Good Old Fashion Conservative Television

[420seriouscat69]

Am I legit crazy for giving another view point? I know conservatives are afraid to do so these days, but my god. It was a harmless take. Night, friends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[420seriouscat69]

Wacks IRL

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[catastrophe]

also i have no problem with calling someone a cvnt if it is with merit

 

don't throw it around lightly, but when the shoe fits...

hypocrisy is almost always a stupid argument.  it's cheap, it's fun, it gets attention, but it's stupid.

It's a terrible argument, but people rough ridin' love it.  It only takes a tiny bit of thought to see how untenable it usually is.

Tu quoque is the currency of the pit.

No one uses hypocrisy as an argument. It is a device to undermine your opponent’s credibility by suggesting they don’t actually believe what they are saying.

[star seed 7]

Lol

https://twitter.com/driverminnie/status/1002270163058610176

[ChiComCat]

I lost track, who has the high road now?

[sys]

It is a device to undermine your opponent’s credibility by suggesting they don’t actually believe what they are saying.

that's an argument.

[catastrophe]

It is a device to undermine your opponent’s credibility by suggesting they don’t actually believe what they are saying.

that's an argument.

In my world an argument is something you use to support the truth or falsity of a claim.  If we're conflating that with undermining your opponent's credibility then hypocrisy is typically a fantastic argument as long as it pointing out the hypocrisy of your opponent and not the hypocrisy of some nebulous mass of people that you lump your opponent into.

[sys]

the fact that portraying your counterpart as a hypocrite does nothing to support or falsify the truth of their position is (part of) why it's a really stupid argument.

[CHONGS]

Argumentum ad hominem

[DQ12]

Argumentum ad hominem

I think there's a difference between pointing out that somebody's point of view is logically inconsistent and pointing out that they act inconsistently with their argument.

We all act inconsistently with our principles or genuinely held beliefs fairly often.

[sys]

there's a difference between pointing out that somebody's point of view is logically inconsistent and pointing out that they act inconsistently with their argument.

absolutely there is.

[DQ12]

i think it's ok to point out the former (logical inconsistencies) but the latter (personally acting inconsistent with your professed POV) is mostly bogus.

[420seriouscat69]

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1002340417373917184

[420seriouscat69]

Just posted it since everyone is debating hypocrisy.

[chum1]

People typically do distinguish between arguments that are valid and not valid. A valid argument is one in which the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the truth of the premises. Since fallacies fail to meet this criterion, they're thought of as arguments that are not valid.

[catastrophe]

the fact that portraying your counterpart as a hypocrite does nothing to support or falsify the truth of their position is (part of) why it's a really stupid argument.

And that’s why I said it’s not an argument at all. It’s an attack on your opponent’s credibility which happens to be very effective in most cases.

[catastrophe]

Just posted it since everyone is debating hypocrisy.

And that’s an example of using it poorly, cause they’re just saying “hypocrisy of the left.” It’s meaningless.

[sys]

And that’s why I said it’s not an argument at all. It’s an attack on your opponent’s credibility which happens to be very effective in most cases.

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

[sys]

And that’s an example of using it poorly, cause they’re just saying “hypocrisy of the left.” It’s meaningless.

that's the least of reasons (though still a good reason).

[steve dave]

https://twitter.com/krangtnelson/status/1002538410802860032?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catastrophe]

And that’s why I said it’s not an argument at all. It’s an attack on your opponent’s credibility which happens to be very effective in most cases.

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Sure I think that definition is broad enough to include allegations of hypocrisy, but it’s also broad enough to include things like credentials which typically aren’t thought of as arguments.

If we’re debating the merits of the individual mandate and I have significant experience in health insurance financing/underwriting, I will mention that with the aim that people will find me more credible and hence my opinions more persuasive. I consider accusations of hypocrisy to be along the same lines. I consider neither to be an “argument” even though they’re both ultimately intended to persuade.

[Spracne]

Agree completely with catastrophe's line of thought.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[sys]

Sure I think that definition is broad enough to include allegations of hypocrisy, but it’s also broad enough to include things like credentials which typically aren’t thought of as arguments.

If we’re debating the merits of the individual mandate and I have significant experience in health insurance financing/underwriting, I will mention that with the aim that people will find me more credible and hence my opinions more persuasive. I consider accusations of hypocrisy to be along the same lines. I consider neither to be an “argument” even though they’re both ultimately intended to persuade.

argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit).  Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

[CHONGS]

I guess we are disagreeing on what the definition of "argument" is.

[catastrophe]

It appears that way.  And since sys found fancy latin term for his side I think I lost

Although it really just becomes circular at some point.  If appealing to credibility is considered an argument, and if you agree that people really seem to go nuts over hypocrisy allegations, then it seems logically inconsistent to call it a bad argument.