ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Listen up, retards

  1. Stop talking about "ad hom" or "ad hominum" or "ad hominem attacks" unless you actually know what an "argumentum ad hominem" is.
  2. "Insult" and "ad hominem" are not synonyms.
  3. Never talk about someone committing a "logical fallacy" unless you can identify the specific logical fallacy being committed.
Seriously, you're all just embarrassing yourselves. Just stop it. It doesn't make you sound either smart or convincing to use words you clearly don't understand. Even if I disagree with you and you're attacking me, it's painful to watch. I mean, count the errors in just this one tweet alone:
#NewYork4Cruz ﻦ † ‏@politicsiswar
Ad hominem attacks. The mark of a Marxist. Why does WND still have you on payroll?
I don't have enough hands for the facepalms required.

Labels:

149 Comments:

Anonymous Soga April 16, 2016 2:34 PM  

Hey Vox, I heard you're a commie. When did you stop beating your plebs?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother April 16, 2016 2:36 PM  

You can hit your face more than once with the same hand.

Just saying.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother April 16, 2016 2:37 PM  

I would ask Vox when he stopped beating his wife, but we all know she isn't real.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 16, 2016 2:38 PM  

#NewYork4Cruz ﻦ † ‏@politicsiswar
Ad hominem attacks. The mark of a Marxist. Why does WND still have you on payroll?


Because you're a white Jew, obviously.

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 2:39 PM  

The ad homo fallacy is when one tries to out-fabulous Milo.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 16, 2016 2:39 PM  

Vox is a disgrace to conservative Republican Jew Marxists everywhere.

Blogger Salt April 16, 2016 2:43 PM  

Okay, Vox, you've never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but you once sat in front of The Donald.

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 2:45 PM  

I am triggered by the ableist language here, Supreme Dark Lord.

Could you not use a more positive, inclusive term?

Like... Gotards.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 2:54 PM  

Whoa. I see eight:

1. WND does not have you at all, and hasn't for years.
2. You were never on the payroll.
3.You are not a Marxist.
4. Argumentum ad hominem is the mark of a logical fallacy, not of Marxism.
5. "The Mark of Marxism" itself is an argument ad hominem. (Fallacy is wrong because of who use it, not because it is illogical.)
6.Ad hominem "attacks" is a replacement word, and is itself used here in a fallacy of equivocation.
7. Neither New York, nor its values, are for Trump.
8. The cross is a non sequitur.

The only thing that tweet got right is to indicate that he is waging a politic sis war...and losing.

What did I miss?

Blogger Badmojo April 16, 2016 2:56 PM  

The tag here is my favorite part.

Blogger Paul, Dammit! April 16, 2016 2:57 PM  

Sometimes I use big words I don't really understand in an effort to appear more photosynthesis than I really am.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 2:58 PM  

7. Cruz, obviously.

Anonymous Carl the Cuck April 16, 2016 2:59 PM  

2."Insult" and "ad hominem" are not synonyms.

Are you kidding me? It's the current year!

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 2:59 PM  

That's technically not all that melanin, Paul Dammit!

Anonymous Eduardo April 16, 2016 3:01 PM  

You forgot that being on Twitter is in itself a fallacy!!!

Just like I heard an athey once saying that Thunderf00t's was a fallacy... Stop laughing!

------------

Seriously why they hate the awesome Trunp-esque future where everything in the USA will be defended with "Get out of my lawn!!!" Type of enthusiasm???

Anonymous Eduardo April 16, 2016 3:03 PM  

Thunderf00t's name.

Woah all these typos and me looking at the politicia s do what they do best... Lie.

Anonymous Wyrd April 16, 2016 3:07 PM  

The ad homo fallacy is when one tries to out-fabulous Milo.

Homo Neanderthalensis went extent because they were too fabulous.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 16, 2016 3:08 PM  

Perhaps you could address the diff between the two. I always used the shorthand definition as insult instead of facts.

IMO that conservatives never throw a rhetorical pilum to begin an exchange means they usually end up playing prevent D.

Anonymous Wyrd April 16, 2016 3:08 PM  

extent

Extinct, even.

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 3:10 PM  

Wyrd - I knew what you mint.

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 3:17 PM  

I used to be in Mensa, but after I was struck on the head in a freak airliner frozen sewage incident they chucked me out due to me no longer possessing the IQ of a brain sturgeon.

Anonymous Freestater April 16, 2016 3:21 PM  

Your Logic ends where my trigger warning begins!

Anonymous Wyrd April 16, 2016 3:21 PM  

...the IQ of a brain sturgeon

But do you still believe the Egyptian pyramids were for storing grain?

Anonymous kfg April 16, 2016 3:27 PM  

@9: "What did I miss?"

I don't know, but when we find it even Durga won't have enough hands.

Blogger Edward Isaacs April 16, 2016 3:27 PM  

An ad hominem attack is not identical with an ad hominem fallacy.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-ad-hominem-fallacy.html

"Similarly, not every ad hominem attack -- an attack “against the man” or person -- involves a fallacious ad hominem. “Attacking the man” can be entirely legitimate and sometimes even called for, even in an argumentative context, when it is precisely the man himself who is the problem."

However, I agree that most people using the term are just embarrassing themselves.

Anonymous kfg April 16, 2016 3:32 PM  

" . . . when it is precisely the man himself who is the problem.""

Enter Ben Shapiro; stage left.

Blogger JACIII April 16, 2016 3:35 PM  

GOTARDS! That's gonna stick.

Blogger JACIII April 16, 2016 3:35 PM  

GOTARDS! That's gonna stick.

