@zachflame123 It may be that one's sucking when it comes to collecting information and handling it once it has been gathered has led to a flaw in that individual's argument, but then the proper approach would be to point out the flaw and not the personal characteristic which caused him to make that mistake.
Yeah you're right. And what is positive and what is negative is a really good subject of discussion. On the earlier point, it really depends on the scope of the argument and what is being claimed. If it is just that "the white race is physically superior (faster, stronger, without defect)." then this is debatable without regard to positive/negative opinions. But yes, a larger discussion would be, what really matters and what do we want to strive for as a group.
As true as all you said is in a pure logical sense: I'm convinced there are good reasons our mind works this way. Why? I'm limited in my knowledge and in my thinking, I makes errors. Even if an argument seems good to me, it could just be because i lack some essential piece of information or because i made a mistake. That is why I'm to a huge degree dependent on other people and their information - their confirmation. And because of that --> I'm dependent on knowledge about these people, too. About their history, their ideological beliefs, their biases, the way they got their knowledge, the way they argue and their honesty. Moral is related to that, so it has it's part. Obviously an argument doesn't get bad just because the person who made it is a jerk - but it IS a reason to check it twice. And if you have no other information to help you, it is the only way to judge an argument unless it is flawed in its-self. "Ad hominem" is just too easily abused, to push people into something right away. But isn't it sometimes the best thing you can get? Because confirmation is somewhat needed - I'm dependent on other perspectives. I don't know everything and I could be imagining things, I could be a victim of my own perceptive errors - the best affirmation i can get that i'm not dreaming, is a second person. Better a person i believe i can trust. And yes i could be imagining the person too =P
I'm homeschooled and I have this history book that bashes architecture and painting just because Hitler wanted to do that, something like; "As a teenager, Adolf did not want to work for a living and therefore wanted to choose professions such as painting and architecture." I never touched this book again. It also said that Hitler's only success was something he did in high school... Many of the author's own opinions are stressed in this book as well. This is an example of the Ad Hominem, right?
Possibly. Are you rejecting the claims simply because of who it's coming from? If so then yes. If you're rejecting the claim due to the claim not being supported by evidence (or reason depending on the claim) or even better being proven incorrect then no.
As mentioned in the beginning moments of the video, personal attacks do not necessarily become a fallacy. It becomes one only when one relies on personal hostilities as reasons to accept/reject an argument. I could say some random insults like "faggot loser haxor" to someone in an online video-game match, but that insult isn't meant to be an argument. Another example "I banned you from this game because you're a cheating maniac" Sure, the argument is plausible (assuming the cheater indeed used cheats/hacks) but the logic isn't, since his maniac attitude for cheating isn't relevant to the argument.
Oh I see, I did not know we were discussing morality. I thought perhaps you were referring to Eugenics (which I believe would be debated with facts, not opinions). I think in a logical debate, opinions really don't mean much of anything. "I think blonde haired people should be treated as upper class" doesn't hold any water anyway. The issue of morality is an INTERESTING one though ... is there anything specific you're thinking of?
I understand. Your argument is to say that Hitler's arguments regarding racial superiority are LIKELY fallacious due to his known behaviour & prejudices. This is tricky. I agree with your statement but in this case "likely" & "probably" are subjective. I can see the value of your argument in determining whether we care to waste time on Hitler's assertions. The argument doesn't say Hitler was actually wrong but is untrustworthy as a source. It doesn't hold up against arguments of outside facts.
I don't think that would be a strong argument. I think it would be valid as something to consider when deciding whether we should trust Hitler as a good source of facts about racial superiority. Basically, anything he said about it would need to be scrutinized. And one may decide to not waste time with his statements at all. But investigating the truth of the claim is a separate issue and one would need relevant facts about the claim, not the person making the claim.
@jshowa4 Yes but if they are lying expose them objectively via logic and the actual evidence, simply accusing them of lying is baseless and avoids the actual subject of debate. Hope this helped, Hare Krisna.
I suppose what one considers likely is subjective. But if we can agree that a likely event is one that has a greater than 50% chance of occurring and we could analyze all of the statements Hitler made regarding race. I predict we would find that the majority of the time his opinions go against the majority of public opinion. And if we can agree that the majority of public opinion on race is the accepted "just" position then on average his claims regarding such would likely be worthless.
