The OP’s argument isn’t about actual thoughts though. It’s about organizations.
For example, it could be in reference to a Church or political party.
Indeed, it would be OK to criticize someone for believing in an ideology that’s relevantly wrong because ideology is the source of wrong ideas.
That wrongful relevance has to be proven though. An ideology is not necessarily a source of wrongfulness.
Well feminism is against essentialist sexism too. For example, it’s against men being allowed to believe that women are collectively minded.
(On the other hand, feminists will actually expect essentialism in terms of women making socially responsible decisions in foreign policy, household parenting, and business management.)
Heck, even feminists will ally with multiculturalists in believing that people from all cultures deserve to be loved on a global, humanitarian level. They’ll even prioritize paying attention to foreign aid and tolerating free labor before focusing on domestic education and social work policies.
This is especially in light of how women, today, occupy the majority of white collar jobs in America, and women are the primary beneficiaries of government employment. Note that this is happening at the same time of widespread illegal immigration and outsourcing:
I once asked a feminist, “What’s the difference between rape and illegal immigration?”
She responded, “One hurts people and ruins their lives. The other doesn’t.”
Actually, feminists oppose “nice guy syndrome” too. The idea of men speaking nicely to women is treated with suspicion as if it’s bad to complement someone while looking for something in return.
(On the other hand, feminists don’t have a problem with women falsely exhibiting how “sex sells” to get what they want.)
I ignored the issue of 'belonging, because it is completely irrelevant.
It does not matter if my argument is insulting or not. Because an ad hominem can be insulting, but it is not per se an insult, and not every insult is an ad hominem.
Maybe you should go back to the top of the post, and try to understand what I am saying before you get upset.
I’m not sure how much more simply I can put it.
an ad hominem might be an insult, but an insult is not necessarily an ad hominem
Why not look it up in a Philosophical dictionary?
Know thy self? - How about know the Thread topic?
And as for excess - I think the length of the post, since it contains only irrelevance , it excessive.
I don’t THINK your first example is a true ad hom, because ‘because you are a moron’ is not a premise upon which any relevant conclusion depends, if I’m reading it correctly. Speculating about the reasons why somebody believes something is more of a red herring, I’d think. The second one is a better example than mine though, yeah.
That's true, but in an inductive argument, you aren't demonstrating why or how a conclusion is true, you're just giving reasons to believe it. "Most experts believe it" is, in fact, a reason to believe something- a good reason if you aren't willing/capable of doing the research yourself. "This man never went to college" might be a good reason to discount an argument, if you aren't qualified to examine it on it's merits. Induction is very sensitive to audience, speaker, and perspective in a way deduction is not.
Yes, obviously people, including scientists believe many things, that does not make it true, nor more likely to be true. You might be able to show a statistical correlation, between the truth of a thing and the number of scientists who believe it but there are many examples where cherished scientific facts have been completely overthrown historically.
The same scientists all read the same convincing evidence, having more believe it only means that more of them have read it. It does not make the evidence any better, just more widely known.
The only thing that does not belong in this thread is you. Since its my thread I am happy that a person who does not know what the thread is about is going to ignore it. Bye.
Sure.
Do you not have a rule about staying on topic?
I note that you did seem to delete Lyssa’s post, which had nothing whatever to do with the thread.
Well that’s censorship. How can anyone see why Lyssa is banned if no one can see the post, oh no wait it’s gone!
By the way if I can say you are by far and a way the most interesting person to come out of Compton, in quite like a long time. I hope you enjoy your time here.
I don’t know, but I have no reason to think that Lyssa’s post on this particular thread was the reason for his banning.
All I can say is that the post was very long and had nothing to do with the thread.
It was not offensive and I don’t know why he did not start his own thread with that post.
Can you tell me what you mean by “Compton”? Until I know, I’m not sure what you are saying is meant as a compliment - if it is thanks.
PS. It seems to me that a bit of censorship is a good thing. If you want to see a philosophy Forum without any noticeable moderation, then try Philosophy Now. Despite it being a shop window for a rather good magazine publication of the same name, the stuff on their is pretty low-rent by comparison to the discussions I am enjoying here.
It is a tricky job getting moderation right, and I don’ t know if that is the case here, as I have not been here long, but so far so good.
Oh so lys… ah banned because of another post on another thread, get it now.
I am awful at philosophy I genuinely came here to learn about it, I am a physics “major” in a loose sense a mature student, so this is not my field, but a friend turned me on to philosophy, was a PhD in pharmacology. I dabble, do badly but hope I learn. just like your style, there’s nothing worse than someone who agrees with you, for learning purposes. And as yet I do not think you have, although you can if I am right, which is of course seldom the case.
Straight Outta Compton is an album by NWA, Niggers With Attitude, and no I am not black, but I kinda like the idea of saying you came straight outta Compton, A nigger or not, whiter or redder or blacker or greener than most with attitude. Like I say it was a bad joke.
[quote=“Hobbes Choice”]
Yes, obviously people, including scientists believe many things, that does not make it true, nor more likely to be true. You might be able to show a statistical correlation, between the truth of a thing and the number of scientists who believe it but there are many examples where cherished scientific facts have been completely overthrown historically.
The same scientists all read the same convincing evidence, having more believe it only means that more of them have read it. It does not make the evidence any better, just more widely known.
That there are examples of an inductive approach turning out to be incorrect is what makes it induction… that’s how cogency primarily differs from validity.
There are methods for gathering information and analyzing it. There are schools for training scientists to do that effectively. Apparently for no purpose since the scientist is no more skilled in discerning the truth than an untrained schmuck.
The scientist viewed as a jar to be filled with reference material.
One expects that a scientist evaluates the evidence and raises doubts about questionable evidence which is then subjected to further reconsideration and more tests. Bad evidence is thus weeded out.
Many ad homs are insults and even some free standing insults are ad homs, implicitly.
While the OP is correct that an ad hom is a fallacy, insults and ad homs are sets with members in common.
