the same lol. A goalpost moving fallacy requires that more evidence be demanded, not less. Goalpost moving is not inherently fallacious

you added that the belief must come from the general population = moved the goal post to the "general population" side of the field.

I used the textbook definition of reputation, you were more than welcome to debate the definition, but this was met with more strawmen lol.

Is pointing out your logical fallacy of strawmanning an adhom? If so, you ought to review your own postings.

No straw man was posted by me, but regardless an ad hominem is still an ad hominem.

Come on, this is just too easy. Also just because I feel like you're on the border here, I should point out that you are dangerously close to attempting to invalidate my argument by pointing out fallacies (if you ever find one), which is in fact a fallacy lol. The only way you win this is by posting proof (sorry, evidence) of BMWs reputation

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The reputation is known within the BMW ownership community; it can't be known outside the ownership community because people who have never owned a BMW (or just leased one for 3 years) would not know due to lack of experience.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. A reputation can and usually will extend past people who have firsthand experience. And in any case, sampling only BMW owners would still be missing a critical sampling from past BMW owners. Who may have that first hand experience and found it less than favorable.

As I originally stated "maybe in BMW communities they do," I fully do believe that within the BMW ownership/enthusiast groups people have favorable feelings about BMWs ability to make long lasting cars, but I have not seen any evidence that they have an overall good reputation for longevity outside of BMW-centric groups. In my personal, anecdotal experience speaking with people outside of those groups, it has been the complete opposite. Those people still hold opinions despite never owning a BMW, and those opinions help build the overall reputation.

I'm willing to have my mind changed.

Edited to clean up, I said "still" way too much lol.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

Sorry, but I completely disagree. A reputation can and usually will extend past people who have firsthand experience. And in any case, sampling only BMW owners would still be missing a critical sampling from past BMW owners. Who may have that first hand experience and found it less than favorable.

As I originally stated "maybe in BMW communities they do," I fully do believe that within the BMW ownership/enthusiast groups people have favorable feelings about BMWs ability to make long lasting cars, but I have not seen any evidence that they have an overall good reputation for longevity outside of BMW-centric groups. In my personal, anecdotal experience speaking with people outside of those groups, it has been the complete opposite. Those people still hold opinions despite never owning a BMW, and those opinions help build the overall reputation.

I'm willing to have my mind changed.

Edited to clean up, I said "still" way too much lol.

If I walk into my local grocery store and ask a random stranger if a Glock is a reliable pistol brand, should I expect a high quality and trustworthy assessment of brand quality perception, and relevant data points to support a reliability opinion?

If they had never owned nor shot a pistol, would I care to take note of what they do have to say, and place that input among other data points from trusted and explicitly experienced sources?

Sample bias is a slippery slope that slides and slips on both ends of the spectrum, but I'll always weigh firsthand experience overall, and educated 2nd hand observers next. the General population as a whole is populated by a bunch of dumbasses, with an average IQ of only 100.

Tesla has a high reputation from the general public, but among those that have owned one it's well known for poor build quality, and actual service data shows a high rate of warranty work and "problems per X" ratio, far higher than industry standard. And yet their reputation among "idiots" remains high. Sample bias or good data analysis? Do actual repairs per X enter this discussion?

I studied Tesla for a while when planning a replacement car purchase. General public consensus was that this was a no-brainer purchase. Perusing Tesla forms changed my mind. It has plenty of Elon Musk nut hangers, but there is plenty of people there that tell horrid stories of defects that Tesla will not remedy, and failures that are clearly systemic. Some of the complainers will even admit to planning their nest car purchase to be a Tesla. One thing I did not find among actual owners was a general consensus that they were reliable or well built, even among the idiots and nut-hangers. Consensus was that they were so cool that the problems were a price worth paying.

I personally would never trust the opinion of the general public, on anything...

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

If I walk into my local grocery store and ask a random stranger if a Glock is a reliable pistol brand, should I expect a high quality and trustworthy assessment of brand quality perception, and relevant data points to support a reliability opinion?

The problem with this analogy is that many people have experience with, have owned, and/or have bought cars. Imagine in that same scenario you asked someone if Glock is reliable and they tell you no, but they own a Sig? Why did they buy a Sig instead of a Glock? Did they think the reputation of sig is better? They potentially have a more favorable opinion of Sig over Glock right?

Same thing when someone buys a Toyota, they could have bought a BMW right? Why didn't they?

If they had never owned nor shot a pistol, would I care to take note of what they do have to say, and place that input among other data points from trusted and explicitly experienced sources?

Probably not, which is why I suggested that a survey of car consumers would be more indicative of BMW's reputation outside of BMW enthusiast groups. Even still though, people with no experience with cars will also hold opinions and that absolutely does play into the overall reputation, though it carries significantly less weight.

Sample bias is a slippery slope that slides and slips on both ends of the spectrum, but I'll always weigh firsthand experience overall, and educated 2nd hand observers next. the General population as a whole is populated by a bunch of dumbasses, with an average IQ of only 100.

Agreed, which is why limiting your sample size to current BMW owners and BMW enthusiasts is inherently flawed. Previous owners and cross shoppers may also have first hand experience. And those people they tell their experience to will also form opinions.

Tesla has a high reputation from the general public, but among those that have owned one it's well known for build quality, and actual service date shows a high rate of warranty work and "problems per X" ratio, far higher than industry standard. And yet their reputation among "idiots" remains high. Sample bias or good data analysis?

Because you don't like them, the people that do are idiots? Maybe those people care less about reliability/longevity/build quality/etc than they do other aspects?