Blogger Krul April 16, 2016 3:37 PM  

"Listen up, retards"

Wow. Ad hominem much? Typical fascists-sexist-racists-ableist-homophobe-islamaphobe-gramophone on the wrong size of herstory.

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 3:37 PM  

do you still believe the Egyptian pyramids were for storing grain?

Paging Dr. Stabby...

Anonymous Faceless April 16, 2016 3:38 PM  

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

chick•en hawk
noun US
noun: chickenhawk
2: (informal) a person who speaks out in support of war, yet has avoided active military service.

Prop 1: Mr. Shapiro called the conflict in the GWoT the great existential conflict of our time and encouraged sacrifices to be made. "During wartime, sacrifices must be made."
Prop 2: Mr. Shapiro made no sacrifices for said war, but instead focused on pursuing his career as another Rush Limbaugh wannabe with a JD.

Therefore, by definition, Mr. Shapiro is a chickenhawk.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 16, 2016 3:42 PM  

The tag here is my favorite part.

The trainwreck is fine.

Anonymous Faceless April 16, 2016 3:42 PM  

You know, I remember when WND used to have that weird run of child columnists like Mr. Shapiro, and I wondered if this was going to be their teenage poetry ten years hence - something upon which they would look askance with embarrassment at the idiocy of youth.

Apparently not for Mr. Shapiro and his large audience.

How again does a shoulder shove get a forearm bruise again?

Anonymous Faceless April 16, 2016 3:47 PM  

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.

– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

That quote is absolutely crazy and is clear evidence that Mr. Shapiro thinks all the lesser proles are disposable people not worthy of life if it means advancing his wet dreams of being Grand Vizier of some neo-Pharaonic American empire, but it does explain why - gripped by the same mania with such svengalis as Rich Lowry still getting an audience - this current GOP Congress is about to try to dynamite the relationship with Saudi Arabia while Obama is still in office. For empire!

Anonymous kfg April 16, 2016 3:51 PM  

"The trainwreck is fine."

Ha!

Anonymous Eduardo April 16, 2016 4:09 PM  

Shouldn't we have a Up/Down system to rate all these awesome comments???

But again... Nahhh! That is a Mark of Marxist collectvism.

Blogger Jason April 16, 2016 4:10 PM  

I always like the observation.

1. You are a moron and your argument is wrong <~ insult

2. Your argument is wrong because you are a moron <~ ad hom

The difference in a nutshell.

Blogger Jason April 16, 2016 4:11 PM  

I always like the observation.

1. You are a moron and your argument is wrong <~ insult

2. Your argument is wrong because you are a moron <~ ad hom

The difference in a nutshell.

Blogger RobertT April 16, 2016 4:15 PM  

Thank you. These terms are thrown around here like confetti.

Anonymous Eduardo April 16, 2016 4:19 PM  

O_õ are you trying to say We are stupid... Wow ad hominem much?

-------

#sarcasm

Blogger David Gudeman April 16, 2016 4:27 PM  

Jason wrote:2. Your argument is wrong because you are a moron <~ ad hom

That is an ad hominem fallacy. A sound ad hominem argument might go something like: The expert witness you offered for support has proven unreliable in the past or has an agenda that renders his opinion suspect.

The hominem you are ad'ing doesn't have to be the person you are arguing with. It can be, but in a sound argument the argument against the man is more often directed against outside authorities brought up to support a point.

Blogger David Gudeman April 16, 2016 4:28 PM  

Jason wrote:2. Your argument is wrong because you are a moron <~ ad hom

That is an ad hominem fallacy. A sound ad hominem argument might go something like: The expert witness you offered for support has proven unreliable in the past or has an agenda that renders his opinion suspect.

The hominem you are ad'ing doesn't have to be the person you are arguing with. It can be, but in a sound argument the argument against the man is more often directed against outside authorities brought up to support a point.

Blogger John Wright April 16, 2016 4:33 PM  

The ad hominem fallacy is concluding from some suspect character flaw of the man giving the argument that the argument is therefore false.

Calling the objectivity of an expert witness into question is not an ad hominem fallacy, neither is bolstering an expert witness' credentials ad verecundiam, simply because calling an expert witness is not a figure of logic: the authority of experts speaks to how sound a judgment call is, not to how valid a syllogism is.

One is a matter of judgment. The other is a matter of logic.

Blogger tz April 16, 2016 4:38 PM  

Not brain sturgeon, brain coral. As in Coraline, converger of open sources.

OpenID Bob April 16, 2016 4:49 PM  

Definition of ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Sounds like an insult to me.

Blogger Krul April 16, 2016 4:50 PM  

Say, what is that symbol in between the cross and the @? Farsi?

Anonymous tublecane April 16, 2016 4:52 PM  

"2. 'Insult' and 'ad hominem' are not synonyms."

True, because insults don't have to be on purpose, for instance. However, deliberate insults taking the form of direct attacks on a person are ad hominem, or "to the man." The fact that most people use the term "ad hominem" as shorthand for "the ad hominem logical fallacy" does not change that fact.

You may not like people mistaking your insults for logical fallacies, but don't take it out on the dictionary.

Anonymous Bernard Brandt April 16, 2016 4:53 PM  

As Vox has occasionally remarked, it's a battle of wits around these parts, and if you are not acquainted with grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, it's a battle that you are conducting without ammo. In short, if you are unacquainted with the use of simple declarative sentences, can't string them together into something resembling an argument, or recognize when someone is using a figure of speech, you're bringing a knife to a fire fight.

For grammar, try this: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar

For dialectic, try this: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

And for rhetoric, try this: http://rhetoric.byu.edu

(sorry about not linking, but I figure that anyone who can't block and copy is just too damned lazy to bother with).

