ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 04, 2017

He is not arguing here

John C. Wright defends an alternative definition of argument:
An invalid argument is not an argument in the same way a cure that fails to cure is not a cure.

People use the word argument both to mean any arguments and to mean valid arguments.

Likewise, people use the word cure both to mean any cures and to mean only cures that work

You are getting worked up over a semantic argument. Which is also not an argument
To which I respond: if the word "argument" can be legitimately understood to mean only valid arguments, that meaning is nonsensical. Such a definition renders the very concept of arguing incoherent because only the correct party could be considered to be presenting an argument.

And if both parties are advocating incorrect positions, then neither party is presenting an argument, and therefore neither of them can be said to be arguing at all, which effectively destroys the language as we have no word for the not-arguing they are doing, nor do we have one for the not-arguments they are presenting to each other.

The semantics are not irrelevant here. The fact that people may use a word a certain way does not mean they are not incorrect to do so. People say "inflammable" to mean "not flammable" too, but that usage is incorrect. A faulty syllogism is still a syllogism, an incorrect or invalid argument is still an argument, and an unsuccessful medical treatment is still a treatment.

Which may explain why that limited definition of argument does not, in fact, exist. Whereas, as it happens, both definitions do exist for cure:
  • a method or course of remedial treatment, as for disease.
  • successful remedial treatment; restoration to health.
So, it is observably incorrect to say that an invalid argument is not an argument in the same way a cure that fails to cure is not a cure. To put it into purely logical terms, A cannot be Not-A, but X can be Not-Y.

Labels:

80 Comments:

Blogger Salt July 04, 2017 4:40 PM  

Lawyers. If you have the facts but not the law, argue the facts. If you have the law but not the facts, argue the law. If you have neither, baffle them with bullshit and hope no one notices you're arguing nothig.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 04, 2017 4:50 PM  

I understand people commonly use "Not an argument" to mean "Not a valid/strong/convincing argument" but that is sloppy use of language.


Anonymous Battlefrog July 04, 2017 4:51 PM  

I can't understand this blog post. I think you need a new mic.

Anonymous Mike July 04, 2017 4:54 PM  

A chair that will collapse when an oversized person sits on it is still a chair.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 04, 2017 4:54 PM  

To which I respond: if the word "argument" can be legitimately understood to mean only valid arguments, that meaning is nonsensical. Such a definition renders the very concept of arguing incoherent because only the correct party could be considered to be presenting an argument.

A dogmatic personality would prefer this to be true.

Anonymous DirkH July 04, 2017 4:55 PM  

O/T "Diversity and Comics" observes that Chaykin of Image Comics gets devoured by SJW's - for making a comic miniseries that propagandizes exactly the SJW's talking points. Tumbler Feeding frenzy. He didn't draw the transwoman pretty enough or something.
https://youtu.be/VKmPgkvBqvE

Blogger pyrrhus July 04, 2017 4:56 PM  

An argument that has some rationale, however dubious or false, is an "argument." An argument that is just noise, with no pretense of a rationale, typically just emotion, is "not even wrong" in the memorable words of Wolfgang Pauli, Nobelist in Physics.

Blogger pyrrhus July 04, 2017 4:56 PM  

Pauli said he would always debate people who were wrong, but not those who were not even wrong....

Blogger Clement James July 04, 2017 4:58 PM  

"Such a definition renders the very concept of arguing incoherent because only the correct party could be considered to be presenting an argument."

You've confused valid with sound. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. A valid argument can have false premises. So someone can use a valid and argument and be incorrect.

But you're right that an invalid argument is still an argument.

Blogger VD July 04, 2017 5:02 PM  

You've confused valid with sound.

I haven't confused anything.

Blogger Clement James July 04, 2017 5:06 PM  

An argument can be valid and unsound. And so someone can make a valid argument and have a false conclusion. Have I missed something? My point was just that one can make a valid argument and be incorrect.

Anonymous fop July 04, 2017 5:09 PM  

Is it Sperg Week on Discovery Channel?

Blogger VD July 04, 2017 5:09 PM  

Have I missed something? My point was just that one can make a valid argument and be incorrect.

Yes, you missed the fact that it is not relevant to the discussion. The point I am making stands regardless of how the definition of "argument" is incorrectly narrowed. John chose to utilize "valid" here, not me.

