|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I'll just leave this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy (ironically, a formal fallacy) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah but trees grow hosed up branches because biology is weird. Why is a person constructing arguments that irrelevant to their own point? I do this because I am a human being, and not a DVD of an Aaron Sorkin drama that grew arms and hands and learned how to type.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
we should just let an a.i run the world like deus ex we can probably just run it with an R next to its name or something and it would win world dictator elections
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah but trees grow hosed up branches because biology is weird. Why is a person constructing arguments that are irrelevant to their own point? Because people are people, not machines for producing syllogisms.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Well, when arguing with racists and sexists, I often call them idiots and assholes and speculate on the personal failings that led them to their beliefs, while refuting their arguments. steinrokkan posted:Because people are people, not machines for producing syllogisms. Is "people shouldn't make dumb arguments" really so controversial?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
twodot, since you already committed the argument from fallacy fallacy it would lead us to believe your original claim is falsetwodot posted:Is "people shouldn't make dumb arguments" really so controversial? Can people make not dumb arguments? people are dumb, ergo
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:
I don't know dude, it's too early in the morning for this and I don't really care. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:So, what you're saying is that people mistakenly include invalid arguments into their broad arguments, and it's our responsibility to spot where invalid arguments were mistakenly introduced, and not their responsibility to not include irrelevant invalid arguments? Yes, if you consider the point of a discussion to be a mutually productive exchange and refining of ideas, rather than trying to get a "gotcha!" on the other guy
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:twodot, since you already committed the argument from fallacy fallacy it would lead us to believe your original claim is false steinrokkan posted:Yes, if you consider the point of a discussion to be a mutually productive exchange and refining of ideas, rather than trying to get a "gotcha!" on the other guy
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's my original claim? twodot posted:Ok, but if the Arabian Keyhole fallacy is a fallacy, and your argument contains it, then your argument is invalid. That's how arguments and fallacies work. It's not how fallacies work and is in fact a fallacy itself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's not how fallacies work and is in fact a fallacy itself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's my original claim? It's OK to point out a fallacy and correct it, but not to use it as an excuse to dismiss the other person entirely. That's what this all has been about. See a typical example: Debater: "*five paragraphs of researched arguments*, but honestly I don't think a slime-faced motherfucker like you will get what I'm trying to say here, so here's to wasted effort" Ted Cruz: "Um, eh, um, at the end there, that's a typical example of ad hominem, therefore I don't even have to acknowledge the body of your speech, and I'm automatically the winner"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's OK to point out a fallacy and correct it, but not to use it as an excuse to dismiss the other person entirely. That's what this all has been about. See a typical example: twodot fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, it was in the previous thread, which I don't care to dig through to dig up your posts about how the average voter is a moron. If you don't remember your posts well enough to understand what I am accusing you of, I guess that suggests you're too inculcated in that ideological belief to discuss it. My posts discussed how the average voter generally decides to vote based upon things other than the specify policies advocated by a politician. People usually vote more upon a vague conception of who a politician is and what they represent, or possibly based on a specific single issue they strongly care about (like abortion, for example). I don't think it is remotely controversial to say that most people are not aware of the majority of either presidential candidates' platforms. This initially came up in response to someone (I think maybe JeffersonClay, not sure) who was implying that success or failure of a politician is a direct referendum on the policies they espouse. This is clearly nonsense, and the fact that a politician fails doesn't imply all their policies are unpopular with the public. Likewise, a politician succeeding doesn't mean their policies are preferred/popular (this can be either because most people aren't aware of a specific policy, or because they merely think the policy is good/acceptable but would also be okay with a different policy). None of this should be controversial. edit: By the way, one thing I'm just going to come out and explicitly admit is that I do have a bias in favor of leftist views and am more willing to tolerate stupidity coming from leftists than an equal level of stupidity coming from mainstream Democrats or Republicans. This is for a couple reasons: - I generally still agree with the actual things leftists want to do. When I don't agree I'll explicitly say so (like if someone talks about how voting for Stein in a swing state is a good idea or something), but most people I see post in this thread haven't articulated any specific positions I disagree with, even if they sometimes use irrational arguments in pursuit of those goals. - Leftists do not currently hold any power to speak of. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans both have power, so their mistakes are more important than the mistakes of comparatively powerless political groups. If Leftists began to gain actual power, I would become far more critical of the things they do and say. A specific example is the people who talk about how the tide is turning against Democrats and it's only a matter of time until mainstream Democrats are driven from power. I don't really think this is necessarily the case; while there's certainly been increasing left-wing sentiment among Democrats, it's a stretch to say it'll overtake mainstream liberal views, and mainstream Democrats still hold all the real power. But I don't believe people who believe this are really causing any harm. Passion/anger is good and useful. The more people who get angry, the more perceived momentum (which can then turn into real momentum) a movement gets. I don't think this sort of thing drives away the sort of people who would ever become leftists in the first place*, so I don't see it as a problem. *A good analogy here is the whole thing where people who are offended by angry feminists would never have been good allies to begin with. The same applies to leftism; if someone is put off by people being angry about economic injustice, they would never have been good allies in the first place. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's not an ad hominem argument (edit: I guess more generally, that's not fallacious reasoning). You got another example of an argument that contains a fallacy but we should still treat as a good argument?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
shut the gently caress up about fallacies or i'm probating everyone
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:right. having skimmed through it, counsel for the dems is still claiming the primary was fair, but that even if it wasn't that's ok because the dems charter is as binding as the campaign promises a politician makes. i personally would like our charter to be worth more than toilet paper to the democratic party, but they're arguing it's nothing but toilet paper right now So they leaned nothing from the O.J. "If I Did It" Fiasco
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
politics for liberals is an exercise in establishing their moral superiority, not of taking and wielding state power. lenin was right
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
This is what has me worried the most. If they don't even care about winning elections, even pragmatism can't save us because the goal isn't to get elected. You can see this when people complain about obvious blunders and the instinct is to either say that it doesn't matter, is "all part of the plan and you shouldn't question your betters," or try and deflect to the Republicans. It definitely feels there is a powerful faction of Democrats that actively don't care about losing elections as long as they remain in power within the party. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
The Iron Law of Institutions. Some people would rather the party fail and maintain their powerful positions than have it succeed and they lose their positions
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:The Iron Law of Institutions. Some people would rather the party fail and maintain their powerful positions than have it succeed and they lose their positions
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:The Iron Law of Institutions. Some people would rather the party fail and maintain their powerful positions than have it succeed and they lose their positions It's why when people ask, all in a huff, "what, you want a Tea Party for the left?" it seems like the obvious answer is "um, yeah? duh?" As though the problem with the Tea Party isn't what they stand for, but that they forced the GOP to heel.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Yeah, if their policies weren't evil, the Republican party would be pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Is it just me or is the GOP less vulnerable to this? I don't really follow their internal politics that much because their ideas are utter poo poo, but from the outside they seem more responsive to their rank and file than the Democrats. I don't know if they're less vulnerable to this as they actually have no problem using state power to actually maintain power by hook or by crook. And the Democrats are morons that believe fan fiction is real
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Is it just me or is the GOP less vulnerable to this? I don't really follow their internal politics that much because their ideas are utter poo poo, but from the outside they seem more responsive to their rank and file than the Democrats. It's an old saying I stole from someone on twitter: Republicans fear their base, Democrats despise theirs
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:politics for liberals is an exercise in establishing their moral superiority, not of taking and wielding state power. lenin was right Boy, they seem to be really bad at doing both, because the moral argument for voting democrats nowadays is 'hey at least we're not trump' is a really weak moral argument.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Is it just me or is the GOP less vulnerable to this? I don't really follow their internal politics that much because their ideas are utter poo poo, but from the outside they seem more responsive to their rank and file than the Democrats. This is absolutely true, because the only real qualification for voting GOP is, "Do you piss off liberals?"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I don't know if they're less vulnerable to this as they actually have no problem using state power to actually maintain power by hook or by crook. And the Democrats are morons that believe fan fiction is real Like, a lot of hay is made about what a dumb shithead Ted Cruz is, but really his actions were exactly the sort of thing you see from Democrats all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh sure, they'll weaken America to strengthen their own party, but what I mean is they seem less afflicted by a leadership which will happily gently caress over the GOP if it means they get to keep their power within it. I don't see that being as big a problem for them. Well you do have small things like the Suicide Caucus and the Establishment not getting along, but in the end the Republicans know what they have to do keep their base happy so they can continue to rob public coffers and benefit the rich and Democrats don't even care about hiding how corrupt they are anymore. And not doing things to keep their base happy. Never forget the chorus of moderate dems who all through the Obama years said gently caress you, we can win without you. But they just kept losing over elections
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
cross-post from c-spam: here's a vox article about wall street freaking out about american airlines giving their employees raises: https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-airlines-raise quote:“This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again,” wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a widely circulated note. “Shareholders get leftovers.”
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:cross-post from c-spam: lol matty is such a loving weasel, he's flipped back to the left now after the obama-hillary ship he was on exploded and sank icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:07 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Guillotines
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
When you think about it, it's brilliant that the GOP took gun culture for themselves. Leftists will never rise up in armed rebellion.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
edit: Sorry, missed the post saying not to talk about fallacies anymore.
Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:12 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:When you think about it, it's brilliant that the GOP took gun culture for themselves. I wouldn't place much faith in armed rebellion, even if there were a leftist gun culture. At least not at this point in history; the government has such a monopoly of force, and it's unlikely that enough of the military would break off to support a left-wing uprising. e: Credit where credit's due, the Dems did a fine job of holding the line with regard to the budget. God-willing, they've learned at least some lessons from how the Republicans ran Congress from the minority. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:35 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
I'm not talking about a rebellion against government, but a rebellion against corporations. Labor fought and died for their rights a century ago. They need to again.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:lol matty is such a loving weasel, he's flipped back to the left now after the obama-hillary ship he was on exploded and sank i didn't pay much attention to him during the election, what'd he say?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i didn't pay much attention to him during the election, what'd he say? Basically that Hillary has never been or done anything wrong, ever.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:I'm not talking about a rebellion against government, but a rebellion against corporations. what happens when they fight and die, but don't achieve their rights? seems to be a recurring trend
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:48
|
|