Anonymous Samson April 16, 2016 4:53 PM  

Listen up, retards

While we're here, retards should stop talking about the slippery slope "fallacy".

It's only a fallacy to say that A will lead to B if you don't give any good *reasons* why A will lead to B.

It's not in any way logically fallacious to argue, based on what we know about historical trends, etc., that A will likely lead to B.

Blogger Rusty Fife April 16, 2016 4:57 PM  

Krul wrote:Say, what is that symbol in between the cross and the @? Farsi?

I believe it is the Arabic 'N' for 'Nazarene'. ISIS has been making Christians paint that on their house so they can be taxed instead of slain and enslaved.

Blogger Rusty Fife April 16, 2016 4:58 PM  

@50

It's all cave drawings to me.

Anonymous tublecane April 16, 2016 4:59 PM  

@37-"The difference in a nutshell."

The difference is not that one is ad hominem and the other isn't. Both contain ad hominems. The real difference is that the latter makes a fallacious logical claim whereas the former doesn't.

Blogger Krul April 16, 2016 4:59 PM  

I'm thinking of actually having a set of Mr Hopkins' cards printed up.

Well, that's the male version. The female cards will just say "You're fat".

Blogger VD April 16, 2016 5:01 PM  

You may not like people mistaking your insults for logical fallacies, but don't take it out on the dictionary.

I didn't. The train is fine.

Anonymous tublecane April 16, 2016 5:11 PM  

"I didn't. The train is fine."

I suggest you consult a dictionary to confirm, or are they only for autistic people? Why am I autistic for insisting on a broader meaning for "ad hominem" than you. You, who started a whole thread because you think people are employing the wrong definition of a Latin phrase.

That "train is fine" joke is getting really tiresome, by the way. It's not any cleverer than calling people who disagree with you "retards." Not that people who think that insults are fallacious as such aren't acting stupidly.

Blogger Axel Mckibbin April 16, 2016 5:19 PM  

As a fellow tard I must take offense to the term "retarded." Your insensitive language is ableist toward the intellectually challenged.

http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 5:22 PM  

I must take offense to the term "retarded."

Right?

It's still ok to say "Mongoloids" though.

Anonymous tublecane April 16, 2016 5:24 PM  

Ever wonder why the phrase "ad hominem" is seen so often modifying "argument," as in "argument ad hominem?" That's because on its own the phrase doesn't mean "ad hominem argument." People most often use it as shorthand for "ad hominem argumentative fallacy," but sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're talking about an attack that isn't an argument, nor fallacious. Sometimes it just refers to an insult.

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 5:25 PM  

That "train is fine" joke is getting really tiresome, by the way.

Why do you hate America?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother April 16, 2016 5:37 PM  

The train is fine keeps chugging down the track at a healthy clip, thank you very much. We'll stop using that pinch of locomotive salt when it loses its savor.

Blogger Tom K. April 16, 2016 5:42 PM  

No. They were monuments to the Black African Kings and Queens of Egypt!

And if you diaageee, you're RACISSSSSSS!

Anonymous Bernard Brandt April 16, 2016 5:44 PM  

Dear little Tuble here is a prime example of the necessity for knowing grammar, logic, and rhetoric around these parts. He starts off well, with an attempt at a logical attack on VD, but is blindsided when Vox uses a rhetorical attack. Tuble then tries to use more dialectic, but loses. Next time, Tuble, when someone uses 'The train is fine', answer with "Yeah, the train is fine. Your argument isn't.' But then, you'd have to have something to back up your argument with as well. You lose.

Blogger Tom K. April 16, 2016 5:46 PM  

Thanks for the clarity.

Anonymous zzzz April 16, 2016 5:54 PM  

"Listen up, retards"

goodbye

Blogger Tom K. April 16, 2016 5:55 PM  

The train is fine.

I am sometimes surprised at how often I will look up those old Onion news reports just for a good laugh. Man, I would have loved it jf they'd done more than Just five or six of those!

And some days I wish I could go to prison as well!

Stacking boxes. I want to stack boxes. How can I get into prison? Now! I want into prison now. How can i get into prison now? Armed robbery. Armed robbery.

Blogger CSAFarmer April 16, 2016 5:57 PM  

Mentally ill is ill . . .
Mentally challenged is challenged . . .
'Retard'is a life choice.

Anonymous Bernard Brandt April 16, 2016 5:58 PM  

Tom K.,

Being homeless also seems to work around where I live.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 16, 2016 6:01 PM  

John Wright wrote:The ad hominem fallacy is concluding from some suspect character flaw of the man giving the argument that the argument is therefore false.

Calling the objectivity of an expert witness into question is not an ad hominem fallacy, neither is bolstering an expert witness' credentials ad verecundiam, simply because calling an expert witness is not a figure of logic: the authority of experts speaks to how sound a judgment call is, not to how valid a syllogism is.

One is a matter of judgment. The other is a matter of logic.



*runs for dictionary as usual when JCW posts*
Mr. Wright, would you please have a look at the wiki page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[10]

The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.


Does that sound legit to you? I'm thinking of the notion of scientific consensus.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 16, 2016 6:07 PM  

Steve wrote:I used to be in Mensa, but after I was struck on the head in a freak airliner frozen sewage incident they chucked me out due to me no longer possessing the IQ of a brain sturgeon.

From what altitude?

Anonymous Steve April 16, 2016 6:13 PM  

From what altitude?

Don't blame the victim.

If you got brained by a blue icy chunk of British Airways passenger poo, you'd have a shitty altitude too.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 6:13 PM  

Tublecane, never change.

Oops. Typo.

Tublecane never change.

