How can killing, cheating, and stealing be immoral, when all life (from humans to wolves to bacteria) is a matter of killing, cheating, and stealing?
How can “wastefulness” as a lifestyle (such as a stereotypical American might be depicted) be considered harmful to the global economy, when this same wastefulness is precisely that which allows a global economy to exist in the first place?
For example, the more we recycle aluminum, the less money aluminum miners/manufacturers will make. The more we rely on renewable energy sources, the less money coal miners will make.
Demonstrating this same effect: When Americans have the mentality “buy American-made products to help the USA economy”, it damages the economies of countries such as China who’s economy relies a great deal on exports to America – and this will ultimately end up damaging the economy of America as well.
How can money be considered “evil”, when without it industrialized, technologically advanced civilization would not be able to exist, and the world would be far more savage, barbaric, and “evil”. We could almost say that the advent of monetary currency is precisely what allowed mankind to escape evil.
Couldn’t perspectivism be considered a synonym for hypocrisy?
How can it be immoral to judge others, when assumptions and judgments must be made about other people in order for communication with them to be at all possible?
How can arguing be considered negative, when it is the most effective means for addressing and solving problems?
How do we differentiate between “laziness and self-deception” versus “lack of willpower and lack of physical resources required for productivity”?
For example, leftists will view their body (and in severe incidents, their own mind) as being a dynamic system that operates of its own accord and by its own rules, and is beyond control – but if it is our own expectations of ourselves that eventually become ourselves, then their belief in regards to how their body/mind operates could only be as true as they let it be. Just as an example, “Charlie, why don’t you clean your room?” “I can’t mom, I’m too tired!”
How can grammar and the various rules of language be advocated, when they contradict themselves and collapse upon themselves? Rhetorically, we can find contradictions in the words, syntax, and grammar of any given sentence. As such, how can “tone” or “complexity” between individuals really indicate anything more than the individual having more or less synchronicity with a population’s paradigm? For example, an “intellectual tone” (which can often be seen on this very forum) does not truly indicate intelligence, but instead merely sets the mood for discussion – or sets the intended mindset for the reader.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
As Nietzsche said “I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.”
Aren’t the commonly listed “logical fallacies” really just fallacies themselves?
Ad Hominem is really just imposing questions on an individual’s credibility. Also, isn’t there many frequent examples of “ad hominem” that go unchecked or unnoticed?
For example, “that man said that pharmaceutical drugs are bad for you, and he has a doctorate in medicine” - a doctorate in medicine is usually accepted as a firm source of credibility. However, whether or not pharmaceutical drugs are actually bad for a person does not depend on the level of education of whoever made the claim.
And on the contrary, we could also logically justify what are normally considered Ad Hominem; For example:
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
This is a logically justifiable Ad Hominem. And if we still consider it a fallacy, then we would also have to consider the above correlation between “having a doctorate in medicine” and “claiming that pharmaceutical drugs are bad for a person” to be a fallacy.
Ad Hominem is really just an inquisition of an individual’s credibility.
Even seemingly irrelevant correlations in an ad hominem could be logically justified, such as
Bill: “I think abortion is okay and should be legal”
Dave: “Shut up you fatty!”
The above example is really just an inquisition regarding Bill’s ability to make healthy, well-informed decisions. Since he is overweight and he has not been able to make healthy decisions with regards to himself, his credibility is lessened when giving his opinion regarding other people’s health and well-being.
Paradoxes, Ironies, and Contradictions of Logic surround us everywhere.