Conquer Club

Hello, fellow ConquerClubbers, I was just wondering:



Would you say that ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are logical counter-arguments?


How about emotional arguments? E.g., "I feel that you're wrong; therefore, you're wrong."

I'm just wondering how many people thought that ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and emotional/emotive arguments are logical arguments and are correct arguments. I'm expecting not so many, but based on how some people toss around these arguments, I wouldn't be surprised to see more people say otherwise.

How about posting an example for us unenlightened people? An actual event please. And if you don't mind making it a quote and not a link I would appreciate it.

BBS

Your argument is a typical argument made by people who make arguments like you do. Therefore it is wrong.

QED.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm just wondering how many people thought that ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and emotional/emotive arguments are logical arguments and are correct arguments. I'm expecting not so many, but based on how some people toss around these arguments, I wouldn't be surprised to see more people say otherwise.

They can be. Strict logic sort of supposes a neutral space for arguments. This isn't that kind of space, and I'm not sure there are many places where logic is key.

Rather than logic, you should look towards the discipline of rhetoric. Ad hominem is both a tactic and a legitimate criticism of rhetorical arguments.

Arguing via strict logic is a quick way to get you ignored by rhetoricians, but can be a good tool.

Rhetoric is the discipline of power, however.

Welcome to the modern legal profession.

puppydog85 wrote:Welcome to the modern legal profession.

I don't think you'd like the old legal profession.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hello, fellow ConquerClubbers, I was just wondering:



Would you say that ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are logical counter-arguments?


How about emotional arguments? E.g., "I feel that you're wrong; therefore, you're wrong."

In reality, generally no.

I mean can you convict someone based on circumstancial evidence? Nope.

I'd argue that they are not always logical fallacies though.

Probably not, but I was thinking the last 100 years when I said modern.

puppydog85 wrote:Probably not, but I was thinking the last 100 years when I said modern.

I took you to mean recent developments. I think you'd be even more shocked if you looked at the legal profession over 100 years ago.

Is "I'm not a doctor or an ethicist, but I feel cannibalism is wrong" an emotional argument? If so, then I have no idea.

Simply because you feel a certain way (emotionally), it doesn't follow that your claim/belief is true. Otherwise, if emotion was the standard for truth, then anything you felt could conceivably be considered true, which would be problematic.

The moral intuition crowd may say differently, but I'm not familiar enough with that literature.

Also, could someone please vote "f*ck you, BBS."

I'd really appreciate it.

Done

BigBallinStalin wrote:Simply because you feel a certain way (emotionally), it doesn't follow that your claim/belief is true. Otherwise, if emotion was the standard for truth, then anything you felt could conceivably be considered true, which would be problematic.

The moral intuition crowd may say differently, but I'm not familiar enough with that literature.

Perhaps, but as a living being can any opinion have no roots in emotion?
Murder is bad, why?
Because as a species logically we should not act against ourselves. Why?
Because logically it is counterproductive to survival. Why is survival important?
Because we don't want to die (emotional).
On this rational there, in my opinion, can be no logical moral or ethical debate.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Simply because you feel a certain way (emotionally), it doesn't follow that your claim/belief is true. Otherwise, if emotion was the standard for truth, then anything you felt could conceivably be considered true, which would be problematic.

The moral intuition crowd may say differently, but I'm not familiar enough with that literature.

What would be your standard of truth for someone saying:

"I feel happy"

pickleofdoom wrote:BBS

Your argument is a typical argument made by people who make arguments like you do. Therefore it is wrong.

QED.

Now that is impossible to argue with.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Simply because you feel a certain way (emotionally), it doesn't follow that your claim/belief is true. Otherwise, if emotion was the standard for truth, then anything you felt could conceivably be considered true, which would be problematic.

The moral intuition crowd may say differently, but I'm not familiar enough with that literature.

What would be your standard of truth for someone saying:

"I feel happy"

It could be true in that context, but the person saying that might be full of shit.

So, I guess it's a matter of making empirical claims which support the statement "I feel happy," e.g.

1. I love dogs, and having a dog makes me feel happy.
2. I have a dog!
3. Therefore, I feel happy!


But how would this one work:

"I feel that there is a giant squid in my backyard, and it can't be observed."
...(???)...
Therefore, there is a giant squid in my backyard.


or, to be clear:

My main point, put into examples:

"God exists because I feel that he exists."

If that alone is that's required, then anyone could "God was eaten by that guy's giant, invisible squid because I feel that this happened, so it must be true."

Ehh... hm.

Is the old legal profession doing jumping jacks?

[quote="Ray Rider"][quote="pickleofdoom"]BBS

Your argument is a typical argument made by people who make arguments like you do. Therefore it is wrong.
quote]


pickleofpoom, HOW DARE YOUUUUUUU!!!

BBS: Fined 50 saxbucks for using Playeresque quotes.

I could really get into this saxbucks thing! It's fun!

they are somewhat logical when used correctly while trying to prove something inductively, which is the way many people often form their views. they usually aren't as powerful as other arguments, but if (hypothetically) someone is known to be wrong about everything, and they make a new claim, then one is justified in being more skeptical of that claim than usual, just because of the source.