Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote: Actually, my presentation is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

Your transmissions are nothing but weak assertions, puffed up with arrogance. And that in a nutshell is your bad argument, which makes me smarter.



Fractured Fairy Tales always slips in a parallel plot (or joke) for adults that goes unseen by children.

Actually, it just proves you have a bigger ego. And to be completely unaware of how stunningly stupid you really are.

Move along little dog. You're done pooping in my front yard.

Aww, to heck with it Walker. I've changed my mind, and do indeed want to hear how you logically infer both the existence of spirit, and its separation from the body. I'm all ears and eyes.

Walker does not even know the meaning of logic.
I'd not hold my breath if I were you.

Even the air mattress I slept on didn't hold it's breath. Just as well.

The presentation is already complete, unrefuted, and indeed irrefutable. However, you seem to think that your inability to fit reality into the small world (box) of your creation constitutes some kind of rational proof, presentation, rebuttal or contradiction. Thus a dalek limitation is revealed.

Just as I thought. Nothing here to see. Just exterminators saying, "Uhhhh, Huh?"

All eyes, all ears, no brains.
Typical dalek and dalek wannabe.

Wastin my time and my natural good nature on the likes of this.

Ain't it a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll1toKk0_H8

Default dalek is "exterminate." Default response to that is: "fuck off."
Save it for future reference, as response to any clever variations of the default.

Good grief. The hour glass is light on top and I must be a moron.

Dalek Prime wrote: Aww, to heck with it Walker. I've changed my mind, and do indeed want to hear how you logically infer both the existence of spirit, and its separation from the body. I'm all ears and eyes.

May I have a go at this?

If so, then I just need your rough definition for 'spirit'.

Dalek Prime wrote:...you haven't proven language acquisition proves truth of that being taught...

Irrelevant. I need not prove that language acquisition proves truth of that being taught in order to prove that your notion of brainwashing is ill-conceived at best, and utterly meaningless at worst. You've evidently missed the point of my criticisms. Your notion of brainwashing leads to a reduction ad absurdum. Here it is...

p1. All teaching of falsehood amounts to brainwashing and/or child abuse <----------That's yours. I'm granting it here for argument's sake.
p2. All thought/belief systems include some falsehood <------------That's true.
C1. Teaching any thought/belief system amounts to brainwashing and/or child abuse <---------That's a valid conclusion.

The obvious problem is that the conclusion is false. True premisses cannot validly lead to false conclusions. So, at least one of the premisses is wrong or it's an invalid argument. Premiss two is true, and it's valid. Thus, the first premiss is false.


There's a bit of irony here, for not only does your notion of brainwashing lead to a reductio ad absurdum, but you've shown as much unshakable certainty in your own false thought/belief as any True Believer I've ever met has in theirs, despite both, you and they, being provided overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It's the cart before the horse.

A misuse of an otherwise meaningful idiom...

I've already stated that false teachings occur societally, and you did not accept that...

The above is false. Anyone can peruse my last several posts and find prima facie evidence of that. I'm left to wonder how you could possibly walk away thinking/believing that I did not accept that false teachings occur societally. The only possible way is if you did not or do not understand what I've been saying. One who understands what I've written would also understand that my argument against your blather about brainwashing puts to use exactly what you're claiming I haven't accepted. Fer fuck's sake... pay attention.

Not my problem that you don't accept when I say that truth does not have to be spoken to acquire language. Language can just as easily be acquired through false teachings.

Your problem is reading comprehension. Of course language acquisition includes teaching some falsehood. That's a small part of the bigger point being made here. So what? It doesn't follow from the fact that all language acquisition includes teaching some falsehood that all teaching of falsehood is brainwashing.

You merely have a different opinion which you can't prove. So quit barking at me like a little frazzled doggy who thinks its territory has been crossed, when in a public park.

In order to levy legitimate valid criticisms of another's opinion that opinion must be first understood. Nothing in your writing suggests that that is the case. Everything in your writing suggests otherwise. Do yourself a favor and set your preconceived notions aside, then go back through our conversation and read it again... very carefully.

Boo hoo on goalposts.

Invalid reasoning is fallacious and as such it is unacceptable. Your inability and/or unwillingness to provide a good argument for your position is no cause for tears... at least not from me. Nor is your inability and/or unwillingness to understand the extent to which your notion of brainwashing and child abuse has been dismantled. Nor is your inability to grasp overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your own thought/belief.

The irony, of course, is that that's precisely what happens with brainwashing. It affects one's thinking in such a way that they later find it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to identify and/or understand where they themselves have gone wrong. They cannot seem to be able to discriminate between what counts as true belief and what counts as false. As a result, they cannot grasp the falsehoods prevalent in their own thought/belief system despite having been given/shewn overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

...I'll take this discussion in other directions if I'm dissatisfied with your arguments.

Truth requires neither your belief nor your satisfaction. Isn't that what you're after here?

The shame is that you can't see yourself in the criticisms you've levied against me.

Now, stop writing at me. I've already stated we're done here,

Dalek Prime wrote:
...Now, stop writing at me. I've already stated we're done here,

Indeed. We are done. No need to continue with one who either cannot or will not justify his/her own claims. No need to continue after the poor reasoning has been shown for what it is, especially absent subsequent attention and/or refutation. An astute reader has what it takes to form his/her own conclusions about the matter.

