For all the pseudointellectuals out there

Post Reply New Topic

ArrantPariah, I don't go out of my way to mock you behind your back, if I have something critical to say about you, at least I have the courage to say it to your face.

Fact of the matter is, when I said what I said, it wasn't to mock you, it wasn't to try to sound like an intellectual, what I said was entirely based on my observations of your behavior, which you are further demonstrating that my assessment was accurate.

I think saying ad hominem is very Kafkaesque. There, did it again!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Personal attacks don't make strong arguments go away, nor do they make strong counter-arguments. Even if someone IS stupid, being stupid doesn't automatically make them wrong. Once the ad homs come out, I know that my opponent has lost the argument and has given up. Ad hominem is used because the opponent is often too arrogant to admit that he has nothing intelligent left to say!

"You're stupid, ergo I win! Woohoo!" Yeah...rationality at its finest.

Be careful how much of ArrantPariah's behavior you observe. You might put your eye out.

That is not what Marshall was saying at all making your argument a non-sequitur.
Your definition of ad. hom is correct but applying it to marshal's statement is not a good fit.

example one:
Tom's thesis is that Jerry is a Moron.
Argument 1: Jerry has low test scores on cognitive tests.
Argument 2: Jerry does not seem to understand clearly delineated argument.
Argument 3: Jerry admits he votes for candidates based on their hair.

Tom's conclusion Jerry is an Idiot.

There is no ad hom here.

Let's say that Jerry is a republican and Tom is a democrat. A common fallacy would then be for Tom to assume that republicans are wrong because Jerry is a republican.

Ad hominem would be to attack the person (for instance when you're cornered); eg. if Tom believes in free healthcare, but Jerry does not and he's cornered, in this case ad hominem would be "OMFG u r an idiot ! them govrnment should not be stealin my money ! 1 one 1".

The problem is when an argument comes down to the battle of hardheaded moral assertions both sides are cornered. Then it goes like this...

Randroid: "Taxation is theft!!"
Non-Randriod: "No it isn't!!"
Randroid: "Yes it is!!"
Non-Randriod: "No it isn't!!"
Randroid: "Yes it is!!"

....and so on till the end of time itself. That a non-randriod eventually gets exasperated and ends the so-called debate with an insult doesn't mean the randroid can claim "victory" and congratulate himself. The non-randroid can try to steer the argument to something more intellectual and pragmatic, such as a discussion of how a modern prosperous society can or cannot function without any redistribution of wealth. The problem is randroids don't like it when the discussion goes this way and invariably steer the discussion back to "Taxation is theft!! ! Don't be trying to use government to steal my money!" crap that leads absolutely nowhere.

But it's useless pointing that out for the purpose of a discussion. I might think you're an idiot and have good reason to think that. It still doesn't give me the right to openly call you an idiot, nor is it intellectually honest for me to attempt to sway the opinions of others against anything you might have to say in the future on the simple basis that you're an idiot.

I had a gf that made me feel like an idiot all the time. I came to the realization that even if I AM an idiot, which is entirely possible, every other idiot I've ever known was at least right about a few things. The smartest realization I ever came to was that I'm not ALWAYS wrong, and the smartest decision I ever made was dumping her.

You're assuming that anything Tom said about Jerry is accurate (which it probably isn't), people have tried to make that argument about me in the past, when actually I score rather highly on cognitive tests... As far as a clearly delineated argument is concerned I understand them quite well; I also understand when someone claims they have a "clearly delineated argument" when in reality they are using tons of faulty assumptions, propaganda instead of facts. Furthermore, very few people vote for a candidate based on their hair...

It doesn't mean the non-randroid won the argument, either. But it does indicate that he is withdrawing from an argument that the randroid is perfectly willing to continue. And even if one or the other deflects to a different argument, it still doesn't settle the initial argument being made. All you're doing is introducing another red herring.

I do have a related problem, though. What I often do is if I just feel like disagreeing about SOMETHING, rather than address what it is I DO agree with, I'll bring that up. In the thread about the woman suing a district over something that happened when she was 12, http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts214739-start45.html, I actually do think LKL is right and it is wrong to in any way insinuate that a victim is to blame for being raped. I think it is interesting that a lawyer in poor taste would bring up negligence and personal responsibility as a defense, and I do genuinely believe that it might be unethical to go after a school district for something two teachers did, assuming of course that the district really didn't know what was going on or have any warning. I don't have any genuine problems with AOC, though I do have separate objections to teenage sex, and that's an entirely different topic.

The problem is that if all I do is agree with LKL, that doesn't really make for much of a discussion. Certainly not one that would last 4 pages. I think it is useful to question why we think it is appropriate to give kids the power to ruin careers and lives through nothing more than false accusations and why something as minuscule as an age difference gives us the right to legislate a taboo. No one seems willing to argue the other side or even consider that a victim's negligence might be a preventable factor when bad things happen. So far the strongest counterargument seems to be "BECAUSE SHE'S 12!"

The question I have is this: Can a red herring really be a more worthy discussion topic than the OP? I don't really like arguing red herrings, but if a discussion is pretty much closed from the get-go, is it really such a bad thing to discuss what would otherwise be irrelevant points?

I never would have gotten past the cat.

Interesting article, and sort of true - especially, IMO, mocking belief in God. I'm not religious (not atheist either), but if that's someone's thing, so what? As long as they aren't pushing religion in my face, I'm happy. To each his own. There's a lot science hasn't answered yet, and who knows, maybe there's something to bits and pieces of religion that we could all learn from. I like the Golden Rule, myself.

And oh, yes, refusing to argue. I agree. I am reluctant to argue when I don't really know much about a topic, so I usually suspect that someone who refuses to argue their point isn't all that informed about it - in other words not as smart as they want to let on.

Leme see, I mock people who baselessly mock God, if someone asks me if I like jazz I'll probably say "Sure, but I prefer Heavy Metal" if someone asks if I like Jazz, I only reference Kafka when studying Kafka in English and when poking fun at true art being angsty, and I get into arguments all the time. I admit I do correct other people's mistakes, but it's more out of a desire for correctness in everything than making me appear smart. So where does that put me?

Yeah, I think the ad hominem thing Marshall pointed out is really the biggest problem I have. It seems that fakes seem to think that using the name of a logical fallacy makes them smart, even if they don't have an idea on how to use the concept.

Indeed.



His opening statement falls flat on its face when he opts to use the rest of the article to argue that intelligence = expressing knowledge and interpretation - generally someone else's.

It doesn't matter what books Gladstone has read or how many essays he's read on Kafka, being smart comes down to - drumroll - intelligence. Curiosity may well be an aid to learning, but it's something found in virtually all human beings and therefore not a valid means of comparison between the 'stupid' and the 'intelligent'. Curiosity married with discernment would be a more valid argument.

His own 'pathetic and pervasive belief' is that there are large numbers of 'dumb people trying to sound smart'. He mistakes liking something for having knowledge of it. It's objectionable to suggest that someone who claims to like jazz is doing anything but express their passion for a genre of music, as if it were impossible to make such a simple discernment without knowing the intimate history of said genre.

Maybe there's some cultural barrier here that I can't see beyond, but it seems to me that Gladstone takes himself far too seriously, and perhaps expects the same of everyone else.

Using a personal attack doesn't invalidate your argument, but it is bad form and doesn't reflect well on your ability to argue your point. IMHO naked and brutal condescension is usually the proper response to an unprovoked ad hominem, as most people's bon mots aren't nearly as funny or clever as they think they are and are easily spiked back onto their source.

Agreed. But I should also point out that a personal attack also gives some insight into the mind of the attacker. I don't enjoy expending the energy and wasting the time if someone makes it obvious that they are unreasonable. Insults are pretty much a way of impolitely withdrawing from a discussion one has nothing left to contribute to in order to avoid admitting either he is wrong or his opponent may be right about something. If someone responds emotionally to an insult, they give up the higher ground in a debate and put themselves on the same level as the person who made the personal attacks in the first place. That makes it easier for the person who made the personal attack to win the argument. I call "sticks and stones" on insulting language.

Condescension isn't a natural talent of mine and thus not my style. I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape in discussions, as though having beliefs or opinions questioned is an attack on the person holding those ideas.