Anonymous Alice De Goon July 04, 2017 5:13 PM  

OT: QuQu just published a vid about the ideological takeover of early Science Fiction by Communists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ3pbxp3QKU

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 04, 2017 5:14 PM  

Is the Earth going to be like Venus because of God Emperor a valid argument?

Blogger Clement James July 04, 2017 5:19 PM  

I agree with your main point. I'm not trying to refute it. But in response to John you said that if only valid arguments we're arguments only the correct party would be giving an argument. You meant this as an ad absurdum against his view. I get it. But an incorrect person can arrive at his conclusion by way of a valid but unsound argument, should his premises be false. Just pointing that out.

Blogger Happy LP9 July 04, 2017 5:22 PM  

This is helpful and educational, its important to followup with a post in depth minus tw-tar drama (after a twitter exchange RE: that Jenny person.)

I needed to re-read this 3 times, obvious IQ gap, too bad the American media wont allow this kind of info to the general public then again they don't care to understand Wrights or Vox's work.

What is so timely about this is how these definitions all arose this week and now there is some great content to spring from snarkyiness from some idiot woman at tw-tar.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook July 04, 2017 5:23 PM  

Cool!

Anonymous kfg July 04, 2017 5:25 PM  

The estimable Mr. Wright is confusing "cure" with "intervention."

Not every intervention is a cure, as not every argument is valid.

Blogger Happy LP9 July 04, 2017 5:27 PM  

OT: Kinda afraid to say but can someone warn Tara and Brittany about Baked Alaska? He appeared with them this week regarding the alt right and alt lite. He's...not on the up and up, I hope I am wrong but?

I think the ladies should consult with Cerno and Roosh RE: that guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ucjPbQwgw

I am concerned to not want our younger dearest people misinformed by another scorpion.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents July 04, 2017 5:36 PM  

Law school causes brain damage.

Anonymous Pathetic Peripatetic July 04, 2017 5:36 PM  

It is rather unusual to me that John C. Wright, a patently learned and intelligent guy, is expending mental energy defending a demonstrably nonsensical position.

"A chair that will collapse when an oversized person sits on it is still a chair."

Bingo, @Mike.

Blogger Phillip George July 04, 2017 5:38 PM  

words are fuzzy. One of the greatest insights of the 20th Century.

There's this thing called irreducible complexity. Have you ever noticed an entire dictionary is required to define both the language and language. It's circular reasoning.

It's non-sensical is not an argument. It's a claim, an assertion.
Like saying "everything I say on this page is untrue". Obviously that can't be true. If "it's non-sensical" is not an argument your reasoning just disappeared in a puff of logic. Wittgenstein was here.

The precision of Aristotle might be useful. But only as an argument.


Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents July 04, 2017 5:38 PM  

@20
OT: Kinda afraid to say but can someone warn Tara and Brittany about Baked Alaska?

Strong, independent, grown up women can take care of themselves.

Anonymous Eduardo July 04, 2017 5:42 PM  

Assburgers everywhere!

Seriously people it is just a linguistics preference of the people of today in DA Interwebz.

Who haven't seem someone saying, on da netz, that if an argument has a logical fallacy it is a pseudo-argument?

Vox just has to let go, MPAI right? So accept the fact that, that, has become the hip definition of argument for all internet Warriors.

Or not... More fun imho.

Anonymous kᴴᶻ July 04, 2017 5:42 PM  

"A chair that will collapse when an oversized person sits on it is still a chair."

It's a chair up until the moment it breaks, then it's a chair no longer.

Just saying.

Anonymous MakeItStop July 04, 2017 5:43 PM  

Earth for Earthmen! Tellerites go home!

Blogger Clement James July 04, 2017 5:44 PM  

Saw it. Thought he was light on substance.

Anonymous Eduardo July 04, 2017 5:48 PM  

Kilo elevated to Hertz

If you saw one leg of the chair is it still a chair? Or juat a defective chair, like the crumbles the fat guy just sat over?

Blogger wrf3 July 04, 2017 5:54 PM  

Have to side with John on this one. He wrote, "People use the word argument both to mean any arguments and to mean valid arguments."

To which Vox replied, "if the word "argument" can be legitimately understood to mean only valid arguments, that meaning is nonsensical."

Vox responded to something John did not say. John said it can mean both, and therefore both parties must agree on usage in context. John is advocating linguistic flexibility with Christian charity.

Anonymous Eduardo July 04, 2017 5:59 PM  

But muh Definition!

