Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage - Page 4

 

I wasn't suggesting sweeping it under the rug - just pointing out that his argument does not hinge on it but it appears, like an old slogan, in all his posts. And by the way - it's not a fact - it's an assertion, and an unsupported one.

 

No, not a word of comment on any of your other points.

 

You make such a statement ("I just cannot conceive of the level of naivety and ignorance of history necessary to imagine any other outcome") and I'm the one engaging in argumentum ad hominem? I'm the one who doesn't want a discussion?

 

We can converse until we're blue in the face (we've probably arrived at that point), but if you process everything I say and everything you read through the mindset reflected in that single statement, we're both wasting our time.

 

How is it not?!

 

I was just being honest. And it is disingenuous to try to argue that I don't want a discussion when you look at the total content of my posts.

 

You should look up the definition of ad hominem too; by ad hominem one dismisses an opposing argument by attacking the opponent rather than the argument. Concluding that an opposing position is naive and ignorant based on the opponent's argument not ad hominem. On the other hand, dismissing my arguments because you don't like my "mindset" is ad hominem. Hopefully that helps.

 

Anyway - no problem if are done - you always seem to pick and choose which arguments to respond to, and ignore those that you (presumably) cannot answer, so I figured you would disengage sooner or later.

 

Are we still talking about the assertion that taxes are collected under the threat of violence? What violence would that be? Can you point to anything in tax law threatening violence? Are you confusing the IRS with the mafia? 

 

Yes. That was the context. 

 

 

 

What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?

 

 

 

You're not?

 

I am done because of your condescending tone and continued engagement in straw man fallacies and argumentum ad hominem. If you want to claim it's because I cannot answer, go right ahead.

 

Hopefully others with open minds will think about some of the things I've said and realize that - to paraphrase Bastiat - life, liberty, and property do not exist because men made laws. On the contrary, men made laws because those things existed in the first place.

Muppetry explains why his statement was not ad hominem. Jazz responds by saying he's tired of all the ad hominem. There's some sort of filter that appears to prevent Jazz & MJ from accepting counterarguments. It's confirmation bias to the extreme.

jazz, technically I think muppetry is right when he says:

 

 

Declaring that your position is naive and ignorant is more like an appeal to ridicule/mockery (reductio ad ridiculum.)

 

I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. He declared that anyone who didn't arrive at the same conclusions as him was naive and ignorant. And, since he was conversing with me, the implication was obvious.

 

I agree that might be a fine line, but I'd call it for appeal to mockery nonetheless. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him, nor does it do anything to logically support his "argument." This has actually become common among our friends of the leftist persuasion here. Tonton does it when he calls you (or me) "extremist" (using that word in the purely pejorative sense.) BR does it when he declares our views as "Utopian." Muppetry sorta did it when he asks "where di your oppression complex come from?" But that's really more like a loaded question.

The idea that if you home school your children you're not benefitting from the educational infrastructure of the government is asinine. Likewise with social security and welfare.

Like it or not, we are members of society. When society benefits, we benefit. Don't like the society to which you belong? Find another society. You are not powerless to do so!

What's that? You like your home? Well guess what? The niceties of your home exist in part because of the benefits of this society, too!
Edited by tonton - 2/28/13 at 4:00pm

 

Thank you for your opinion.

Yes I know it's of little value when faced with your brick wall of denial and the blinders over your eyes.

 

Oh for goodness sake - I retract the statement, OK. I was trying to convey my inability to imagine how one could come to those conclusions, and suggesting that the argument was naive and ignorant of history - but I admit that I could have phrased it differently. The implication that jazzguru refers to was not my intent, and I apologize if it gave that impression.

 

There's nothing wrong with a loaded question, by the way - it is not, in itself, a fallacy. That requires a constraint on the form of the answer.

 

You ultimately risk prosecution for non-payment, risking financial penalties, and on refusal to pay those, potentially imprisonment. I'm still missing the violence.

jazz, see how tonton is continuing to do it?

 

Wrong.

 

There was no element of mockery, so no, it's not that. More importantly, it was not even part of my argument - just an expression of disbelief.

 

Straight back to monosyllabic naysaying, I see.

 

Wrong.

 

You're right, calling someone (or their position) naive and ignorant is not mockery. 

 

 

 

This then is not fallacy and that's fine.

Stating clearly and eloquently why you're wrong is not condescension. Muppetey has shown patience and respect in his approach. This very thread is evidence of the very same self-victimization that has led to hatred for government, hatred of social constructs, hatred of anyone in authority...

 

And here we go again. Sheesh. This from the guy who claims to discuss with logic and reason. Let's see, we have at least two straw men, I think a third.

And here we have a fallacy on your part. I never claim to restrict my argument to logic and reason. I don't have the patience for it. What I claim to do is to understand logic and reason.

 

Fair enough. My error.

 

 

 

That's clear.

 

It's much easier to accuse people of things that aren't really true (e.g., self-vicitimization, hatred of social constructs, hatred of anyone in authority.) because...well...it's a convenient diversion from the truth and saves the time of actually understanding the position of people you strongly disagree with.

 

 

 

 

That is much less so.

 

That was actually amusing. Very clever. However, you will notice that the link you provided uses as its example a question that constrains the answer to yes or no, and that either answer is an admission of the presumption. That is the context-dependent element of the fallacy. My original question "Where did your oppression complex come from?", places no such constraints (not a yes/no question), and obviously allows, for example, the response "I have no oppression complex". It could, of course, be split into a suggestion "it looks like you have an oppression complex", followed by the question "where did that come from", but that does not change anything, and so would be a pointless adjustment.

True or false:

The non-aggression principle is not enforceable without violating the non-aggression principle.

Home-schooled children benefit from the constructs of society including public education.

 

But this is no different than the situation when confronted with the "when did you stop beating your wife?" (loaded) question (the question-ee can easily respond similarly to that question.) The issue is less about the direct form of a yes/no question than the fact that it contains a built-in (assumed) premised. It is essentially begging the question in the form of a question. And, I suspect, you know this.

 

False.

 

 

 

Is this an assertion or an additional true/false question?

Now, I can prove you 100% wrong on that using logic and reason.

The latter.

 

Give it a try.

 

In my opinion it would depend on the children and the family. Frankly, the broadness of the question (all home-schooled children) makes this difficult to answer. But, more than that, no one has claimed that people do not benefit from stuff like government education. That's a straw man. The better questions are: a) Do people benefit on the net as compared to another approach, and b) would people benefit more using another approach, and c) would more people benefit using a different approach.

Simple questions.

There has been a murder. There is a clear suspect, but guilt cannot be proven without trial. What do you do, under the non-aggression principle?

 

I would think, hold some kind of trial/review/inquest to establish actual guilt.

 

What would you do?

Edited by MJ1970 - 2/28/13 at 5:20pm

 

No - you are mis-remembering I think. The classic question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" And the entire point, again, is the attempt to constrain to a yes/no answer, both of which admit the presumption, and it becomes the fallacy of many questions. It is a common error to mis-characterize any loaded question as that fallacy.

 

And it is not begging the question, because in that fallacy the argument contains its conclusion as an assumption - entirely different.

 

But both contain the same built-in presumption.

 

How is "When did you stop beating you're wife?" fundamentally different from "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The issue is less about the constraint of the yes/no answer than it is about the built in presumption. What you're saying is true if the questioner will only accept the constrained set of implied answers. For example:

 

In "When did you stop beating you're wife?" and the questioner will only accept a date as an answer it is not fundamentally different from the question phrased as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and the questioner constraining the answer to yes or no. Both of these questions can be dealt with by rejected the in-built presupposition (that he has been beating his wife) by answering "I have never beat my wife."

 

But none of this changes the fundamentally loaded nature of the question to begin with.

 

When you ask "Where did your oppression complex come from?" there is a built-in assumption that the recipient of this question has an "oppression complex" and built-in implication that the acceptable answers are either a) a source of this "oppression complex", or b) "nowhere" which does not entirely (or even at all) reject the built-in assumption that the question recipient does have an "oppression complex." Again, the recipient can answer by rejecting this assumption outright by saying "I don't have an oppression complex." This differs in no significant way from the beating your wife example.

 

Just an observation - NAP is so plagued by conflicting definitions, exemptions, and contradictions that you are very unlikely to nail this argument.

 

Please do share.