Adieu.

creativesoul wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:
...Now, stop writing at me. I've already stated we're done here,

Indeed. We are done. No need to continue with one who either cannot or will not justify his/her own claims. No need to continue after the poor reasoning has been shown for what it is, especially absent subsequent attention and/or refutation. An astute reader has what it takes to form his/her own conclusions about the matter.

Adieu.

Yeah, I know. Next time, justify your claims.

Rhizome 9/3/16 in which I approach the precarious but useful nature of the informal fallacies via Henrik Schoeneberg’s article, “Bad Arguments that Make You Smarter” (https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Ba ... ou_Smarter( in Philosophy Now, Aug/September 2016:

I would start by pointing to the example Schoeneberg offers for the red herring:

Peter: “I don’t think we should build a new homeless shelter right now. We need more money to maintain the power grid.”
Sandy: “How can you not care about the homeless? That’s just heartless.”

Schoeneberg then goes on to argue:

“Sandy attacks a different argument than Peter’s own point. Peter didn’t say he didn’t care about the homeless; he might be volunteering at a soup kitchen for all Sandy knows. It just so happens that he thinks that energy supply is also important, and that priorities have to be chosen.”

Fair enough. But now let us imagine Sandy arguing:

“You only argue that, Peter, because you value the power grid, which benefits you more than the homeless, over the needs of the homeless. That seems a little selfish to me.”

Of course, Schoeneberg might then turn to the argument that Sandy is engaged in a circumstantial Ad Hominem: that she is going after his motivations rather than his argument. The problem with this is that Peter’s motivations are deeply entwined with his argument and therefore very relevant. And until Peter can supply a solid foundation to what he values, it will remain relevant. And in this sense, we have gotten Sandy beyond the accusation of offering a Red Herring. But the problem gets more subtle when we compare her two different statements:

“How can you not care about the homeless? That’s just heartless.”

“You only argue that, Peter, because you value the power grid, which benefits you more than the homeless, over the needs of the homeless. That seems a little selfish to me.”

Both are basically the same. The only difference is that she tones down the appeal to galley (also referred to as an appeal to emotions) in the second. And even the second statement:

“That seems a little selfish to me.”

:still holds logical weight in that she qualifies it with the word “seems”.

The problem here is that while, as Schoeneberg suggests in the artcle, the informal fallacies are useful tools, they are just that: tools. All arguments, ultimately, break down to assumptions based on values which are impervious to tools such as informal fallacies. Therefore, the informal fallacies (or a knowledge of them), can, at best, be looked at as powerful (though not conclusive (moves in a language game. In this sense, Schoeneberg's argument:

“Sandy attacks a different argument than Peter’s own point. Peter didn’t say he didn’t care about the homeless; he might be volunteering at a soup kitchen for all Sandy knows. It just so happens that he thinks that energy supply is also important, and that priorities have to be chosen.”

:becomes a red herring in itself.

Rhizome 9/6/16 in which I return to the limits of the informal fallacies via Henrik Schoeneberg’s article, “Bad Arguments that Make You Smarter” (https://philosophynow.org/…/Bad_Argumen ... ke_You_Sma…( in Philosophy Now, Aug/September 2016:

What I would mainly like to focus on here is the Appeal to the Galley –also referred to as an appeal to emotions. The problem here is that by dismissing any appeal to emotion, we lose the only real tool we have when it comes to ethical or moral matters. Take, for instance, Christopher Vaughn’s reasonable appeal for more consideration of the suffering of those in 3rd world countries. Now we can offer all kinds of dry analytics about what is best for the system as a whole. But Christopher would have every right to argue:

“What if it were your child?”

And we can see an appeal to emotion at work in such ethical experiments such as the Trolley Problem. It is, after all, a question how one might feel about throwing the fat man over the bridge and saving the children on the tracks. And, once again, Christopher’s question could, with a little revision, be asked again:

“What if your child was on those tracks?”

The problem for me is that the informal fallacies, being mainly an academic practice, could be turned into a kind of Marcusian operationalism in which basic human experience can be shut out all discourses about what is the right way to go. And nothing could make this more obvious than the practices of NAZI Germany and Stalinistic Russia in that both shut out the suffering of their victims as little more than sentimental appeals to emotion.
*
Or consider the Tu Quoque which is basically a form of ad hominem that means: be consistent with thyself. Say, for instance, I was arguing with someone (a woman (who happened to be pro-life from a pro-choice position. Then say I found out that she, herself, had had an abortion. In terms of the argument about abortion, I would have no right to bring the issue up since it was peripheral to issue of whether abortion was wrong or right. She may have even decided to become pro-life after the experience of having one. This was why, for instance, despite the indiscretions of Christian Fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart, Christian Fundamentalism didn’t really collapse (or implode (until later (that is under the weight of its really bad reasoning (and remains in alt forms to this day. In order to truly destroy an ideology, you have to get at its core. And this where the informal fallacies are useful in that they can chip the rock away from the gold.

At the same time, getting back to the Tu Quoque and the issue of abortion, all a pro-choice person would have to do is re-frame the issue in terms of whether people are actually capable of living in the world the pro-lifer imagines and work it towards an argument against the pro-life position:

“See! Even you found yourself in position where you had to resort to it. How dare you (an appeal to emotions (deny that option to others.”