Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I dont mean to conduct argument by youtube, but when someone has done all your research and summed up the situation nicely...

The first two videos sum up the entire incident and the liberal reaction to it(as represented by "The Young Turks", the third is a summation of the situation in SA and includes all the data on rape in that country and the general direction in which the country is heading.

Its Stefan molyneux........
https://hailtothegynocracy.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/stefan-molyneux-blames-the-worlds-evil-on-women-who-choose-assholes/

David Icke is more credible.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

Its Stefan molyneux........
https://hailtothegynocracy.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/stefan-molyneux-blames-the-worlds-evil-on-women-who-choose-assholes/

David Icke is more credible.

Are

Argumentum Ad Hominem
Argumentum Ad 'Blog Post'

any more valuable than

'Argumentum ad Youtube'

(I ask this in total and utter ignorance of who the person is, what they've done or what that blog says about them)

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

(I ask this in total and utter ignorance of who the person is, what they've done or what that blog says about them)

If you had actually looked at it you would have seen that what it does for the most part is quote Stefan Molyneux, from one of his rants, which is generally the way one presents things for discussion.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

If you had actually looked at it you would have seen that what it does for the most part is quote Stefan Molyneux, from one of his rants, which is generally the way one presents things for discussion.

Does that answer my question? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't.

And another hint, the answer is no.

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

Does that answer my question? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't.

And another hint, the answer is no.

If you want to give credibility to a knuckle dragging "mans rights" goon who goes on about a war on men and white people feel free, but please don't expect anyone with a grain of sense to bother.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

If you want to give credibility to a knuckle dragging "mans rights" goon who goes on about a war on men and white people feel free, but please don't expect anyone with a grain of sense to bother.

Another Ad Hominem. Consistent at least.

These add nothing but noise to the argument (I don't know what his argument is, I am not defending it, I know nothing of it's credibility. It is extraneous to what I am asking you. I am questioning the value of your "attack").

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

Another Ad Hominem. Consistent at least.

These add nothing but noise to the argument (I don't know what his argument is, I am not defending it, I am questioning your 'attack' on it though).

A link was provided to easily readable content, that also has a link to the full rant to show the context should anyone be interested in subjecting themselves to it. You couldn't be bothered to look at it, haven't a clue what hes saying, but seem more interested in having a go at me. I confess I've little curiosity as to why.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

A link was provided to easily readable content, that also has a link to the full rant to show the context should anyone be interested in subjecting themselves to it. You couldn't be bothered to look at it, haven't a clue what hes saying, but seem more interested in having a go at me. I confess I've little curiosity as to why.

If the guy further up the thread posted this about his youtube video would you accept it?

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

If the guy further up the thread posted this about his youtube video would you accept it?

But I haven't linked to a video......

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

But I haven't linked to a video......

Oh. So Argumentum ad Bloggum is more valuable than Argumentum ad Youtubeum? Why didn't you just say that when I asked you?

I disagree totally, but so long as you offer consistency across the board, I don't have a problem with it. Double standards I would have an issue with though...

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh. So Argumentum ad Bloggum is more valuable than Argumentum ad Youtubeum? Why didn't you just say that when I asked you?

I disagree totally, but so long as you offer consistency across the board, I don't have a problem with it.

For the last time, in case its been less than obvious - the link goes to a series of quotes from the goon in question, which are illustrative of the kind of idiocy he spouts. What you do or do not have a problem with is irrelevant, given the fact you are clearly out to get a reaction. Read it, don't read it.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

For the last time, in case its been less than obvious - the link goes to a series of quotes from the goon in question, which are illustrative of the kind of idiocy he spouts. What you do or do not have a problem with is irrelevant, given the fact you are clearly out to get a reaction. Read it, don't read it.

Do the quotes on the blog refute the argument?

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Its Stefan molyneux........
https://hailtothegynocracy.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/stefan-molyneux-blames-the-worlds-evil-on-women-who-choose-assholes/

David Icke is more credible.