I can see we're making 2 slightly different points. I'm not saying anything Hitler said is automatically wrong (not that opinions can ever be conclusively proven to be false or true), just that it probably is. His being a racist does automatically cast doubt on the validity of any of his claims regarding race. His being a bad person in this case raises reasonable suspicion of the dubiousness of any claims he makes on the matter of race relations.
"that shouldn't by itself count as a reason" IN MY OPINION, it shouldn't count, AT ALL. It is irrelevant of of who presents the argument. What should matter is the reasons behind the argument. Example : A priest is in favor of abortion. The reasons are : risk of both mother and child dying during labor. It is irrelevant if a priest presented this argument, a cat presented this argument or the door, because the argument is presented with circumstances.
@marredsun Ad Hominem is often occurs in "politics" I'm afraid. If you want an example, go look around for some "debates". You just have to look. @subarkts Marred is quite correct on his words. I don't know who you are personally, but the mere fact that you take conspiracy theories to the word is a little unsettling. I myself have a friend who believes in CTs... I don't hold it against him, but sometimes it makes me laugh and cringe when his "ideas" are indeed just regurgitations of others :(
logic is not a certain science. It would depend on the argument. if your only premises is that he has been wrong before it could well be an ad hominem because your not explaining why him being wrong before is relevant to his claim. He could of changed his mind and have a completely different conclusion than before.
@marredsun Well, maybe not. How is it not ad hominum when they spend a lot of well wasted time talking about a candidates religion, which is completely arbitrary to the running of a country. Such issues like abortion, or gay marriage which does not directly influence "politics" more of an influence of culture. Perhaps you have a better understanding then I do.
Would it not be a strong argument to say, for example, Hitler was a murderous megalomaniacal anti Semite, therefore his arguments regarding racial superiority are likely fallacious? it's still saying he's wrong because he's a bad person but, this way of wording it seems pretty valid to me.
Still wouldn't prove intelligent design now would it? Hasn't irreducible complexity been debunked via biochemical experimentation? Must we bring up this pseudo science, known as intelligent design, at every you tube video?
Some youtube commenters need to take a look at this video...you can't get a word in edgewise with some people without earning yourself a curse or insult in return.
i have a question/request for a nother video/addition: some people denie an arguments validity because the don't want the conclusion. for example people often say they don't want to live in a world without god. they use this to justify their beliefs. is there a name for this fallacy? this is also a often used fallacy in discussions about eugenics, technological advancements, the use of nuclear physics (fusion bomb vs fusion reactor) and so on. did you cover this already in a video? i think this would also count under the Ad Hominem Fallacy, only that they dont disagree because of the opponents properties but because of the concequences if the claim were true.
I remember looking up the ad hominem fallacy back in 2009 when I was first introduced to The Atheist Experience. I learned about many fallacies back then but I didn't use any of them in my day to day reasoning. I'm looking up fallacies again (now) since I feel I need to learn about reason and logic. Since I'm new to this, it is a little confusing. I guess it is like learning a new language or learning how to ice skate. Study and practice and you get it. I'll take a peek at your other vids.
There is little else to consider when dealing with matters of opinion. opinion, whether it be on race or anything else, can never be proven true or untrue. Thus it is a matter of necessity that we defer to some standard of right and wrong. majority rule being a simple means of doing so. If this is unacceptable please offer an alternative standard of morality. Also, perhaps analyzing ALL of his statements would defeat the purpose. Analyzing a reasonable selection and judging from that then.
I wouldn't say they can be proven true or untrue as morality seems to be a combination of relative and subjective, but what if we could agree on an objective to place on morality. Well being seems to be a good objective to me anyways. If we can agree to that we can have a basis to compare it to see if it works toward to against well being. Again i agree it doesn't prove we are right that well being is a truth, but only that we can then have something to hold as a standard
It depends on what's said. I'll use the black swan fallacy as an example. All swans are white is a fallacy and shown to be untrue but for example If you and i didn't know of black swans and i were to say that you could change very little of the claim "all swans we know of are white". I would be committing a fallacy and your correction would be changing very little of what was actually said.
reminds me of this debate I saw b/w Richard Dawkins and this woman who said he was using ad hominem arguments on her b/c he was saying she was being irrational (or something along those lines.) haha... so the liar thing... would it follow to make a similar claim that someone's arguments are probably bad most of the time because they're mentally and/or emotionally unstable and it's likely they can't form a reasonable argument in the first place? lol.