Blogger VD April 16, 2016 6:18 PM  

That "train is fine" joke is getting really tiresome, by the way. It's not any cleverer than calling people who disagree with you "retards." Not that people who think that insults are fallacious as such aren't acting stupidly.

Sperg on, spergatron. The train is still fine.

And if you insist on dialectic, I will observe that absolutely no one who complains about "ad hom" is referring to anything but the logical fallacy. No one. Nada. Zero. The null set. Therefore, it is irrelevant what the dictionary says or what the Latin translation of the first two words is.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 16, 2016 6:23 PM  

Steve wrote:From what altitude?

Don't blame the victim.

If you got brained by a blue icy chunk of British Airways passenger poo, you'd have a shitty altitude too.


Sounds fishy. Sure it wasn't because the blue hair doo?

Anonymous Urban April 16, 2016 6:49 PM  

@68 Logical fallacies deal with the form of an argument. For example, the argument "All elephants are green. All green things are dogs. Therefore all elephants are dogs." is formally valid. It's premises are false, but it follows the proper rules of inference and admits no logical fallacies. The logically valid appeal to authority cited is valid in the same way.

"Scientists say A therefore we can presume A is true" is a logically valid appeal to authority but it say nothing about whether A is true or false in the same way my example here says nothing about whether elephants are actually green.

Logic itself only speaks to the form of argumentation, not the truth or falsity of what is claimed as given. This is why intelligent, logical people can have compelling well-reasoned arguments and yet be so far from the truth. "It's not a person yet" or "God is not out there" or "nations are not to be valued higher than per capita GDP" are statements whose truth value cannot be determined by formal logic.

Blogger CM April 16, 2016 6:53 PM  

Sounds fishy

I thought it sounded fishy with the IQ of a brain sturgeon.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 6:53 PM  

Holy TWA, Steveman. To the Scatcave!

Anonymous Soga April 16, 2016 6:53 PM  

Urban wrote:@68"Scientists say A therefore we can presume A is true" is a logically valid appeal to authority but it say nothing about whether A is true or false in the same way my example here says nothing about whether elephants are actually green.

No, that's not logically valid; that is a nonsequitar. What would be logically valid, however, would be to say:

"Scientists say A. Scientists tell the truth. Therefore, we can presume A is true."

Anonymous BKGB April 16, 2016 7:04 PM  

The ad homo fallacy is when one tries to out-fabulous Milo.

can someone with a nonbanned twitter account let Milo know someone made a song about him, he probably doesn't listen to the type. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcXrIY0HsA

...."Milo, that’s you We are the alt-right, alt-right, alt-right Look now at the alt-right All this subversion Think I don’t see that Sheep within the wolfpack Looking now at your bullshit Milo I see you Think I can’t see that Sheep within the wolfpack Those loosened screws"

That "train is fine" joke is getting really tiresome, by the way.

All this talk about trains I think I might watch the Atlas Shrugged trilogy

I used to be in Mensa, but after I was struck on the head in a freak airliner frozen sewage incident they chucked me out due

Maybe Trump will start up a Pinochet helicopter ride service.

Blogger Rusty Fife April 16, 2016 7:10 PM  

Fortunately, there are no fallacies in ladder logic.

It would be fun to have 'attack the man' as an output...until the the singularty.

Blogger S1AL April 16, 2016 7:23 PM  

Eh, the difference between ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy is adding "You're wrong because" to the beginning of the sentence.

Why so fascist?

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 16, 2016 7:33 PM  

CM wrote:Sounds fishy

I thought it sounded fishy with the IQ of a brain sturgeon.


Pinochet was the copilot. Explains everything.

Anonymous Cheddarman April 16, 2016 7:36 PM  

We are all retards now.

Blogger The Other Robot April 16, 2016 7:40 PM  

Never go full retard!

Blogger The Other Robot April 16, 2016 7:43 PM  

Newton was a christian so his theory of gravity must be wrong!

Anonymous Urban April 16, 2016 7:45 PM  

@77 Sure it's valid. The rule of inference that says you can conclude that A is presumed true if A is held by an authority is properly used. To say it's a non-sequitur is to reject the appeal to authority as a valid rule of inference. Your syllogism is valid but relies on a different rule of inference (modus ponens.)

The thing about formal logic is you get to choose what your rules of inference are. You actually have multiple logical systems available. An argument may be valid in one and invalid in another. To dismiss the appeal to authority as not being a rule of inference is fine--that means you are selecting a different logic to work in. But, that is very different from improperly using the appeal to authority rule of inference, which leads to the fallacy.

OK, too much math. Back to trains being fine.

Blogger Lovekraft April 16, 2016 7:59 PM  

Agreeing that using proper analysis of argument and retort makes us a more cohesive tactical force, the next generation of social media blobs are coming along.

And I doubt they are going to care, much less understand, these nuances of argument. If they are to be reckoned with, then we must be ready for these tactics.

Engage them using their tactics, or ban outright. But I wonder whether using high language/logic will matter when the majority of participants are become Zuckerberged.

Blogger Lovekraft April 16, 2016 8:00 PM  

... are becoming ...

Anonymous kfg April 16, 2016 8:09 PM  

"Newton was a christian so his theory of gravity must be wrong!"

And was the first to publish empirical evidence that it was, or at least that it was sufficiently incomplete so as not to be able to explain certain observations.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 16, 2016 8:15 PM  

Thank you Urban and Soga.

Soga wrote:Urban wrote:@68

"Scientists say A therefore we can presume A is true".

...

"Scientists say A. Scientists tell the truth. Therefore, we can presume A is true."


