Arising_uk wrote:ken wrote: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.
Arising_uk wrote:Henrik wasn't saying that you tell your interlocutor what they are doing
I never once thought that and I never suggest that anywhere.
Arising_uk wrote: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.