Even the issue of Eugenics comes down to a matter of opinion at some point. Being stronger or faster or smarter may seem like objectively positive traits but it's possible not everyone agrees they are. And if it requires agreement to be true it is impossible to argue a position on it based solely on facts. If an argument of any kind is made that attempts to argue a point that isn't objectively verifiable then appeals to majority and/or emotion are almost all the arguments that are left.
I don't know why many are trying to disprove god to the religious. Boredom and a realistic expectation of attention resulting from this action? Either way trying to pull a latin word out of your hat will not impress anyone, so if that is why you are listening don't waste your time.
I for one argue with many religious people, but only when they try to undermine science based on their religious belief. You can see this happening in america with evolution. As to: "Either way trying to pull a latin word out of your hat will not impress anyone, so if that is why you are listening don't waste your time." If you accosiate Atheists with "trying to pull a latin word out of your hat" and thus conclude that is the reason some would watch this: This is a stawman argument. I for one DO debate theists. And i do point out fallacies. This doesn't mean i do it for atention or trying to impress anyone. I listened to this so i don't commit one myself.
I'm surprised I said hat instead of ass. There was nothing fallacious about my comment. You took an expressed opinion by me and called it a strawman. That is not what that is. Even if you were correct though, these terms as overused as they are, are not compelling arguments. Which is what the comment you replied to said. If you are not arguing with theists for attention or boredom, you might want to consider the effectiveness of your arguments. A misplaced comma or an unexplained accusation of fallacy is not going to shake someone's worldview. The thoughts and feelings in your head do not fit into the logic of someone else's argument. It is my belief that you read my comment and got defensive. The people you are arguing with will react this same way. Feelings stop thinking. Your argument is pointless if all it does is induce defensiveness.
yxrf1xg0 "There was nothing fallacious about my comment. You took an expressed opinion by me and called it a strawman." Let me point a word out. "If" I did not accuse you of anything, i said If it was that way. "If you are not arguing with theists for attention or boredom, you might want to consider the effectiveness of your arguments." Isn't that like saying purple is your favourite means of transportation? The effectiveness of ones argument has nothing to do with you doing it out of boredom or not. "A misplaced comma or an unexplained accusation of fallacy is not going to shake someone's worldview." True. That is why i didn't accuse you of anything. Again: context is important. "If" is calling out a possibility, Not accusing someone of anything. "The thoughts and feelings in your head do not fit into the logic of someone else's argument. It is my belief that you read my comment and got defensive." I didn't. I shared a neutral opinion. Now i am deffensive because you directly adressed my point and acussed me of baseless accusations (which is kind of ironic). "The people you are arguing with will react this same way. Feelings stop thinking. Your argument is pointless if all it does is induce defensiveness." Are you trying to make a point here? You said i accused you of something: I did not. You said i was defensive in my first comment: I was not. I stated a neutral opinion. I didn't say "Atheists debate theists." or "Atheists listen to this so they wont commit one themself." I said that I did. You adressed Atheists, I gave an example for myself. I argued with many theists. Often we came to a neutral conclusion. Often they thanked me for pointing out some flaws, and often i thanked them for making their position more clear. Interpretate this as "being deffensive" but i for myself wouldn't call wanting a conversation to be deffensive.
Hey, get me some of that stuff too, i could use it to drown out the sound of idioicy i can see from people using the fallacies demonstrated in this video that i see all the time IRL :D
Even real empirical physical traits such as strength an speed are not so easily defined. If you say you are stronger or faster then I would say, at performing which task? perhaps one may be able to lift more but another might be able to remain standing under greater weight. one might be able to run faster but another might be able to swim faster. although, when you get down to it speed is based on the strength of muscles as well so they're really just two parts of the same thing.
Character is always a big part of arguing. True, it might be, but we cannot over look the character or some person like Hitler. This is always good on paper, but applied to say no one one would look at what he's done and judge his words from that is preposterous.
Logical fallacies are so laughably idiotic. Literally! Whenever I hang out with my friends we get into little play arguments just to fuck around with each other. We'll purposely not make sense talking to each other just as a joke. For example, we'll say things like: "You're wrong because YOU SUCK!" On the highway: "DUDE WHAT THE FUCK?! Why did you let that guy cut us off?"-as if he had control over it. At school: "Thanks for NOT helping on the test"-even though it was my fault for not studying.
So how is it that Hitler doesn't have the right to throw the Jews out of Germany but the Jews have the right to throw the Arabs out of Israel? What kind of fallacy is that?
" How is it not ad hominum when they spend a lot of well wasted time talking about a candidates religion, which is completely arbitrary to the running of a country." Nope. you can even see the vice presidential debate in which Ryan admits that his religion has everything to do with the way he runs things.
"Your sucking" made me laugh!
another collection to my weapons for forums
I love this example. Hitler's arguments are flawed because his reasoning is flawed, not because his ideology is evil.
@zachflame123 It may be that one's sucking when it comes to collecting information and handling it once it has been gathered has led to a flaw in that individual's argument, but then the proper approach would be to point out the flaw and not the personal characteristic which caused him to make that mistake.
Yeah you're right. And what is positive and what is negative is a really good subject of discussion. On the earlier point, it really depends on the scope of the argument and what is being claimed. If it is just that "the white race is physically superior (faster, stronger, without defect)." then this is debatable without regard to positive/negative opinions. But yes, a larger discussion would be, what really matters and what do we want to strive for as a group.
all internet users must learn this.
Kudos..Kevin. Clarity is a virtue.
excellent video.
If you suck, fully embodying all that is suck, then it is HIGHLY relevant to the argument.
This is hitler example is equally as close to the guilt by association fallacy.
As true as all you said is in a pure logical sense: I'm convinced there are good reasons our mind works this way.
Why? I'm limited in my knowledge and in my thinking, I makes errors.
Even if an argument seems good to me, it could just be because i lack some essential piece of information or because i made a mistake.
That is why I'm to a huge degree dependent on other people and their information - their confirmation.
And because of that --> I'm dependent on knowledge about these people, too. About their history, their ideological beliefs, their biases, the way they got their knowledge, the way they argue and their honesty.
Moral is related to that, so it has it's part.
Obviously an argument doesn't get bad just because the person who made it is a jerk - but it IS a reason to check it twice.
And if you have no other information to help you, it is the only way to judge an argument unless it is flawed in its-self.
"Ad hominem" is just too easily abused, to push people into something right away.
But isn't it sometimes the best thing you can get?
Because confirmation is somewhat needed - I'm dependent on other perspectives. I don't know everything and I could be imagining things, I could be a victim of my own perceptive errors - the best affirmation i can get that i'm not dreaming, is a second person. Better a person i believe i can trust. And yes i could be imagining the person too =P
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (aka "Mother Theresa") isn't really better than Adolf Hitler. Why would you take her as an example if you already used Hitler?
I'm homeschooled and I have this history book that bashes architecture and painting just because Hitler wanted to do that, something like; "As a teenager, Adolf did not want to work for a living and therefore wanted to choose professions such as painting and architecture." I never touched this book again. It also said that Hitler's only success was something he did in high school... Many of the author's own opinions are stressed in this book as well. This is an example of the Ad Hominem, right?
Possibly. Are you rejecting the claims simply because of who it's coming from? If so then yes. If you're rejecting the claim due to the claim not being supported by evidence (or reason depending on the claim) or even better being proven incorrect then no.
why would you not agree with Hitler if he had a sound argument?
As mentioned in the beginning moments of the video, personal attacks do not necessarily become a fallacy. It becomes one only when one relies on personal hostilities as reasons to accept/reject an argument. I could say some random insults like "faggot loser haxor" to someone in an online video-game match, but that insult isn't meant to be an argument.
Another example
"I banned you from this game because you're a cheating maniac"
Sure, the argument is plausible (assuming the cheater indeed used cheats/hacks) but the logic isn't, since his maniac attitude for cheating isn't relevant to the argument.
Oh I see, I did not know we were discussing morality. I thought perhaps you were referring to Eugenics (which I believe would be debated with facts, not opinions). I think in a logical debate, opinions really don't mean much of anything. "I think blonde haired people should be treated as upper class" doesn't hold any water anyway. The issue of morality is an INTERESTING one though ... is there anything specific you're thinking of?
I understand. Your argument is to say that Hitler's arguments regarding racial superiority are LIKELY fallacious due to his known behaviour & prejudices. This is tricky. I agree with your statement but in this case "likely" & "probably" are subjective. I can see the value of your argument in determining whether we care to waste time on Hitler's assertions. The argument doesn't say Hitler was actually wrong but is untrustworthy as a source. It doesn't hold up against arguments of outside facts.
I don't think that would be a strong argument. I think it would be valid as something to consider when deciding whether we should trust Hitler as a good source of facts about racial superiority. Basically, anything he said about it would need to be scrutinized. And one may decide to not waste time with his statements at all. But investigating the truth of the claim is a separate issue and one would need relevant facts about the claim, not the person making the claim.
Ad Hominem: Welcome to any political debate in 2012
OR 2016 "...deplorables".
OR 2020
Seeing that it’s 2022, welcome to political debate.
At 4:20 the captions on the video says, "so general you're always encouraged to look for implicit background some shit" lol
@jshowa4 Yes but if they are lying expose them objectively via logic and the actual evidence, simply accusing them of lying is baseless and avoids the actual subject of debate. Hope this helped, Hare Krisna.
I suppose what one considers likely is subjective. But if we can agree that a likely event is one that has a greater than 50% chance of occurring and we could analyze all of the statements Hitler made regarding race. I predict we would find that the majority of the time his opinions go against the majority of public opinion. And if we can agree that the majority of public opinion on race is the accepted "just" position then on average his claims regarding such would likely be worthless.
I can see we're making 2 slightly different points. I'm not saying anything Hitler said is automatically wrong (not that opinions can ever be conclusively proven to be false or true), just that it probably is. His being a racist does automatically cast doubt on the validity of any of his claims regarding race. His being a bad person in this case raises reasonable suspicion of the dubiousness of any claims he makes on the matter of race relations.
"that shouldn't by itself count as a reason" IN MY OPINION, it shouldn't count, AT ALL. It is irrelevant of of who presents the argument. What should matter is the reasons behind the argument. Example : A priest is in favor of abortion. The reasons are : risk of both mother and child dying during labor. It is irrelevant if a priest presented this argument, a cat presented this argument or the door, because the argument is presented with circumstances.
@marredsun Ad Hominem is often occurs in "politics" I'm afraid. If you want an example, go look around for some "debates". You just have to look.
@subarkts Marred is quite correct on his words. I don't know who you are personally, but the mere fact that you take conspiracy theories to the word is a little unsettling. I myself have a friend who believes in CTs... I don't hold it against him, but sometimes it makes me laugh and cringe when his "ideas" are indeed just regurgitations of others :(
logic is not a certain science. It would depend on the argument. if your only premises is that he has been wrong before it could well be an ad hominem because your not explaining why him being wrong before is relevant to his claim. He could of changed his mind and have a completely different conclusion than before.
@marredsun Well, maybe not. How is it not ad hominum when they spend a lot of well wasted time talking about a candidates religion, which is completely arbitrary to the running of a country. Such issues like abortion, or gay marriage which does not directly influence "politics" more of an influence of culture. Perhaps you have a better understanding then I do.
Would it not be a strong argument to say, for example, Hitler was a murderous megalomaniacal anti Semite, therefore his arguments regarding racial superiority are likely fallacious? it's still saying he's wrong because he's a bad person but, this way of wording it seems pretty valid to me.
Still wouldn't prove intelligent design now would it? Hasn't irreducible complexity been debunked via biochemical experimentation? Must we bring up this pseudo science, known as intelligent design, at every you tube video?
The comment system of youtube is deeply flawed.
Some youtube commenters need to take a look at this video...you can't get a word in edgewise with some people without earning yourself a curse or insult in return.
Abe Lincoln argues that McDonalds makes the best burgers
Honest Abe does not lie
Therefore McDonalds makes the best burgers
Looks similar to the genetic fallacy(another example of fallacies of relevance)
i have a question/request for a nother video/addition:
some people denie an arguments validity because the don't want the conclusion.
for example people often say they don't want to live in a world without god. they use this to justify their beliefs. is there a name for this fallacy?
this is also a often used fallacy in discussions about eugenics, technological advancements, the use of nuclear physics (fusion bomb vs fusion reactor) and so on. did you cover this already in a video? i think this would also count under the Ad Hominem Fallacy, only that they dont disagree because of the opponents properties but because of the concequences if the claim were true.