Hmmm. Example from wiki-

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

It's not explicit in that particular sentence, but the construct seems to be-

Scientists say A. Scientists tell the truth. Therefore, we can presume A is true. Furthermore, anyone who asserts notA is a liar and a not-scientist.

Blogger Matamoros April 16, 2016 8:35 PM  

Just be haaappppyyyy!

Top Russian senator proposes ‘Ministry of Happiness’ to improve life

https://www.rt.com/politics/339585-top-russian-senator-proposes-ministry/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

Anonymous Wyrd April 16, 2016 8:46 PM  

Train, train, take me out of this town!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuWt8Y9RvLw

Anonymous Jill April 16, 2016 8:47 PM  

LOL

Anonymous kfg April 16, 2016 9:01 PM  

@90: " . . .citizens who are happy themselves would try to cheer other people up."

That's an interesting way to phrase "the beatings will continue until morale improves."

Anonymous kfg April 16, 2016 9:03 PM  

The train don't run by here no more.
Poor, poor pitiful me.

Anonymous Wyrd April 16, 2016 9:38 PM  

How to put the fear of God in your neighbor? Walk to your mailbox with a replica of Orcrist in your hand. Noisy knee-grow who previously proclaimed "I gets to do whatever I wants to do whenever I wants to do it!" ran for her life without a word from me! LOL!

Blogger Were-Puppy April 16, 2016 9:44 PM  

#NewYork4Cruz ﻦ † ‏@politicsiswar
Ad hominem attacks. The mark of a Marxist. Why does WND still have you on payroll?
---

You've just sullied a moment of your time with a Cruzbot. Not to be confused with a plain old Cruz supporter, these are the Radical Cruzlims that believe the internet is Serious Bizzness.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 16, 2016 9:49 PM  

@21 Steve

I used to be in Mensa, but after I was struck on the head in a freak airliner frozen sewage incident they chucked me out due to me no longer possessing the IQ of a brain sturgeon.
---

Rumor has it Doc Carson might be willing to help a real Trans-American

Blogger David Gudeman April 16, 2016 9:49 PM  

There is more to logic than Aristotle and syllogism. Logic is a field with literally centuries of development since Aristotle wrote on it. The idea that the process of correct reasoning is so simple that one man could exhaust the subject in a few thousand words is, frankly, preposterous. Even Aristotle was aware that there was much that his logic did not cover.

In particular, the category of valid arguments is a small subset of the category of good arguments. Here is an example to show what I mean:

1. Four out of five dentists recommend a toothpaste with fluoride.
2. therefore you should get a toothpaste with fluoride.

This is not a valid argument because the premise might be true, yet the conclusion false. However, it is a strong argument because lacking other reasons to think the conclusion is false, if you believe the premise, you ought to think the conclusion is highly likely.

Sometimes one can take argument that are apparently strong but not valid an turn them into valid arguments by adding premises such that

1. Everyone who agrees the original argument is strong will agree with the premises
and
2. The additional premises make the argument valid.

In such cases, we could say that the original argument was a valid argument with hidden premises. But the dentist argument is not such an argument.

What premises would you add? Well, you need some premises about majorities opinions. It's hard to imagine a general premise that would be acceptable to everyone for every case.

Then, consider that if four out of five dentists recommend Steel Magnolias, that doesn't make a strong argument for going to see the movie. So you also need a premise about relevance to teeth.

And, four out of five dentists may recommend a monthly teeth cleaning, but unless you trust dentists to always put their patients's care ahead of their own gain, that's not a very good argument for monthly teeth cleanings. So you also need something in your implicit premises about motivations or conflicts of interest

Then four out of five dentists may recommend a law forcing everyone to brush their teeth after very meal, but that's not a good argument for such a law. So you need your premise to include something about political or ideological systems.

In short, there is simply no way to add premises to the argument in a way that everyone who agrees the original argument is strong will agree on the premises. Therefore the argument is strong but not valid.

The dentist example illustrates one form of strong-but-not-valid argument: the appeal to a recognized authority. One way to counter such arguments is by questioning whether the authority is reliable. When you do so, then you are making a sound ad hominem argument (I'm using the word "sound" in a general sense here, not as a synonym for "valid").

Blogger Were-Puppy April 16, 2016 9:50 PM  

@24 kfg
@9: "What did I miss?"

I don't know, but when we find it even Durga won't have enough hands.
---

Dargo, on the other hand, could have his hands tied, and surprise us with that secret tongue attack you always forgot he has until he uses it out of the blue.

Blogger Doom April 16, 2016 9:51 PM  

Hmm? Oh, speak for yourself. I drool for these tidbits. It makes me more and more sure that the civil war will be short and sweet. Plus, I laugh so hard I no longer need a diuretic. My bowels have always moved well, but this also helps them. Defecating into the face of idiocy is glorious.

You simply need to adjust your pain sensitivity. Might I suggest a little time in the dental office, both having your teeth cleaned and worked, as well as listening to others. I, myself, learned to sing, first out loud then just in my mind. I got away with it as a child, as an adult such is frowned upon. The dental office is one of my most relaxing events in life now. Truly. Go, seek your balance. *bzzzz, shlrp, crack pop, bzzz*

Blogger Were-Puppy April 16, 2016 9:53 PM  

I have this huge ass bruise on my arm like Fields, and I have no idea where it came from.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 16, 2016 10:02 PM  

@65 Tom K.

Stacking boxes. I want to stack boxes.
--

You can be a virtual Onion Reporter by playing the original Shenmue and stack a lot of boxes in a warehouse.