I studied Tesla for a while when planning a replacement car purchase. General public consensus was that this was a no-brainer purchase. Perusing Tesla forms changed my mind. It has plenty of Elon Musk nut hangers, but there is plenty of people there that tell horrid stories of defects that Tesla will not remedy, and failures that are clearly systemic. Some of the complainers will even admit to planning their nest car purchase to be a Tesla. One thing I did not find was a general consensus that they were reliable, even among the idiots and nut-hangers. Consensus was that they were so cool, the problems were a price worth paying.

I personally would never trust the opinion of the general public, on anything...

What's your point? Reputation is not an objective thing. You don't have to trust it or agree with it

[gblansten]

How did this thread become a meta review of rhetoric?

[fcman]

Originally Posted by gblansten

How did this thread become a meta review of rhetoric?

I just like to debate, this seemed like a stocked pond

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

The problem with this analogy is that many people have experience with, have owned, and/or have bought cars. Imagine in that same scenario you asked someone if Glock is reliable and they tell you no, but they own a Sig? Why did they buy a Sig instead of a Glock? Did they think the reputation of sig is better? They potentially have a more favorable opinions of Sig over Glock right?

Same thing when someone buys a Toyota, they could have bought a BMW right? Why didn't they? Which is why I suggested that a survey of car consumers would be more indicative of BMW's reputation outside of BMW enthusiast groups.

Which is why my analogy doesn't talk about guns in general, but rather a specific one.

Would that Sig guy have a more valid opinion on Glock reliability as compared to an actual Glock Owner?

Glock owners can have an opinion on reputation, Sig Owners can have an opinion on reputation, and non-gun owners can have an opinion on reputation. Value and quantifiability diminishes greatly as you slide along the scale of experience with a product.

Would you do your polling for a future pistol purchase at the grocery store, or a gun range?

Toyota buyers often buy a Toyota because they already have one. Crossing brands is a major focus of automotive marketing because it's a big barrier to consumers, they stick with what they know, right or wrong.

Agreed, which is why limiting your sample size to current BMW owners and BMW enthusiasts is inherently flawed. Previous owners and cross shoppers may also have first hand experience. And those people they tell their experience to will also form opinions.

What is your opinion on the Tampon with the best reputation for fit and function? My pre-teen Daughter want's your input.

Because you don't like them, the people that do are idiots? Maybe those people care less about reliability/longevity than they do other aspects?

Don't straw man me. I like idiots, but I don't trust their thoughts.

Reputation is not an objective thing. You don't have to trust it, but to deny it exists is plain ignorance or denial

seems you are arguing against yourself here.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Which is why my analogy doesn't talk about guns in general, but rather a specific one.

Would that Sig guy have a more valid opinion on Glock reliability as compared to an actual Glock Owner?

He very well may:
Maybe he owned a glock before?
Maybe he knows a ton of people who have owned glocks with problem?
Maybe the Glock owner has only ever owned/shopped/shot glocks?

Glock owners can have an opinion on reputation, Sig Owners can have an opinion on reputation, and non-gun owners can have an opinion on reputation. Value and quantifiability diminishes greatly as you slide along the scale of experience with a product.

Would you do your polling for a future pistol purchase at the grocery store, or a gun range?

Would you do a survey for your future pistol purchase in Glock magazine?

Toyota buyers often buy a Toyota because they already have one. Crossing brands is a major focus of automotive marketing because it's a big barrier to consumers, they stick with what they know, right or wrong.

This applies to BMW owners as well, not sure the relevance. They had to have bought a Toyota to begin with right? Or are you suggesting they were born with one?

What is your opinion on the Tampon with the best reputation for fit and function? My pre-teen Daughter want's your input.

Tampax

Don't straw man me. I like idiots, but I don't trust their thoughts.

Then please correct me, what makes them idiots.

seems you are arguing against yourself here.

Not at all. I could see why you think that though.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by fcman

I just like to debate, this seemed like a stocked pond

Made me laugh. Touché.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by fcman

I just like to debate, this seemed like a stocked pond

I guess you could say you're trolling.

[gblansten]

Figured you bastards would love this Tesla joke:

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

I guess you could say you're trolling.

I prefer to consider it “playing the devil’s advocate”😈

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

He very well may:
Maybe he owned a glock before?
Maybe he knows a ton of people who have owned glocks with problem?
Maybe the Glock owner has only ever owned/shopped/shot glocks?

Awful lot of maybe's. If he were none of the above, he has no apparent basis for an opinion unless you can fill me in to demonstrate otherwise. I'd rather stick to "been there done that" sources when given a choice. You have had your own experiences with BMW, so I'd value your input on BMW's more than my neighbor that is also a trusted friend, he owns a Honda and Toyota. You have owned them, and are planning to own more, so I presume they must meet your criteria for purchase. If reliability an durability wasn't part of your purchase criteria, please clarify.

Would you do a survey for your future pistol purchase in Glock magazine?

among others, I might. I went to a tesla forum to study those. I also came here before I got my bimmer. My research at both sites steered my decision. I was also shopping an Alpina B7, and that S63 engine and some of the known problems it has was a turnoff. The M760's N74 has very few fundamental issues, if any. The Tesla model S has several flaws that I'm not willing to live with.

This applies to BMW owners as well, not sure the relevance. They had to have bought a Toyota to begin with right? Or are you suggesting they were born with one?

Are Toyota owners wrong about their opinions about Toyota reliability because it's all they have ever bought?

Then please correct me, what makes them idiots.

Their low IQ, and flawed decision making caused by low IQ. Are you familiar with the definition of idiot?