It is called Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
I remember looking up the ad hominem fallacy back in 2009 when I was first introduced to The Atheist Experience. I learned about many fallacies back then but I didn't use any of them in my day to day reasoning. I'm looking up fallacies again (now) since I feel I need to learn about reason and logic. Since I'm new to this, it is a little confusing. I guess it is like learning a new language or learning how to ice skate. Study and practice and you get it. I'll take a peek at your other vids.
Using Ad Homs isn't a logical fallacy! Your FACE is a logical fallacy.
This is a very good video. Thank you so much for posting it.
There is little else to consider when dealing with matters of opinion. opinion, whether it be on race or anything else, can never be proven true or untrue. Thus it is a matter of necessity that we defer to some standard of right and wrong. majority rule being a simple means of doing so. If this is unacceptable please offer an alternative standard of morality.
Also, perhaps analyzing ALL of his statements would defeat the purpose. Analyzing a reasonable selection and judging from that then.
I wouldn't say they can be proven true or untrue as morality seems to be a combination of relative and subjective, but what if we could agree on an objective to place on morality. Well being seems to be a good objective to me anyways. If we can agree to that we can have a basis to compare it to see if it works toward to against well being. Again i agree it doesn't prove we are right that well being is a truth, but only that we can then have something to hold as a standard
Is it a fallacy if you weaken someone's claim by saying they were wrong before while saying something similar to that
It depends on what's said. I'll use the black swan fallacy as an example. All swans are white is a fallacy and shown to be untrue but for example If you and i didn't know of black swans and i were to say that you could change very little of the claim "all swans we know of are white". I would be committing a fallacy and your correction would be changing very little of what was actually said.
So... what's he supposed to be sucking anyway?
Those are parentheses, not brackets :)
reminds me of this debate I saw b/w Richard Dawkins and this woman who said he was using ad hominem arguments on her b/c he was saying she was being irrational (or something along those lines.) haha...
so the liar thing... would it follow to make a similar claim that someone's arguments are probably bad most of the time because they're mentally and/or emotionally unstable and it's likely they can't form a reasonable argument in the first place? lol.
Daif bruddar!
ad hominems happen all the time
@Cookiecutter87
that's true
Even the issue of Eugenics comes down to a matter of opinion at some point. Being stronger or faster or smarter may seem like objectively positive traits but it's possible not everyone agrees they are. And if it requires agreement to be true it is impossible to argue a position on it based solely on facts. If an argument of any kind is made that attempts to argue a point that isn't objectively verifiable then appeals to majority and/or emotion are almost all the arguments that are left.
I don't know why many are trying to disprove god to the religious. Boredom and a realistic expectation of attention resulting from this action? Either way trying to pull a latin word out of your hat will not impress anyone, so if that is why you are listening don't waste your time.
I for one argue with many religious people, but only when they try to undermine science based on their religious belief.
You can see this happening in america with evolution.
As to:
"Either way trying to pull a latin word out of your hat will not impress anyone, so if that is why you are listening don't waste your time."
If you accosiate Atheists with "trying to pull a latin word out of your hat" and thus conclude that is the reason some would watch this: This is a stawman argument.
I for one DO debate theists. And i do point out fallacies. This doesn't mean i do it for atention or trying to impress anyone.
I listened to this so i don't commit one myself.
I'm surprised I said hat instead of ass.
There was nothing fallacious about my comment. You took an expressed opinion by me and called it a strawman. That is not what that is. Even if you were correct though, these terms as overused as they are, are not compelling arguments. Which is what the comment you replied to said.
If you are not arguing with theists for attention or boredom, you might want to consider the effectiveness of your arguments. A misplaced comma or an unexplained accusation of fallacy is not going to shake someone's worldview.
The thoughts and feelings in your head do not fit into the logic of someone else's argument. It is my belief that you read my comment and got defensive. The people you are arguing with will react this same way. Feelings stop thinking. Your argument is pointless if all it does is induce defensiveness.
yxrf1xg0
"There was nothing fallacious about my comment. You took an expressed opinion by me and called it a strawman."
Let me point a word out.
"If"
I did not accuse you of anything, i said If it was that way.
"If you are not arguing with theists for attention or boredom, you might want to consider the effectiveness of your arguments."
Isn't that like saying purple is your favourite means of transportation?
The effectiveness of ones argument has nothing to do with you doing it out of boredom or not.
"A misplaced comma or an unexplained accusation of fallacy is not going to shake someone's worldview."
True. That is why i didn't accuse you of anything. Again: context is important. "If" is calling out a possibility, Not accusing someone of anything.
"The thoughts and feelings in your head do not fit into the logic of someone else's argument. It is my belief that you read my comment and got defensive."
I didn't. I shared a neutral opinion. Now i am deffensive because you directly adressed my point and acussed me of baseless accusations (which is kind of ironic).
"The people you are arguing with will react this same way. Feelings stop thinking. Your argument is pointless if all it does is induce defensiveness."
Are you trying to make a point here?
You said i accused you of something: I did not.
You said i was defensive in my first comment:
I was not. I stated a neutral opinion. I didn't say "Atheists debate theists." or "Atheists listen to this so they wont commit one themself."
I said that I did. You adressed Atheists, I gave an example for myself.
I argued with many theists. Often we came to a neutral conclusion. Often they thanked me for pointing out some flaws, and often i thanked them for making their position more clear.
Interpretate this as "being deffensive" but i for myself wouldn't call wanting a conversation to be deffensive.
Don't know why you are trying to argue with me, will read later.
Where did I say you accused me of something?
Your post there doesn't make sense in other ways, but one point at a time.
in the us i guess it is...
Hey, get me some of that stuff too, i could use it to drown out the sound of idioicy i can see from people using the fallacies demonstrated in this video that i see all the time IRL :D
Even real empirical physical traits such as strength an speed are not so easily defined. If you say you are stronger or faster then I would say, at performing which task? perhaps one may be able to lift more but another might be able to remain standing under greater weight. one might be able to run faster but another might be able to swim faster. although, when you get down to it speed is based on the strength of muscles as well so they're really just two parts of the same thing.
@dulcetAirman I concur
Character is always a big part of arguing. True, it might be, but we cannot over look the character or some person like Hitler. This is always good on paper, but applied to say no one one would look at what he's done and judge his words from that is preposterous.
Logical fallacies are so laughably idiotic. Literally! Whenever I hang out with my friends we get into little play arguments just to fuck around with each other. We'll purposely not make sense talking to each other just as a joke. For example, we'll say things like: "You're wrong because YOU SUCK!"
On the highway: "DUDE WHAT THE FUCK?! Why did you let that guy cut us off?"-as if he had control over it.
At school: "Thanks for NOT helping on the test"-even though it was my fault for not studying.
@ElasticGiraffe
Based
@MrShogunfish I think you should watch the video again. You are making an ad hominem right now.
I agree. At the end of the day, it's about logic, and evidence, not one's personal beliefs. Good day.
You could suck at collecting information, or handling it once its gathered.
@PhilosophyFreak You should make an addendum to this video that talks about appeal to authority.
This sounds like the Saul Alinsky method put forth in "Rules for Radicals."
@MrShogunfish which is exactly what he said in the video...
I love this shit! Good work! Your videos are interesting to think about.
This seems to me the most used fallacy on the internet.
@Ant1Live
You shut him up!.
Here, have a cigar
@subarkts because it is so emotional.
@thecuriousapple That's more of a genetic fallacy. :P
the wisdom of conspiracy theorists!
I subbed
What happens if the source has a bad reputation. Like tabloids or Fox News.
So how is it that Hitler doesn't have the right to throw the Jews out of Germany but the Jews have the right to throw the Arabs out of Israel?
What kind of fallacy is that?
Well the Arabs are trying to set up a state with Israeli land, in Germany, they were just chilling.
*****
What happened in 1947 should give clarity to the Palestinian side of the issue.
Why is that never brought up?
tu quoque fallacy
" How is it not ad hominum when they spend a lot of well wasted time talking about a candidates religion, which is completely arbitrary to the running of a country."
Nope. you can even see the vice presidential debate in which Ryan admits that his religion has everything to do with the way he runs things.