What does that have to do with anything? I didnt realise you have to agree with someone 100% of the time and they also have to be correct 100% of the time for them to be worth a listen.

Hitchens became a neo con and supported the war in Iraq, he was also a Communist in his youth, should I discount everything and consign him to the dustbin because of those things?

Do black South Africans have a rape culture?

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Are

Argumentum Ad Hominem
Argumentum Ad 'Blog Post'

any more valuable than

'Argumentum ad Youtube'

(I ask this in total and utter ignorance of who the person is, what they've done or what that blog says about them)

Yes - Argument Ad Hominem is valid, when the credibility of a source is valid to question - in this case a 90 minute long YouTube video, which nobody should be expected to take as credible.

In fact, a 90 minute long YouTube video, is perhaps the most perfect example of why Ad Hominem is a valid argument, when it comes to a sources credibility:
If a source is demonstrably not credible, then if you disallow Ad Hominem as an invalid argument, then it becomes a complete practical impossibility time-wise, to sift through multiple 90-minute long videos that a posters throws at you in debate.

This is exactly why, Ad Hominem is a necessity in attacking the credibility of sources in cases like this - and why that is valid, simply as a matter of practicality, in online discussion.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh. So Argumentum ad Bloggum is more valuable than Argumentum ad Youtubeum? Why didn't you just say that when I asked you?

I disagree totally, but so long as you offer consistency across the board, I don't have a problem with it. Double standards I would have an issue with though...

If you can show a credibility problem with the author of a blog post, then that's perfectly relevant to a discussion - there doesn't have to be any double standard.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you can show a credibility problem with the author of a blog post, then that's perfectly relevant to a discussion - there doesn't have to be any double standard.

An argument does not rest on the credibility of the proposer. It is extraneous to that proposer.

Ad Hominem is not a valid argument.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything? ........

It's froth about the rabid mouth. Evidence of nuttery.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes - Argument Ad Hominem is valid, when the credibility of a source is valid to question - in this case a 90 minute long YouTube video, which nobody should be expected to take as credible.

In fact, a 90 minute long YouTube video, is perhaps the most perfect example of why Ad Hominem is a valid argument, when it comes to a sources credibility:
If a source is demonstrably not credible, then if you disallow Ad Hominem as an invalid argument, then it becomes a complete practical impossibility time-wise, to sift through multiple 90-minute long videos that a posters throws at you in debate.

This is exactly why, Ad Hominem is a necessity in attacking the credibility of sources in cases like this - and why that is valid, simply as a matter of practicality, in online discussion.

Not just a little subjective, not just a little baseless, and not just a little wrong.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Lurkio

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you can show a credibility problem with the author of a blog post, then that's perfectly relevant to a discussion - there doesn't have to be any double standard.

Presumably this will come up again in the astronomy forum, when somebody dismisses someone because they being their theory with references to how meteors are Dragons and meteors are in fact the myth.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

Presumably this will come up again in the astronomy forum, when somebody dismisses someone because they being their theory with references to how meteors are Dragons and meteors are in fact the myth.

Or those arguments will just be defeated on their own merits?

If the guy on the Astronomy Forum who for years has posted rabid nonsense after rabid nonsense posts that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system, is that somehow not true now because he has never been right about anything before?

Are you seriously suggesting that an Ad Hominem is not a fallacy?

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

An argument does not rest on the credibility of the proposer. It is extraneous to that proposer.

Ad Hominem is not a valid argument.

I'm not talking about the validity of an argument - you don't have to actually deal with an argument, if the only expression of it is a non-credible source - especially if the argument, is composed of a 90-minute long YouTube video.

Ad Hominem is valid for dismissing sources and their arguments - it's not intended to disprove arguments, it's the equivalent of saying to a poster "you'll have to do better than that...or actually bother putting the argument and defence of it, in your own words, as your source is completely non-credible".