Blogger David Gudeman April 16, 2016 10:02 PM  

Urban wrote:The thing about formal logic is you get to choose what your rules of inference are. You actually have multiple logical systems available. An argument may be valid in one and invalid in another.
Formal logic is not the same as logic. It bears about the same relationship to true logic that simplified physical systems bear to the real world. For example, by assuming that air is an ideal gas, you can get pretty accurate predictions within a certain range of temperature, pressure, and volume, but air is not an ideal gas. Similarly, you can learn about logic by studying formal logic systems, but formal logic systems are not the same as human reasoning.

Since formal logic is usually intended to study real logic, the rules of inference usually reflect something that someone considers valid reasoning. I've never heard of a formal logic where appeal to authority was one of the rules of inference.

Blogger Doom April 16, 2016 10:31 PM  

D.G.,

So, you mean formal logic includes limits and givens that aren't seen in the real world in order to study the real world. Which, actually, is much closer than, say, debate, at sourcing possibilities? Sort of, as in physics when they eliminate gravity to explore other functions (zero point, is it?), or math when they allow for things that also aren't real, but allow a limit to variables... even constants, so as to look at inner workings without the extra bother or more precisely?

I'm not exactly a debater or logic tabulator/manipulator. Just curious if I am understanding what you wrote.

Anonymous TontoBubbaGoldstein April 16, 2016 10:44 PM  

kfg wrote:The train don't run by here no more.

Poor, poor pitiful me.



Every time I hear that Whistle Blow,
I hang my head and I cry...




That's the truth.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 10:54 PM  

David Gudeman, exactly who has added anything of significance on the subject of logic since Aristotle's Organon? All of your examples were Aristotalian.

Blogger David Gudeman April 16, 2016 11:04 PM  

Doom wrote:So, you mean formal logic includes limits and givens that aren't seen in the real world in order to study the real world.

Sort of, but I wouldn't put it that way. Formal logic is an idealization of real reasoning. I'm not sure how far to get into the weeds here, but one example where formal logic does not reflect real logic has to do with material implication. In typical systems of formal logic, "P implies Q" is equivalent to "either P is false or Q is true". If you tried to translate that into real logic, you would get absurdities such the statement that the following is a valid argument

1. 1=0
2. therefore the sky is yellow.

because the argument is equivalent to

3. Either 1=0 is false or 'the sky is yellow' is true.

Well, 1=0 is false, so you don't even have to look at the second branch of the 'or'--the whole statement is true.

In real logic, the consequent has to share terms with the premises. You wouldn't say that P implies Q unless P asserted some information relevant to the truth of Q.

Incidentally, people sometimes say that "a false statement implies anything". This is what they are talking about. It's really only true in formal logic, not in the real world.

Blogger David Gudeman April 16, 2016 11:10 PM  

VFM #6306 wrote:David Gudeman, exactly who has added anything of significance on the subject of logic since Aristotle's Organon? All of your examples were Aristotalian.

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic

Blogger Patrikbc April 16, 2016 11:48 PM  

Vox, are you channeling your inner Nate?

Blogger ace April 16, 2016 11:50 PM  

My understanding is the confusion arises when people engage in adhom by implication, a rhetorical technique, and it's misread as an actual adhom by the listener.

Adhom by implication:
If I were to say "Chris Cristie is a fat bitch" it isn't an implicit adhom, because his being a fat bitch doesn't have anything to do with his political positions. Unless he was opposing a sin tax on cola, in which case it would be an implicit adhom, the implication being he is a "fat bitch (who loves his big gulps so of course he would oppose it.)"

The trap is responding to an implicit adhom as if it were explicit. Then the other party simply backpedals and now you're the one who brought it up.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 16, 2016 11:58 PM  

Please answer the question, David.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 16, 2016 11:59 PM  

David Gudeman wrote:Doom wrote:So, you mean formal logic includes limits and givens that aren't seen in the real world in order to study the real world.


1. 1=0

2. therefore the sky is yellow.

because the argument is equivalent to

3. Either 1=0 is false or 'the sky is yellow' is true.

Well, 1=0 is false, so you don't even have to look at the second branch of the 'or'--the whole statement is true.

In real logic...



For your amusement, let

1 + 1 = 3 Subtract 1 from both sides to receive

1 = 2 Subtract 1 from both sides again to find

0 = 1 or, on rearranging,

1 = 0

This proves that your equation 1. is true. You may object, and state that

(1) 1 + 1 = 2

but you will never be able to prove that. Legend has it that Bertrand Russell (or was it White?) attempted to prove my Equ. (1), your Equ 1., and failed. It nearly drove him mad. Your Equ. 1. must be taken as an article of faith, ergo together with all of mathematics.

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. (Bertrand Russell)

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 17, 2016 12:09 AM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:This proves that your equation 1. is true. You may object, and state that

(1) 1 + 1 = 2

but you will never be able to prove that. Legend has it that Bertrand Russell (or was it White?) attempted to prove my Equ. (1), your Equ 1., and failed. It nearly drove him mad. Your Equ. 1. must be taken as an article of faith, ergo together with all of mathematics.
)

Correction- my Equ (1) must be taken on faith. Your Equ. 1 must be rejected on faith.

Anonymous Bernard Brandt April 17, 2016 12:15 AM  

I have come to the conclusion, after reading your comments, that the lot of you are a group of really sick pups.

Welcome, brothers and sisters!

Blogger David Gudeman April 17, 2016 12:38 AM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:Legend has it that Bertrand Russell (or was it White?) attempted to prove my Equ. (1), your Equ 1., and failed.

Yes, Russel and Whitehead wrote three huge volumes in a work called Principia Mathematica in an attempt to prove that 1+1=2. They failed, but it is still one of the most important works in the history of logic.