Vox has the more funny, advocating "not caring"

Obviously Wright has a mediator personality, Vox has an Evil Dark Lord, English Nazi one.

Blogger John Wright July 04, 2017 6:10 PM  

All I said was that it is a waste of time to argue semantics.

I will take my own advise and not argue the point.

Blogger DJ|Bonky July 04, 2017 6:10 PM  

I've sat in that chair! Lol.

Anonymous URL IRL July 04, 2017 6:11 PM  

"Not an argument" can be a dismissive shorthand for "not a valid argument", in that sense it functions as rhetoric. That's my take on how Molyneux uses it anyhow.

Blogger g wood July 04, 2017 6:18 PM  

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

Anonymous kᴴᶻ July 04, 2017 6:21 PM  

Eduardo-
"If you saw one leg of the chair is it still a chair? Or juat a defective chair, like the crumbles the fat guy just sat over?"

Depends how busted. I assumed the fat guy smashed it.

Regarding the topic:

The hypothesis may be incorrect and no longer used, nevertheless it remains a hypothesis. Though being surpassed, it's no longer THE hypothesis.

Blogger Krul July 04, 2017 6:32 PM  

Funny how all this pettifoggery started because somebody tossed out Molyneux's catchphrase without thinking.

Anonymous Ken July 04, 2017 6:33 PM  

I think John's general point is about the terrible quality of these forums over the last 2 years. Here is a sample:

Me: Here is my point, sirs. Let us reason it together.

Them: You're a cuck. Your black son is not really American. You need to go back.

Me: Sirs, this is not a rational argument. Please let us use candor and logic, unlike the ungentlemanly and the Leftists.

Them: Cuck cuck cuck. You are a beta. Are you a Jooo? You are a globalist. The Holocaust didn't even happen. Go back to Africa. I'm putting you in an oven. Trump is my God king.

- Ken from Virginia

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook July 04, 2017 6:36 PM  

John Wright wrote:All I said was that it is a waste of time to argue semantics.

I will take my own advise and not argue the point.


Lets all agree to shoot left and pass the ammo on the right hand side. Also please post more catwoman cheesecake my doctor says i need it to live.

Blogger James Dixon July 04, 2017 6:41 PM  

> Have to side with John on this one. He wrote, "People use the word argument both to mean any arguments and to mean valid arguments."

They do, but they're using it incorrectly when they do so.

> John said it can mean both, and therefore both parties must agree on usage in context.

John said people use it to mean both. That doesn't mean it does.

Blogger Koanic July 04, 2017 6:54 PM  

I would argue that

A cure that fails to cure
~
An argument that fails to argue

but I suppose JCW would argue that I am not arguing.

Let's not argue about it.

Blogger VD July 04, 2017 6:58 PM  

Vox responded to something John did not say. John said it can mean both, and therefore both parties must agree on usage in context. John is advocating linguistic flexibility with Christian charity.

It cannot legitimately mean both. Words have meanings and common usage is defined, literally, by dictionaries.

Tom Kratman's Posterity argument in defense of civic nationalism is a good example of why those definitions are important.

Blogger Meistergedanken July 04, 2017 7:01 PM  

Actually, it's a broken chair. Ain't adjectives amazing?

Blogger VD July 04, 2017 7:01 PM  

I think John's general point is about the terrible quality of these forums over the last 2 years.

Which is a bit ironic, considering that rhetoric is far more important than dialectic when it comes to persuasion.

John's a Vulcan. Of course he prefers dialectic. But once a site reaches a certain level of traffic, you either have to learn to welcome the rhetoricals as well or you will stagnate.

Blogger Tom Terrific July 04, 2017 7:02 PM  

The best example of "false premises can form a valid argument" is the idea of a valid syllogism which is nevertheless false:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

The FORM of this ARGUMENT is correct. But it's CONCLUSION is false. There can be many other reasons why the street is wet. Yet it is a VALID ARGUMENT.

Valid but incorrect arguments are pretty standard in any argument involving inductive reasoning. In fact, with inductive arguments the best you can usually hope for is most likely probably true because there are so many other variables which could be influencing the outcome.

Most of the arguments made by Sherlock Holmes were of this type. In spite of his overuse of the phrase, "I deduced", he did not deduce, he inferred from his induction. He would say, "I deduced from the ink stain on your face that you are a governess and your charge, an eight year old boy, splashed ink at you." Of course he was always right but that is because it was fiction. There could have easily been ten other explanations for the ink spot on her face. In the movie with Robert Downey from which I'm getting this example, Holmes deduces that Mary dumped her fiance. But she responds, "I didn't leave him. He died." Bah-Dump-Bah!