It's a simple matter of practicality in online discussion: There are a lot of cases where Ad Hominem is valid, simply because if it were disallowed, discussion would be completely impractical - because your opponents could just throw garbage at you, in the form of e.g. 90-minute-long YouTube videos, simply to waste your time and set up ridiculous time-wasting obstacles for you.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Not just a little subjective, not just a little baseless, and not just a little wrong.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Your interpretation of my post is wrong - what you cited is about defeating an argument, what I said doesn't involve attack an argument itself.

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

Or those arguments will just be defeated on their own merits?

They were defeated. Why should we refute the same crap again?

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not talking about the validity of an argument - you don't have to actually deal with an argument, if the only expression of it is a non-credible source - especially if the argument, is composed of a 90-minute long YouTube video.

You don't have to do anything. Choosing to engage a point or a post is just that, a choice.

When you choose to engage a post 'in order to dismiss it', and post fallacies in order to 'legitimise' your dismissal, you are posting nonsense. It doesn't even matter if the other person is posting nonsense, you are joining them.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ad Hominem is valid for dismissing sources and their arguments - it's not intended to disprove arguments, it's the equivalent of saying to a poster "you'll have to do better than that...or actually bother putting the argument and defence of it, in your own words, as your source is completely non-credible".

No it's not.

It's quite simply invalid in any debate, it is putting your fingers in your ears and saying that you refuse to listen to the argument because of where it comes from. You of course are free to choose to put your finger in your ears, however posting that you are putting your fingers in your ears doesn't legitimise putting your fingers in your ears. It's simply adding noise!

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's a simple matter of practicality in online discussion: There are a lot of cases where Ad Hominem is valid, simply because if it were disallowed, discussion would be completely impractical - because your opponents could just throw garbage at you, in the form of e.g. 90-minute-long YouTube videos, simply to waste your time and set up ridiculous time-wasting obstacles for you.

There are no cases when Ad Hominem is valid, unless it can be shown that the argument that is being made by the proposer is false because of who is saying it.

It is not valid to simply assert 'this is false because of who is saying this', it could however be valid but only once you've explained why the source of the argument renders it as false. (Note of course that 'they have been wrong / biased before' is not a valid reason to explain why the source of the argument renders this argument false though...)

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

They were defeated. Why should we refute the same crap again?

Perhaps if you answered my questions the first time round it would help?

I asked if the arguments (which I still have no idea of!) were somehow refuted by the blog post that you posted. You didn't answer.

All I have seen is Ad Hominem attacks (attacking the proposer not the proposal) and a somewhat hypocritical 'Argumentum Ad Bloggum' presented as some form of debate.

None of which refuted any arguments. They certainly attacked a proposer, but not their arguments (which of course are extraneous to that proposer, given the simple fact that anyone could repeat them and so they are independent of the proposer).

Lurkio

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps if you answered my questions the first time round it would help?

I asked if the arguments (which I still have no idea of!) were somehow refuted by the blog post that you posted. You didn't answer.

.

I did. Given my suspicion that this is a bit of wummery I did not nor do I intend to explain myself further.

Lurkio

Lurkio wrote: »

I did. Given my suspicion that this is a bit of wummery I did not nor do I intend to explain myself further.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are

Argumentum Ad Hominem
Argumentum Ad 'Blog Post'

any more valuable than

'Argumentum ad Youtube'

?

unanswered

Deleted User wrote: »

If the guy further up the thread posted this about his youtube video would you accept it?

unanswered

Deleted User wrote: »

Do the quotes on the blog refute the argument?

unanswered

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

^^ Ya that's a pet peeve of mine, I always label this as "Argument by YouTube", and refuse to engage with it [...]

Likewise - hence the mod-level request above to debate the issue, not have other people do it for you - or indeed, just play that curious musical thing from Tanganyika.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I dont mean to conduct argument by youtube, but when someone has done all your research and summed up the situation nicely...

90 minutes isn't a summary, even of a speech by Fidel Castro.

And you might have warned potential viewers that the first video contained a long and rambling discussion about a home-made musical instrument that sounds like it was made from coat-hangers and which produces a most home-made sound. Very interesting stuff, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

In any case, A+A is a discussion board, not a link farm.

Again, thanking youze.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't have to do anything. Choosing to engage a point or a post is just that, a choice.

When you choose to engage a post 'in order to dismiss it', and post fallacies in order to 'legitimise' your dismissal, you are posting nonsense. It doesn't even matter if the other person is posting nonsense, you are joining them.

No it's not.

It's quite simply invalid in any debate, it is putting your fingers in your ears and saying that you refuse to listen to the argument because of where it comes from. You of course are free to choose to put your finger in your ears, however posting that you are putting your fingers in your ears doesn't legitimise putting your fingers in your ears. It's simply adding noise!



There are no cases when Ad Hominem is valid, unless it can be shown that the argument that is being made by the proposer is false because of who is saying it.

It is not valid to simply assert 'this is false because of who is saying this', it could however be valid but only once you've explained why the source of the argument renders it as false. (Note of course that 'they have been wrong / biased before' is not a valid reason to explain why the source of the argument renders this argument false though...)

Ok - back to ignoring you - this is back to the same type of posting I experience from you, every time. In the above reply to me, you are deliberately ignoring me saying:
"I'm not talking about the validity of an argument"..."it's not intended to disprove arguments"

Then you go on to just repeat exactly what I rebutted, as if I had not said the above.

When you're attacking the credibility of a source, and when the credibility of a source is relevant to the discussion at hand and e.g. relevant to whether a poster should - within practicality - be expected to address a sources argument, Ad Hominem is perfectly valid - and says nothing about whether the argument itself is true or false (and neither is it intended to).

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ok - back to ignoring you - this is back to the same type of posting I experience from you, every time. In the above reply to me, you are deliberately ignoring me saying:
"I'm not talking about the validity of an argument"..."it's not intended to disprove arguments"

What is the point of it so? Is it, as I have just pointed out, simply noise?

Are you going to tell me that when you simply dismiss an argument that it no longer exists? No longer needs to be defeated and placed on the pile with other demonstrably incorrect arguments? Or is it simply 'to be ignored'? (Fingers in ears)

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Then you go on to just repeat exactly what I rebutted, as if I had not said the above.

Perhaps you might advance the position beyond "I want the ability to ignore arguments because the person who makes them isn't to my liking"?
And "I seek to provide some layer of legitimacy to my ignorance"?
(though of course it doesn't offer a shred of legitimacy)

KomradeBishop wrote: »

When you're attacking the credibility of a source, and when the credibility of a source is relevant to the discussion at hand and e.g. relevant to whether a poster should - within practicality - be expected to address a sources argument, Ad Hominem is perfectly valid - and says nothing about whether the argument itself is true or false (and neither is it intended to).

Ad Hominem is only valid when you show that the argument is false because of who is proposing it.

You keep making this strange connection with the source of an argument and the argument itself. An argument is by and large extraneous and independent from any sources that wish to offer it. This is remarkably easy to reason.

Consider a general argument. Consider that it is proposed by Person X. Consider that it is then proposed elsewhere by Person Y. Has the fact that it has been proposed by either of those Persons any effect whatsoever on the argument itself?

If the argument is therefore extraneous from the source, then no amount of Ad Hominem has any bearing on the argument, and so when you commit Ad Hominem, all you are doing is smearing a source, and ignoring the argument that they have proposed. (Noise & fingers in ears)

If that argument is wrong, show that it is wrong. Showing that the proposer is X Y or Z does not show that it is wrong. If you want to develop the assertion that 'Proposer is X Y or Z and therefore the argument is wrong' you are invited to do so. This is the case where Ad Hominem is valid, but requires more than baseless assertion.