Their primary purpose--and the primary purpose of logicism in general--was to disprove Kant's assertion that the laws of mathematics are a special sort of innate knowledge that cannot be accounted for by pure logic or observation. Materialists tend to find this suggestion offensive.

Since Godel's incompleteness theorem, pretty much no one any longer believes that mathematics can be reduced to pure logic.

Blogger David Gudeman April 17, 2016 12:43 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:Please answer the question, David.

If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. I have given you a reference where you can find out more about modern logic than you will ever want to know. If I turn out to have underestimated your enthusiasm, then you can google as well as I can. Enjoy yourself.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 17, 2016 12:46 AM  

David Gudeman wrote:Spartacus xxxxx wrote:Legend has it that Bertrand Russell (or was it White?) attempted to prove my Equ. (1), your Equ 1., and failed.

Yes, Russel and Whitehead wrote three huge volumes in a work called Principia Mathematica in an attempt to prove that 1+1=2. They failed, but it is still one of the most important works in the history of logic.

Their primary purpose--and the primary purpose of logicism in general--was to disprove Kant's assertion that the laws of mathematics are a special sort of innate knowledge that cannot be accounted for by pure logic or observation. Materialists tend to find this suggestion offensive.

Since Godel's incompleteness theorem, pretty much no one any longer believes that mathematics can be reduced to pure logic.




Excellent! That's what I was trying to dredge up. And was that Theorem #243? One small possible addition- according to Miles Mathis, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is a fraud, a false application of diagonalization. If so, then incompleteness is incomplete as well.

Blogger bob k. mando April 17, 2016 12:51 AM  

2. Stg58/Animal Mother April 16, 2016 2:36 PM
You can hit your face more than once with the same hand.
Just saying.

3. Stg58/Animal Mother April 16, 2016 2:37 PM
I would ask Vox when he stopped beating his wife, but we all know she isn't real.



so you're saying that when Vox slaps his own face, it's his attempt to act out domestic abuse on his imaginary wife?


34. Faceless April 16, 2016 3:47 PM
That quote is absolutely crazy and is clear evidence that Mr. Shapiro thinks all the lesser proles are disposable people not worthy of life



isn't it odd how often the solution which so many Jews finally ( heh ) present involve a Goy paying or dying?

funny, that.



55. tublecane April 16, 2016 5:11 PM
That "train is fine" joke is getting really tiresome, by the way.



your opinion?

yeah, we don't care about it.

maybe if you didn't spend so much time trying to make sure the train was okay ...




#NewYork4Cruz ﻦ † ‏@politicsiswar
Ad hominem attacks. The mark of a Marxist. Why does WND still have you on payroll?



the only thing i'm getting from this is that whether Vox is a traditional International Socialist or an apostate National Socialist ( that'd be a Nazi, for those retards observing the proceedings ) ... the slaughter of large numbers of people is soon imminent.

which induces me to ask the question:
when do we begin, O Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil?

your throne of skulls seems yet a paltry and puny thing, hardly fitting for the buttocks and mighty thews of a Lord more accustomed to comporting himself pon yonder Garuda bird.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 17, 2016 1:02 AM  

The rules of the blog are easily accessed, David. Under them, I require the simple answer to the simple question.

Dancing at this point will look even less clever than your previous attempts.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 1:06 AM  

"isn't it odd how often the solution which so many Jews finally ( heh ) present involve a Goy paying or dying?"
teh X-imoes roll that way,y'know. THEY IS THE CHOSEN BUNCH, THEY'LL HAVE YOU KNOW. NOW JUST SHUT UP Goyim, They know better.

Blogger Doc Rampage April 17, 2016 1:21 AM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:One small possible addition- according to Miles Mathis, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is a fraud, a false application of diagonalization. If so, then incompleteness is incomplete as well.

Your comment intrigued me, so I looked up Miles Mathis (http://milesmathis.com/godel.html). Unfortunately, it became quickly apparent that Mathis does not understand Godel's theorem or what it applies to. The first clue is his restatement of part of Godel's theorem: "In any logical system one can construct statements that are neither true nor false". This shows that he misunderstands Godel's theorem as being about truth, when it is really about formal logic systems.

Mathis is far from the first person to confuse a system of representation with the thing it represents, so that could be forgiven, but from there he really goes off the deep end. He seems to be a naive formalist--a formalist who has never heard of the arguments against formalism.

Blogger Doc Rampage April 17, 2016 1:28 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:The rules of the blog are easily accessed, David. Under them, I require the simple answer to the simple question.

Dancing at this point will look even less clever than your previous attempts.


The blog rules were not written to save you the trouble of going to Wikipedia and doing your own damn research.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx April 17, 2016 1:46 AM  

Doc Rampage wrote:Spartacus xxxxx wrote:One small possible addition- according to Miles Mathis, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is a fraud, a false application of diagonalization. If so, then incompleteness is incomplete as well.

Your comment intrigued me, so I looked up Miles Mathis (http://milesmathis.com/godel.html). Unfortunately, it became quickly apparent that Mathis does not understand Godel's theorem or what it applies to. The first clue is his restatement of part of Godel's theorem: "In any logical system one can construct statements that are neither true nor false". This shows that he misunderstands Godel's theorem as being about truth, when it is really about formal logic systems.

Mathis is far from the first person to confuse a system of representation with the thing it represents, so that could be forgiven, but from there he really goes off the deep end. He seems to be a naive formalist--a formalist who has never heard of the arguments against formalism.