KillShot.

Blogger Hugo Smith July 04, 2017 7:08 PM  

@38

You sound like a fucking faggot, dude.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft July 04, 2017 7:08 PM  

James Dixon. We cannot "know" things in that (the very, ultimately strictest) sense, so by the strictest definitions, we could never call anything an argument, because we can't ever know (100%) if its conclusion is valid. Everything is a percentage, if you want to be as honest as possible.

You say things like "I think it is" instead of "it is", or "probably" or "most likely" instead of "yes" or "absolutely".

Now, you have to realize that a language is not used only by perfectly honest people, because there aren't any.

Once we've got that cleared up (humans can't be perfect because HUMANS) you'll realize that in order to use language to communicate AT ALL, it needs to be entirely approximations. Almost every word in a language (as used by humans) is an approximation or assumption, because humans cannot comprehend anything that isn't.

The word "argument" has to be used for both invalid (we think) and valid (we also think) arguments, because it's effectively impossible to prove ultimate validity. People will believe what they choose to believe and think as they wish to think regardless of any evidence or lack thereof. Even beyond that, you can't assume the conclusion of an argument from the beginning, so it's only proper and practical to call it an argument.

Even beyond that, if the point I'm arguing towards is something like "Muhmad shouldn't be trusted with the communal explosives", the arguments "Muhmad is a moron, and quite possibly a jihadi" are completely valid.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 04, 2017 7:26 PM  

The problem in John's position is that an argument can be neither valid nor invalid until it is shown to be.

And even if a logical argument has been made, what if observable reality shows that the said argument was wrong? Does it become a not-argument because observable reality invalidated it?

Blogger wrf3 July 04, 2017 7:28 PM  

VD wrote:It cannot legitimately mean both.
Of course it can. English is flexible. As examples, "apology" is a statement of contrition for an action or a defense of one. "Consult" means to offer advice or to take it. "Dollop" can mean either a large or small amount. And so on.
Words have meanings and common usage is defined, literally, by dictionaries.
Common usage is also, not surprisingly, defined by common usage. In fact, dictionaries lag common usage. "Fo shizzle my nizzle" didn't make it into the OED until, what, 2003?
Tom Kratman's Posterity argument in defense of civic nationalism is a good example of why those definitions are important.
Well, sure. I suspect that's why you reacted the way you did when I claimed that your posterity (aka "magic gene") argument isn't any different, in principle, from the "magic dirt" argument which you reject. You said, "genes aren't dirt", but Scripture says, "from dust you came, to dust you shall return." It's certainly your prerogative to ignore that particular definition.

Blogger Orville July 04, 2017 7:29 PM  

Is the Earth going to be like Venus because of God Emperor a valid argument? No, the earth is going to be fine because Professor Spasto is a perv who has dined on pizza at Jeffrey's Pedo Island, and makes visits to a swingers club in Calipornia.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 04, 2017 7:31 PM  

Me: Here is my point, sirs. Let us reason it together.
Them: You're a cuck. Your black son is not really American. You need to go back.


Sucks when people see you coming and don't give you a chance, out of politeness, to run your game on them.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 04, 2017 7:33 PM  

@wrf3, incorrect.

Usage dictates the meaning being used. A word that is defined as a noun and a verb cannot be used as both.

Blogger Johnny July 04, 2017 7:39 PM  

If one wishes to communicate in a way that is more testable than the commonplace statements people make, it becomes necessary to define words in a way that is less flexible than is common. Thus to communicate in a precise way there has to be an agreement on what the words mean. That is why in both law and logic there is a tendency to give words or expressions a relatively rigid meaning.

Saying that an invalid argument is still an argument is asserting an operative definition. Fine if everybody in the discussion knows that is how the word is being used, but a failure to communicate if they don't.

For example, suppose the following is called a treatment: a method or course of remedial treatment, as for disease. If "treatment" is commonly used in this manner, it would also be useful to have a word that defines a treatment that works. "Cure" would be one obvious choice. Thus the operative definition of cure could very sensibly be used to describe a treatment that works. The issue is word definition and that flows from how the word is used.

Blogger wrf3 July 04, 2017 7:43 PM  

Toby Temple wrote:@wrf3, incorrect.

Usage dictates the meaning being used. A word that is defined as a noun and a verb cannot be used as both.


"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"

As the link notes, this is a grammatically correct English sentence.

Blogger SmockMan July 04, 2017 7:44 PM  

What to call it when you aren't sure if the argument is invalid or not: Schrodinger's "argument"

Blogger SmockMan July 04, 2017 7:51 PM  

It does not become an argument until The Philosopher verifies its soundness.

Anonymous Type 5 July 04, 2017 7:52 PM  

In my youth, I had many exchanges with my sisters. No observer could deny that that these exchanges were nonsensical. Similarly, no observer could deny that these exchanges were arguments.

If someone is arguing, they are making an argument.

That being said, I have always liked the line, "It's not an argument. I'm right and you're just saying things."

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) July 04, 2017 8:13 PM  

i thought lawyers were supposed to be rigorously trained in stringent Logic and Rational thought?


15. Mr.MantraMan July 04, 2017 5:14 PM
Is the Earth going to be like Venus because of God Emperor a valid argument?


no, Questions are never Arguments. although they can result in the refutation of an argument.


30. wrf3 July 04, 2017 5:54 PM
Vox responded to something John did not say.


yes, John asserted that that was a permissible definition.

the dictionary disagrees.

that's problematic for John's hypothesis.

further, you have to remember that this started because some tard claimed that "ad Hominem" is NEVER an argument. that is to say, that they used exactly the opposite exclusionary definition that you and John are accusing Vox of.

therefore, Vox was absolutely correct in the specific instance dealing with the Midwit and, even if the word is often used incorrectly in the colloquial, still correct with respect to John.

because you don't unilaterally get to define the language.



53. Johnny July 04, 2017 7:39 PM
Saying that an invalid argument is still an argument is



a circular statement. which also includes the novelty of an inversion.

IF
an "invalid argument" is NOT an argument
THEN
why the hell did you use the word "argument" after the adjective?

you did it because the Set ( Arguments ) includes valid, invalid, rational, irrational, logical, illogical, Rhetorical, Dialectical, correct and incorrect subsets.

( disclaimer - that may not be an exhaustive list )

you've refuted yourself and you didn't even manage to get to the second clause of your sentence.

Blogger Koanic July 04, 2017 8:33 PM  

The one-line refutation, with lawyerly legerdemain removed:

An invalid argument is an argument in the same sense that an ineffectual treatment is a treatment.

Anonymous kᴴᶻ July 04, 2017 8:49 PM  

The ultimate one-line refutation:

Love is Love.*

*H/T Fidel Trudeau

Anonymous Farinata July 04, 2017 8:52 PM  

Besides, where do dictionaries get their definitions? Common usage. So once a meaning of the word is common within some particular context - sorry, but that's the new meaning of the word. You may not like the new meaning - I myself resist saying "inflammable" to mean "cannot catch on fire" - but that's part of the language now. You might as well complain that "dire" has an irregular present indicative stem.

As Wittgenstein said, "I cannot say 'Buh-buh-buh' and mean 'if it does not rain I will go for a walk." Only now, for everyone who's read Wittgenstein, "Buh-buh-buh" can mean precisely that. You just have to wink when you say it.

Blogger VD July 04, 2017 8:53 PM  

Of course it can. English is flexible.

It's hardly surprising to be informed that you subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty school of definitions. We've already observed that. And that is one reason why no one here bothers debating anything with you anymore.

I suspect that's why you reacted the way you did

I react the same way to you every single time. With contempt. Because you are dishonest.

Anonymous Just another commenter July 04, 2017 8:54 PM  

Pedants of the world, unite! (In the strictly limited sense of "unite" meaning to come together in common cause, not be confuse with an actual corporeal fusion of our physical manifestations on the currently known plane of existence.

Joking aside, yes, dealing with some people who are incapable of transitioning between the concrete and literal, versus rhetoric and hyperbole, without specific and explicit notification, can be a pain.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 04, 2017 9:10 PM  

What Bob said, and also this is beyond ridiculous.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 04, 2017 9:17 PM  

OT: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1e73d60a-794c-41e0-b4d9-2f37fb82e205-160528203836/95/determining-sex-and-ethnicity-from-bite-mark-evidence-presentation-final-9-638.jpg?cb=1464467946

Blogger tz July 04, 2017 9:58 PM  

Monty Python is better on the subject

Blogger tz July 04, 2017 10:07 PM  

It is bad form to import an adjective into the definition of a different word. A cure or argument may or may not be correct, effective, etc. but that doesn't allow for tacitly importing "successful", "correct", or "logically sound" into the definition of "argument".

