Bad Arguments That Make You Smarter

[Arising_uk]

Yes, in spite of all the adverse effects of these educational influences he became able to learn about reality. This is very unusual and is indicative of real talent.

This is incorrect. Einstein had one specific complaint and it was with the rote learning method and had bugger all to do with your idea that one should teach your preferred form of 'spirituality' to children. He appeared quite happy at with the rest of his education.

[creativesoul]

What else could 'it' be would all depend on what that 'certain type' of counterargument is, which you are referring to?

Fer fuck's sake ken. Did you read and pay attention to the article? The author was talking about a certain kind of argument that is called an ad hominem.

You suggested rather than calling out a fallacious counterargument by it's name(ad hominem), that we should just "say something for what it really is". That's precisely what the author was doing!!! A particular kind of fallacious argument really is an ad hominem.

Your focus was purely upon the author's person, as UK aptly explained already. The irony, of course, is that in your fervor to find fault, you committed an ad hominem by virtue of basing your objection upon your thought/belief about the author's person rather than the content of the writing.

[Nick_A]

Arising wrote: This is incorrect. Einstein had one specific complaint and it was with the rote learning method and had bugger all to do with your idea that one should teach your preferred form of 'spirituality' to children. He appeared quite happy at with the rest of his education.

This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.

[Dalek Prime]

Arising wrote: This is incorrect. Einstein had one specific complaint and it was with the rote learning method and had bugger all to do with your idea that one should teach your preferred form of 'spirituality' to children. He appeared quite happy at with the rest of his education.

This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.

You're assuming your spirituality should be taught to children. None of this should. It's tantamount to brainwashing and child abuse. You can't sway one adult, so you prey on children?

[creativesoul]

...You're assuming your spirituality should be taught to children. It's tantamount to brainwashing and child abuse. You can't sway one adult, so you prey on children?

The second claim above is misleading at best and false when compared to many real life situations. Do not be misled. I'm no theist. Not all sprituality is tantamount to brainwashing. You have a suspect notion of brainwashing. I would like to see a criterion which, when met, is capable of distinguishing between brainwashing and original/initial language acquisition.

[Dalek Prime]

...You're assuming your spirituality should be taught to children. It's tantamount to brainwashing and child abuse. You can't sway one adult, so you prey on children?

The second claim above is misleading at best and false when compared to many real life situations. Do not be misled. I'm no theist. Not all sprituality is tantamount to brainwashing. You have a suspect notion of brainwashing. I would like to see a criterion which, when met, counts as brainwashing that is able to distinguish between brainwashing and original/initial language acquisition.

Initial language acquisition? If a kid starts spouting ideology, or ideas from it at a young age, uncritically, it's brainwashing. Or what every other religious nut calls 'passing on tradition'. Same thing Al Ma'arri was saying as early as the 10th. century, and Russell, again, in his Teapot essay. Nothing new to what I'm saying here bud.

And don't answer again when I'm not addressing you, unless you're a sock puppet.

[Nick_A]

D P wrote:

This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.

You're assuming your spirituality should be taught to children. None of this should. It's tantamount to brainwashing and child abuse. You can't sway one adult, so you prey on children?

You just want a chance to be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm. OK, if you can tell me what my preferred form of spirituality is that should be taught to children, you will be in the running along with Arising.

[Dalek Prime]

D P wrote:

This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.

You're assuming your spirituality should be taught to children. None of this should. It's tantamount to brainwashing and child abuse. You can't sway one adult, so you prey on children?

You just want a chance to be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm. OK, if you can tell me what my preferred form of spirituality is that should be taught to children, you will be in the running along with Arising.

Quote me properly, or don't quote me at all Nick.

It doesn't matter what you want to put in a kids head. Don't do it. I'm against instilling any belief system into a child who can't reasonably question it, or question the authority figure.

My parents were nominally Anglican. They left me to figure out my own way, and decide for myself.. As it should be. You? You think you way is the right way, and want to infect another with it, who doesn't have the wherewithal to question anything for themselves.

A child who is raised a Muslim will be a Muslim. A Jew, a Jew. A Hindu, the same. And you all get them young, so your foolish ideas will be carried down, because most rational adults can't be duped this way, and your faith will end. And because you have a vested interest in it, you fear it failing.

[ken]

What else could 'it' be would all depend on what that 'certain type' of counterargument is, which you are referring to?

Your's basically ken, as you are saying his point is not worth it because he is an 'elitist', i.e. a disguised ad hominem.

I never argued about anything else that henrick said. I only wrote directly in relation to those three sentences that henrick wrote and I never disguised anything. I said, "To Me, henrik does not appear very smart at all with these type of statements. henrik only appears as an elitist who thinks that having some sort of intellect puts one person above another." which, to Me, is not an attack of the character of the person but only what appeared to Me from those three thoughts.

It was pointed out that "Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning", so, i thought it appropriate to say henrick does not appear smart, to me, when using fallacious reasoning whilst expressing, especially this point. However, with hindsight and considering the topic name is "Bad Arguments That Make You Smarter", then it could be now argued that noticing and labeling various different types of bad arguments like henrick's bad, fallacious argument here could make us all smarter.

I NEVER argued that that henrick's point is not worth it just because it came from what appeared to be an elitist's viewpoint, to Me. What I did argue was the point trying to be expressed in those three sentences may well, and in all circumstances would, work in a discussion with a more and very intellectual person educated on the subject of philosophy, but it would not necessarily work, and may in fact counter work, on with someone of My caliber, i.e., very simple and not 'educated' at all. 'Educated', from the present day meaning of educated that is.

Henrik wasn't saying that you tell your interlocutor what they are doing

I never once thought that and I never suggest that anywhere.

but to just notice that what they are doing is an informal fallacy when arguing, how you deal with it is then up to you.

Yes that is how I read the article also.

But what I was just pointing out was in the fallacy, itself, in the thinking within those three sentences. Fallacies after all is what we are being asked to look out for. Making any assumption in any way is, I see, faulty reasoning and a "wrong move" to make when making any arguments. But to make the assumption that if i speak in a certain way or use terminology, or language, in a certain way that then has the authority of logic, and, then thinking that infers that just because what i was pointing out had a technical name - ad hominem - then the interlocutor would perhaps believe i was really onto something, is even further faulty reasoning and another "wrong move" to make here. If a person thinks that another person is perhaps 'really onto something' just because they have used a technical name is a fallacy, itself.

This type of thinking I view as elitist thinking, which may work for those people who like to think that a person is some how more or better than another just because they know some technical names or that superiority comes from having learned more, or more technical names. But, to Me, this is type of thinking is just another fallacious reasoning, in of itself, i.e., elitist thinking, which I now call elitist fallacy.

Henrick wrote, "A particular step forward has been the identification and labelling of various different types of bad argument, collectively known as informal fallacies. These now go by widely-recognized and sometimes colourful names." All I am doing is just pointing out a bad argument, which came from the faulty reasoning of what assuming, itself, is.

[ken]

What else could 'it' be would all depend on what that 'certain type' of counterargument is, which you are referring to?

Fer fuck's sake ken. Did you read and pay attention to the article? The author was talking about a certain kind of argument that is called an ad hominem.

You suggested rather than calling out a fallacious counterargument by it's name(ad hominem), that we should just "say something for what it really is". That's precisely what the author was doing!!! A particular kind of fallacious argument really is an ad hominem.

I NEVER suggested that at all. If you re-read what I actually wrote and/or asked for clarity, then you would not be thinking/believing what you do now.

Your focus was purely upon the author's person, as UK aptly explained already. The irony, of course, is that in your fervor to find fault, you committed an ad hominem by virtue of basing your objection upon your thought/belief about the author's person rather than the content of the writing.

That thought/belief is so totally wrong. I NEVER based anything on the character of a person. But 'belief' being the highest of all faulty reasoning then your reasoning here is totally understandable. Therefore, ou may like to read what I wrote in response to arising_uk, instead of explaining it again here.

[creativesoul]

Whatever ken...

[creativesoul]

...You're assuming your spirituality should be taught to children. It's tantamount to brainwashing and child abuse. You can't sway one adult, so you prey on children?

The second claim above is misleading at best and false when compared to many real life situations. Do not be misled. I'm no theist. Not all sprituality is tantamount to brainwashing. You have a suspect notion of brainwashing. I would like to see a criterion which, when met, counts as brainwashing that is able to distinguish between brainwashing and original/initial language acquisition.

Initial language acquisition? If a kid starts spouting ideology, or ideas from it at a young age, uncritically, it's brainwashing. Or what every other religious nut calls 'passing on tradition'. Same thing Al Ma'arri was saying as early as the 10th. century, and Russell, again, in his Teapot essay. Nothing new to what I'm saying here bud.

And don't answer again when I'm not addressing you, unless you're a sock puppet.

I would like to see a criterion which, when met, counts as brainwashing that is able to distinguish between brainwashing and original/initial language acquisition. If you cannot provide that much, there is no reason for me to think/believe that you know what you're talking about...

[Dalek Prime]

The second claim above is misleading at best and false when compared to many real life situations. Do not be misled. I'm no theist. Not all sprituality is tantamount to brainwashing. You have a suspect notion of brainwashing. I would like to see a criterion which, when met, counts as brainwashing that is able to distinguish between brainwashing and original/initial language acquisition.

Initial language acquisition? If a kid starts spouting ideology, or ideas from it at a young age, uncritically, it's brainwashing. Or what every other religious nut calls 'passing on tradition'. Same thing Al Ma'arri was saying as early as the 10th. century, and Russell, again, in his Teapot essay. Nothing new to what I'm saying here bud.

And don't answer again when I'm not addressing you, unless you're a sock puppet.

I would like to see a criterion which, when met, counts as brainwashing that is able to distinguish between brainwashing and original/initial language acquisition. If you cannot provide that much, there is no reason for me to think/believe that you know what you're talking about...

Provide me your's doofus. Set the boundaries, or shut up. I couldn't care less what you think you know me, or your opinion of me. I wasn't even talking to you in the first place, so fuck you and any demands you have. You haven't shown me you can distinguish between the two, yourself. And since your started barking first, the onus is on you, not me.

Otherwise, piss off. Simple as that.

[creativesoul]

The burden is on you. I'm not the one who is claiming that teaching spirituality is brainwashing and child abuse... you are. As I said, if you have no criterion for what counts as brainwashing but not normal, everyday, regular, non-brainwashing language acquisition, then you cannot know what you're talking about.

Not all religion and/or spirituality is the same. I whole-heartedly agree with Russell's criticisms of Christianity. The sentiment is shared. You are no Russell. He knew what he was talking about and gave the strongest justification I've ever seen for "Why I'm not a Christian". To quite the contrary, you've given me to no reason to think/believe the same of you.

[Dalek Prime]

Okay, you couldn't be bothered, and neither could I. End of. Enjoy. I stand by what I said.