This isn't the paper I'm thinking of, which dissects the diagonalization procedure itself. I wasn't able to dig it up. It may be part of his Cantor series. As for confusing map and territory, see Mathis on the graph, the curve, the engine behind the engine behind the calculus. Not everything he does is right and good, but some of it is just awesome.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 2:10 AM  

" The blog rules were not written to save you the trouble of going to Wikipedia and doing your own damn research."
Doc Retard, you run this blog now ?And I thought this was Vox's blog.SILLY ME, HUH ?
Hie your ass back to Hoyt's bloggy, and stay there, you hapless fucktard.

Anonymous TS April 17, 2016 2:19 AM  

"Whoa. I see eight:"

No surprise it was a Cruzbot.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 2:28 AM  

" No surprise it was a Cruzbot."
They are legion, it appears.

Blogger Doc Rampage April 17, 2016 2:38 AM  

jOHN MOSBY wrote:Hie your ass back to Hoyt's bloggy, and stay there, you hapless fucktard.

First, I didn't come from Hoyt's blog. Second, I don't read Hoyt's blog, and third, I think I made a reasonable assumption about Vox's purpose in writing the rules.

BTW, sorry about the changing identities, it isn't deliberate; it's carelessness about which browser I use.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 3:01 AM  

Survey says you are one Lie- mouthed bitch, DOC retardo.
WHY in blue damn hell would you change idents. I dont, most here dont, why do you, ye pathetic bitch ? 'Splain yooseff, bitch.

Blogger Robert What? April 17, 2016 3:09 AM  

Ad hominy grits. Yum.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 3:13 AM  

I loves grits.
Yeller Grits, that is.

Blogger Kona Commuter April 17, 2016 3:16 AM  

Best thread EVER

Blogger Kona Commuter April 17, 2016 3:23 AM  


Social Autopsy Founder Unleashes On Zoe Quinn & Randi Harper

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwVONEHmAZg&list=FLmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A&index=1

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 3:24 AM  

131. Kona Commuter
Hang tight, gonna get much more better.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 17, 2016 5:38 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:Holy TWA, Steveman. To the Scatcave!

Awesome.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 17, 2016 5:47 AM  

Were-Puppy wrote:@24 kfg

@9: "What did I miss?"

I don't know, but when we find it even Durga won't have enough hands.

---

Dargo, on the other hand, could have his hands tied, and surprise us with that secret tongue attack you always forgot he has until he uses it out of the blue.


I don't knon what you're talking about but you need to keep it in the bedroom.

Blogger James Dixon April 17, 2016 6:41 AM  

> The blog rules were not written to save you the trouble of going to Wikipedia and doing your own damn research.

A single name with a single example of his work and a quick summary of it's importance would be sufficient, Doc. It's already been declared by Vox that posting links isn't.

Anonymous Nom April 17, 2016 7:25 AM  

Vox was triggered.

Anonymous Clay April 17, 2016 9:34 AM  

Are you killing any pigs down there, Mosby?

Anonymous Clay April 17, 2016 10:07 AM  

BTW, VD...thanks for the post. It was long overdue.

If I may, I would like to nominate another cliche:

"Correlation does not imply causation"

Not to say it's just being misused...it's almost comical.

Blogger Young Heaving Bosoms of Liberty April 17, 2016 11:25 AM  

bob k. mando wrote:so you're saying that when Vox slaps his own face, it's his attempt to act out domestic abuse on his imaginary wife?

And is he wearing a sock when he does it?

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 12:47 PM  

@130 jOHN MOSBY

I loves grits.
Yeller Grits, that is.
---

You remind me I need to pick up some butter today.

Blogger bob k. mando April 17, 2016 12:49 PM  

140. Young Heaving Bosoms of Liberty April 17, 2016 11:25 AM
And is he wearing a sock when he does it?



please, let there be at least a sock.

Blogger guest April 17, 2016 1:10 PM  

Well that is all very well and good, except for the fact that many atheists/evolutionists use name-calling as a dual-purpose response. "You are a stupid Cretard" is name-calling--Up to the very moment it is not followed by a scientific response to the observation by a Creationists that the DNA is not the versatile molecule that Evolutionists would like it to be. Once any scientific detail is lacking, then "You are a stupid Cretard" becomes the same as "You are wrong because you are a stupid Cretard." That is in fact an ad hom.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 1:44 PM  

@135 Aeoli Pera
I don't knon what you're talking about but you need to keep it in the bedroom.
--

Dargo from Farscape! Get your mind out of the gutter :P

Blogger Doc Rampage April 17, 2016 2:01 PM  

James Dixon wrote:A single name with a single example of his work and a quick summary of it's importance would be sufficient, Doc.

No it wouldn't, because inevitably, he would come up with some lame reason why the person doesn't qualify, and expect me to defend my answer. There is a lot of easy-to-access material that backs up my statement, so if all he wanted was to know the evidence behind my statement, it is easy to find. He isn't challenging me to back up a statement; he is challenging me to a debate.

If a flat-earther challenged you to back up your astronomical world view, would you feel that you had to post a summary of the evidence for a round earth? Because I guarantee you that he is going to have some reason why your evidence is not convincing, and expect you to continue the debate. What's the point of humoring him if you do not intend to have the debate?

Blogger Doc Rampage April 17, 2016 2:01 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Kurgan April 17, 2016 2:56 PM  

VD,
My congratulations! You're the first NAZI-COMMUNIST in history! Will you soon also become the supreme Dark Lord of light, I wonder.

I mean... It seems you may be converging towards the final utter singularity of TRUE EQUALITY!

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 17, 2016 3:32 PM  

I have not killed one in in the last 2 months, Clay . Hope things are going well for you,sir.

Blogger Scott X April 18, 2016 9:08 AM  

simple insult: you are a moron.
Ad Hominem: your argument is invalid because you are a moron.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts