You've argued against gay marriage and abortion in the past. As a "well I don't really think this but..." argument that so many conservatives love to do so who knows what you believe.
And they have a label for what you did: argument from fallacy.
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
So have you. A lot more vociferously than I ever did, and from the point of view of a true believer.
But usually in the situations you reference about me, it's because someone's making a retarded argument.
GasBandit
Staff member
...whereas I was not actually arguing against gay marriage nor abortion, but merely against idiotic arguments in favor of them.
GasBandit
Staff member
Also: Calling argument from fallacy is kinda hypocritical, given your stance on the whole "intolerant of intolerance" thing.
I am disinclined to hunt out the exact quote at the moment, but there's a lovely line or two from Christopher Hitchens, where he explains that he doesn't see the point of signs saying "Don't graffiti." It's not like everyone who graffitis thinks it's legal or acceptable - they already know it's not allowed. So, who is the sign for?
I think about it a lot when it comes to the kinds of things you're describing.
NO IT'S FUCKING NOT!!!!
Why does no one on the internet actually understand how fucking fallacies work?
He literally made no claim about Gas' argument being wrong or right.
Pointing out someone is a hypocrite without claiming that makes them wrong about X simply doesn't quality.
Funny how most conservatives would disagree.
Also, the dictionary definition of the word would, since, you know, none of those are the status quo that would be maintained.
Post automatically merged:
Same ppl the laws against murder are for?
GasBandit
Staff member
A sign is not a law. There's already laws about both. This is asinine.
FTFY. Repubiclans think they're conservative, but they're not.
Yes it is. He tried to attack me by characterizing my argument as something it was not by casting aspersions on me as the author of the post. That's the very essence of ad hominem. Well, one of them. The other is you suck.
In this case, I don't think I'd agree. Men not taking "no" for an answer is still ingrained in our culture in a lot of ways. It's only been recently that some boys have even begun to hear that if a girl says no, she means no. A lot of men (people in general really) were raised in the belief that if they keep trying, they'll get what they want. Which ends with a lot of women being repeatedly harassed no matter how many times they say no. In this case, "no means no" lead to a crime immediately, but it doesn't always happen that fast. And I think reminding people that "no means no," and that a person's wish to not talk or interact with you supersedes your wish to do so anyways is in fact something that people need to hear more often.
Last edited:
What's a law if not a warning about punishing you for doing X?
A sign is simply a way to advertise that.
But, anyway, you're completely missing the point by focusing on the differences, instead of thinking about the actual argument.
So does the dictionary, apparently.
No, it's not, just like you saying i suck isn't, as long as you don't actually say that me sucking means my argument must be incorrect.
Telling someone they're a fucking idiot and their argument is wrong because ">>insert valid argument<<" is not, and will never be an ad hominem, no matter how many idiots on the internet think it is.
I can argue and be correct while being a giant asshole to you and everyone else... THAT'S ACTUALLY THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FALLACY, THAT ME BEING AN ASSHOLE AND INSULTING YOU DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO BEING RIGHT OR NOT!!!!
[Insert Kurt Angle theme music right in my skull why don't you?]
figmentPez
Staff member
"White men already know not to shoot people. We don't need to teach them not to."
And yet, somehow, ALL of the school shootings have been done by white dudes. Not women, not minorities. If the problem were solely "criminals are going to criminal", then you'd see other demographics committing mass shootings, too. Criminals will break the law, that is true. No matter how much you teach people to not do things, some will continue to do them. That does not preclude the fact that sometimes we can do a better job of teaching people not to do something. As an example: littering. Some people are going to litter, no matter what. However, you can teach people to litter less, as the "Don't Mess With Texas" campaign proved.
"We need to teach men to accept 'no'" is a true statement. "Some men will refuse to accept 'no', even if you do a better job teaching them." is also a true statement. The two are not contradictory.
And yet, somehow, ALL of the school shootings have been done by white dudes. Not women, not minorities. If the problem were solely "criminals are going to criminal", then you'd see other demographics committing mass shootings, too. Criminals will break the law, that is true. No matter how much you teach people to not do things, some will continue to do them. That does not preclude the fact that sometimes we can do a better job of teaching people not to do something. As an example: littering. Some people are going to litter, no matter what. However, you can teach people to litter less, as the "Don't Mess With Texas" campaign proved.
"We need to teach men to accept 'no'" is a true statement. "Some men will refuse to accept 'no', even if you do a better job teaching them." is also a true statement. The two are not contradictory.
GasBandit
Staff member
In this case, I don't think that a "no means no" campaign would have kept Mollie Tibbets alive. For that matter, I'm not sure it'd have had much effect on Bill O'Reilly, either.
The sign we're talking about was a very ineffective way of advertising that, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue or how to address it.
A great many political and social terms don't exactly match what webster says.
Yes it does, because by attacking the poster you are, in fact, meaning to undermine the message.
Derrr deh derkshenary erperrently.
You understand so very little, and say so very much.
What is needed is a cultural shift, which takes time, and which won't happen by being ignored and saying "criminals going to criminal."
GasBandit
Staff member
That'd be great for a lot of other situations, but I'm not sure there could have ever been enough of a cultural shift to dissuade someone who already knew rape was wrong and was willing to murder to cover it up, nor for a vicious, powerful reprobate to not think he can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants - that's what I was getting at. These are people who genuinely believe to their deepest core that they are different and rules don't apply to them (as long as they're able to duck the consequences). But yes, less frat guys at parties getting pushy would be great.
But you think whatever o'reilly wants the government to do to illegal immigrants is worth doing just because it might've saved her? Or are you just defending hard right Republicans out of force of habit? I've said it before, don't play devils advocate, he doesn't need the help. If you don't believe something, don't argue it just for the sake of arguing it. If you do believe it, just be honest about what you believe.
figmentPez
Staff member
You're forgetting about all the people who overlooked the warning signs in both of those cases because our culture teaches people to overlook those warning signs.
So are laws against murder, if you look at it from a historical PoV (there where more murders then now during times whe the punishement was worse).
Yeah, many people on the internet say that.
Even when it makes no sense.
And for fucks sakes, the word libertarian isn't to differentiate from a party, like the GOP, but to differentiate from the other labels.
Yes, that devious blots, undermining your message by calling you out and making you talk about him, instead of actually engaging all the other arguments against your self-pleasing post.
Now see, that's an actual ad hominem, especially since you didn't address any of the arguments and just implied they're wrong because i lack understanding.
Post automatically merged:
And yet somehow things have gotten better in the last few hundred years... i wonder why...
GasBandit
Staff member
At no point did I say that. I do believe immigration law should be enforced, but I know that the next words are out of your mouth will be "oh so you agree that brown people need to die?" so don't bother. No, that's not what that means.
I'm not playing devil's advocate, or defending O'reilly.
And this is the last situation that requires you to argue that, because, in the end, what you're arguing is that he should have been killing people somewhere else...
Hmmm: "Yes it does, because by attacking the poster you are, in fact, meaning to undermine the message. "
So are you not undermining the message, and thus, by your own logic...
GasBandit
Staff member
This falsely implies a causal relationship, oversimplifying to the point of... well, a fallacious argument.
No, it's not. Saying you are wrong and do not understand the subject matter is not an attack against you personally for the purposes of undermining your argument, it is using your argument to attack you personally. Cart and horse.
figmentPez
Staff member
Also, it's a logical fallacy to say that enforcing immigration laws would have kept someone alive. Statistically, immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. So if some other random man had been around, doing the same jobs as the illegal immigrant, that hypothetical man would be statistically more likely to have killed someone.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, that is false. I said that to underpin the false connection he was attempting to make that opposing illegal immigration is automatic racism.
Then what was the point of making that post?
GasBandit
Staff member
This is correct, and I was not attempting to imply otherwise.
... this doesn't sound correct, however. Murderers/rapists are not filling a quota.
Actually it doesn't, since the argument is that the lack of a cause and effect is what proves the point that laws and signs are weak when it comes to stopping behaviours. Point being that we still have them because not having them hasn't worked out either.
Complicated, i know.
So saying someone doesn't get the subject, without arguing why that is, isn't a personal attack... because you don't use naughty words or what? Well, it's still an ad hominem, aka arguing against the person instead of the argument.
GasBandit
Staff member
If someone says "I don't feel so good, because I didn't get enough sleep" and someone else says "no you feel like shit because you eat too much red meat," and it turns out he is actually infected with west nile, I'm still gonna say person #2 is a harmful idiot with an axe to grind.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Have you tried hitting her?"
"What?? No!"
"Well, how has NOT hitting her been working out so far?" - Boondocks
No it's not.
And that isn't, either.
I'm sorry, are we still talking about the pic i posted?
The one you agreed was a good burn? (and then ignored me when i pointed out that was the point of her post, so you could argue with blots)
Post automatically merged:
Except that we've "tried" not having laws a lot... a lot a lot...
You can actually still move to places like that even now.
Your argument has convinced me... i must be glue.
I think a cultural shift would in fact decrease the rate of rapes and assaults on women. Even if you don't think it's the case, there are still plenty of men who think they are owed women, or that they are allowed to treat women like objects, or that women appreciate getting unwanted attention and catcalls. There are men who, when disabused of this notion, blame the woman, because they can't possibly be wrong, and take matters in to their own hands. It's a problem of course, that applies to many different groups of people. And maybe these same people would just commit a different violent crime instead. But you can't just shrug and say "Oh well, it happens," and go about your merry way.
GasBandit
Staff member
It WAS a good burn. Calling O'Reilly out on his sexual assault when he's being a hypocrite is good.
But I was explaining why I posted. It was to point out that the "real solution" provided by the tweet was erroneous, bordering on harmful. It's been a common thread in protest the last 10 or 15 years.
Nah, that would never happen... i mean, tehy still lynch out of state social workers in Mississippi, right....
Post automatically merged:
Yes, if it doesn't work for 10-15 years, just give up... hear that suffragettes, civil rights activists, irish republicans etc.
But anyway, you where assuming she thinks that's a workable solution, when she's using it as as a sarcastic burn... those ussually work best with solutions that aren't going to happen.