The other problem is often the context isn't easily established. In many threads Mr. Wright has a very specific definition of a word in mind, which is very different in 2017 common usage, even "conservative", and the problem is context isn't established, only that arguments are going past each other as they are from different contexts and no one pauses.

While there is a gap caused by 2SD in intelligence, perhaps there is a larger gap with an expansive v.s. moderate vocabulary. It is hard when the context and definition of each word needs to be established explicitly, harder when the multiple meanings are involved.

Blogger OGRE July 04, 2017 10:20 PM  

As a member of Pendants Anonymous, let me just say that the adjectives "valid" and "invalid" should only be used to describe "argument forms", and not "arguments." Thus, there is no such thing as a valid argument--but some arguments have a valid argument form.

Granted, however, that once we get outside of a Symbolic Logic classroom the terms tends to lose their precision. In particular, people are much more likely to use valid/invalid to describe an argument rather than sound/unsound. But it definitely triggers me when someone says "Your premise is false, therefore your argument is invalid."

Blogger John Wright July 04, 2017 10:53 PM  

@39
"Also please post more catwoman cheesecake my doctor says i need it to live."

Who can ignore so desperate a plea?

http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/07/catwoman-2/

Blogger Vikki Wilson July 05, 2017 12:14 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 05, 2017 1:02 AM  

@19 kfg
"The estimable Mr. Wright is confusing "cure" with "intervention."

Not every intervention is a cure, as not every argument is valid."

Yeah, this is it right here. Or perhaps "treatment" rather than "intervention." His point rests on the somewhat sneaky use of an inexact analogy.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) July 05, 2017 1:19 AM  

60. kᴴᶻ July 04, 2017 8:49 PM
The ultimate one-line refutation:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB9lObWclFQ

Blogger E. Harris July 05, 2017 3:19 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook July 05, 2017 8:47 AM  

Who can ignore so desperate a plea?

Oh gosh! Thank you sir I live to see another day AND another catwoman photo!

Anonymous Rock July 05, 2017 1:01 PM  

John C. Wright is actually almost correct.

VD is too dumb to see it, or perhaps to stubborn to admit it. (I suspect the former). This after dozens of people are trying to explain it to him.

An argument can be wrong, but at least it is an attempt.

Here is my argument for why VD is a retard: Fish!

Do you understand how that is not an argument? Does this example finally penetrate your skull?

Anonymous Toby Temple July 05, 2017 2:27 PM  

""Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"

As the link notes, this is a grammatically correct English sentence.
"

You can't be that stupid, stupid.

See? I used the same words twice in a sentence, one is an adjective and the other is noun, neither are both. You just proved my point and kicked yourself in the balls.

Blogger Doc Rampage July 06, 2017 3:38 PM  

So if SJW's took over all of the dictionaries and next year they all define "alt-right" as "a political philosophy of frustrated white males of low intelligence and an irrational fear of the unusual", would you agree that this is now the correct definition of "alt-right"?

Dictionaries are written by people with their own agendas, fallibilities and other quirks. Furthermore, dictionaries often disagree with each other. The idea that "dictionaries" are the final word on word meaning is not rationally supportable.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 06, 2017 3:52 PM  

As it turns out, gentlemen, you are both somewhat mistaken. John accurately describes the language shift that the word "cure" underwent. See also "art" or "gentleman"*.

He so correctly identifies that a similar shift is underway amidst the maleducated lackwits of our generation for "argument"

He's wrong, however,to assert that those of us capable of making distinctions ought to yield. He could make an argument from charity that, were you hoping to enlist the hapless products of public school education onto our side, explaining the distinction a way that allows your Twitter correspondent to save face would be wise.

Brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood language 'sperg.

*See: Studies in Words by C.S. Lewis.

Blogger Jan Minář July 08, 2017 6:07 AM  

"X is not an argument" is good rhetoric (if poor dialectic). The slightly more correct equivalent "X is a logical fallacy" has, on the other hand, poor track record of ever persuading anybody but debate club nerds.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright July 08, 2017 4:34 PM  

Rhetoric is only more persuasive than dialectic when your audience refuses to think for themselves.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts