"If that's the type of person that agrees with you, then you know you need to have a good think about your post. "
That's like saying we should all encourage smoking because the nazis started the first anti-smoking campaign.
Except anti-smoking campaigns are backed by overwhelming evidence, and if they wanted any foothold with the public they would downplay the involvement of the insane.
Yeah, I'm aware of what an ad hominem is, and I disagree that it's a logical fallacy.
If someone is constantly making egregiously insane and unfounded claims, I don't think it benefits me to rhetorically consider their point of view. Why would a person waste their breath arguing that up
Is down and that gravity doesn't exist? if everything someone says does indeed defy logic and reason, then it is fairly reasonable to write off their opinions. It's logical, in fact...so I'd argue that an ad hominem response can- in and of it's self- be logical...because it is a undeniable truth that stupid people say stupid things because they are stupid, and their stupidity warrants a narrowed eye at their supposed analysis of the world.
It's reasonable to be more skeptical about an opinion from someone who was wrong in the past, but even the stupidest people are right quite often. You can't use an individual's belief in something as evidence against its validity because there are no absolutes. In debates about animal cruelty, I often see people bring up the "well Hitler supported animal rights, so you guys are just like Hitler if you care about animal welfare". They don't realize that by saying everything Hitler did was absolutely wrong, they're also saying the objectively positive things like his anti-smoking campaign were wrong. There are no absolutes. You'll even agree with your worst enemy on a few things.
Every person will have some good and some bad ideas, no matter how smart or stupid they are. Smart people will sometimes cling to a bad idea because they're able to do enough mental gymnastics to find the loopholes that seemingly justify a bad idea, and if you pay more attention to who is supporting the idea rather than what the idea is, you might even come to believe in an erroneous idea.
It's fair to devalue the opinion of someone who has a track record of being wrong, but you certainly cannot use the fact that a certain group of people believe in something as evidence that the belief is false. This leads you away from the objective facts. When the Ku Klux Klan expressed their support for Trump, anti-Trump protesters used this fact as ammo against Trump's policies and character, and then once the KKK realized the negative impact their support had, they shifted their support to Hillary. Trump and Hillary are still the same people no matter who supports them, but there will still be people who view the KKK supporting one or the other as evidence their policies are wrong. Judging a belief on the basis of its objective qualities rather than external factors will always be a far better way of evaluating a belief.
Yeah, we both know that you indeed are the user I accused you of being.
Why do you feel the need to create false narratives, assuming you are indeed proud of your opinion? Is it just...some need to try and portray it from other perspectives? Your own should be enough, but doing this makes it seem as if you are insecure in your own views, yet you expect us to accept them?
And yes, someone being consistently stupid is a VERY fair reason for me to disregard their opinion. If you want to do the appropriate research and provide evidence to support your opinion, and I disregard it "just cause" I don't like you, only then can you call ad hominem, as you should.
You have failed to do anything of the sort, and if you did, I would most willingly acquiesce. I, unlike you, have no problem with being wrong, and I, unlike you, will consider all the facts. But you've gone full o'reily factor, and you can not hear ANYTHING over the SOUND OF YOUR OWN VOICE.
What the hell is your problem? Just because someone agreed with me you automatically assume I'm some random boogeyman of yours on this website? Are you assuming all 6 people who clicked "yes" are my 6 other accounts on here? What next? Did I do 9/11 too? You have some serious paranoia issues. What exactly would I have to gain from having multiple accounts to respond to my own posts anyways? It's an anonymous website and my reputation is completely unaffected.
Is it normal to hate multiculturalism?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"If that's the type of person that agrees with you, then you know you need to have a good think about your post. "
That's like saying we should all encourage smoking because the nazis started the first anti-smoking campaign.
--
CountessDouche
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Except anti-smoking campaigns are backed by overwhelming evidence, and if they wanted any foothold with the public they would downplay the involvement of the insane.
--
Anonymous Post Author
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You can't say a certain opinion is bad just because the opinion giver has a bad reputation. That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
--
CountessDouche
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah, I'm aware of what an ad hominem is, and I disagree that it's a logical fallacy.
If someone is constantly making egregiously insane and unfounded claims, I don't think it benefits me to rhetorically consider their point of view. Why would a person waste their breath arguing that up
Is down and that gravity doesn't exist? if everything someone says does indeed defy logic and reason, then it is fairly reasonable to write off their opinions. It's logical, in fact...so I'd argue that an ad hominem response can- in and of it's self- be logical...because it is a undeniable truth that stupid people say stupid things because they are stupid, and their stupidity warrants a narrowed eye at their supposed analysis of the world.
--
Anonymous Post Author
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's reasonable to be more skeptical about an opinion from someone who was wrong in the past, but even the stupidest people are right quite often. You can't use an individual's belief in something as evidence against its validity because there are no absolutes. In debates about animal cruelty, I often see people bring up the "well Hitler supported animal rights, so you guys are just like Hitler if you care about animal welfare". They don't realize that by saying everything Hitler did was absolutely wrong, they're also saying the objectively positive things like his anti-smoking campaign were wrong. There are no absolutes. You'll even agree with your worst enemy on a few things.
Every person will have some good and some bad ideas, no matter how smart or stupid they are. Smart people will sometimes cling to a bad idea because they're able to do enough mental gymnastics to find the loopholes that seemingly justify a bad idea, and if you pay more attention to who is supporting the idea rather than what the idea is, you might even come to believe in an erroneous idea.
It's fair to devalue the opinion of someone who has a track record of being wrong, but you certainly cannot use the fact that a certain group of people believe in something as evidence that the belief is false. This leads you away from the objective facts. When the Ku Klux Klan expressed their support for Trump, anti-Trump protesters used this fact as ammo against Trump's policies and character, and then once the KKK realized the negative impact their support had, they shifted their support to Hillary. Trump and Hillary are still the same people no matter who supports them, but there will still be people who view the KKK supporting one or the other as evidence their policies are wrong. Judging a belief on the basis of its objective qualities rather than external factors will always be a far better way of evaluating a belief.
--
CountessDouche
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah, we both know that you indeed are the user I accused you of being.
Why do you feel the need to create false narratives, assuming you are indeed proud of your opinion? Is it just...some need to try and portray it from other perspectives? Your own should be enough, but doing this makes it seem as if you are insecure in your own views, yet you expect us to accept them?
And yes, someone being consistently stupid is a VERY fair reason for me to disregard their opinion. If you want to do the appropriate research and provide evidence to support your opinion, and I disregard it "just cause" I don't like you, only then can you call ad hominem, as you should.
You have failed to do anything of the sort, and if you did, I would most willingly acquiesce. I, unlike you, have no problem with being wrong, and I, unlike you, will consider all the facts. But you've gone full o'reily factor, and you can not hear ANYTHING over the SOUND OF YOUR OWN VOICE.
--
Anonymous Post Author
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
What the hell is your problem? Just because someone agreed with me you automatically assume I'm some random boogeyman of yours on this website? Are you assuming all 6 people who clicked "yes" are my 6 other accounts on here? What next? Did I do 9/11 too? You have some serious paranoia issues. What exactly would I have to gain from having multiple accounts to respond to my own posts anyways? It's an anonymous website and my reputation is completely unaffected.