Let's talk about logical fallacies....

[cabse5]

Ok. :shrug:

The only thing one can infer from the gas guzzling, SUV riding environmentalist is said environmentalist is neither an expert in environmentalism nor sincere.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is something the right wing is willing to ignore or resort to fallacy on, to prove their lack of sincerity for this Cause.

From the Federalist Number Forty:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

How can right wingers justify sacrificing the End to the Means in our Second Article of Amendment?

Is it Any wonder whatsoever why the right wing cannot win their wars and only know how to waste tax payer monies that should have been going to the general welfare?

 

[Mr Person]

The only thing one can infer from the gas guzzling, SUV riding environmentalist is said environmentalist is neither an expert in environmentalism nor sincere.

How painfully moronic. You can certainly try to use it to dishonestly smear the environmentalist, but you cannot infer either thing.

At most you can suggest a mild hypocrisy because he could have chosen to drive a mini-car, though even that is questionable if that environmentalist is advocating for society-wide rules that would affect what everyone could drive, himself included. What you are doing is just as dishonest as when a right winger tries to say people who think we should pay in taxes for what we spend rather than borrow over a trillion a year to fund tax cuts are hypocrites unless they send in more money voluntarily.

(You actually put "centrist" as your lean - why on Earth do you think that's convincing?)

 

[cabse5]

How painfully moronic. You can certainly try to use it to dishonestly smear the environmentalist, but you cannot infer either thing.

At most you can suggest a mild hypocrisy because he could have chosen to drive a mini-car, though even that is questionable if that environmentalist is advocating for society-wide rules that would affect what everyone could drive, himself included. What you are doing is just as dishonest as when a right winger tries to say people who think we should pay in taxes for what we spend rather than borrow over a trillion a year to fund tax cuts are hypocrites unless they send in more money voluntarily.

(You actually put "centrist" as your lean - why on Earth do you think that's convincing?)

How painfully moronic...Your words. An environmentalist which believes that there will be an imminent environmental apocalypse from the continued use of gas but drives a gas guzzling SUV is either not an expert in environmentalism or isn't sincere to the messaging of environmentalism, and either way, to consider that one specific environmentalist's messaging would be fallacious.

 

[Jonsa]

I've been wanting you to address my strawman argument from the video that the environmentalist that drives around in a gas guzzling SUV isn't an expert on climate change 'cause either they don't believe in the deleterious effects of gas guzzling vehicles on the environment or are hypocritical to the deleterious effects of gas guzzling SUVs on the environment. The gas guzzling, SUV riding, environmentalist's message has yet to be determined but it is fallacious to believe in the words of the messenger.

the ad hom fallacy. attack the source.

Well that environmentalist has a reason for driving an SUV. electric SUV's are scarce and overpriced. Horse and buggy is impractical. That you would suggest he's full of **** because he drives around in an SUV (he could live in the mountains for instance) is an strawman mixed with bull**** to keep it together.

 

[cabse5]

the ad hom fallacy. attack the source.

Well that environmentalist has a reason for driving an SUV. electric SUV's are scarce and overpriced. Horse and buggy is impractical. That you would suggest he's full of **** because he drives around in an SUV (he could live in the mountains for instance) is an strawman mixed with bull**** to keep it together.

If one shouldn't attack the source, why would one attack (or, at least, not welcome) the message coming from a non-expert? If one shouldn't attack the source, why would one seek the opinion of an expert?

 

[Trypt]

Well, since I already said I won't be dragged into a climate change debate, let's focus on methodology. Let's pretend I've never heard of climate change before. I cannot deem the environmentalist to not be credible simply because of the car they drive, that much has been well established. But maybe, like you, I have my doubts. So, I scrutinize their statistics and theories. I research the topic and make a determination on whether or not their argument is sound. There are all kinds of resources available to make up my own mind on the subject. One thing that will not help, however, is the owner's manual from their glovebox. It's not relevant to the understanding of climate change, nor does it's chapter on gas mileage impact any other statistic involved.

How about you stop listening to "experts" as each side of any debate has plenty of those, and learn how to read data and interpret it yourself.

 

[OlNate]

How about you stop listening to "experts" as each side of any debate has plenty of those, and learn how to read data and interpret it yourself.

Stop listening to experts, huh. So, where do you think the data comes from, exactly? Unless you are suggesting I become an expert on everything there is, recreate every experiment and study...you can't be saying that, can you?

 

[danielpalos]

Sacrificing the End to the Means seems to be a right wing, modus operandi.

 

[Jonsa]

If one shouldn't attack the source, why would one attack (or, at least, not welcome) the message coming from a non-expert? If one shouldn't attack the source, why would one seek the opinion of an expert?

Er, attacking the source is about the person/organization not about the content of the message. In some cases its appropriate to "attack" as opposed to validate a sources credentials. However, its seems trumplicans use ad homs as a first line defense. It makes dimissing whatever they don't like or believe so much easier, after all.

One seeks an opinion from an expert because one doesn't know squat about the subject, unless one's uncle was a noted scientist and therefore knows everything better than everyone..

 

[Trypt]

Stop listening to experts, huh. So, where do you think the data comes from, exactly? Unless you are suggesting I become an expert on everything there is, recreate every experiment and study...you can't be saying that, can you?

Nobody suggested that you recreate experiments, most scientists are not so shallow as to fake raw data (although that does happen). What you can do is look at the data yourself and extrapolate from the data, without bias and without any conclusion in mind, rather than read the conclusions or opinions of others. That is not hard, the data that is used to write journals is always available in full, whether it's on statistics (crime, race etc.) or climate change (Greenland ice core samples). The same data from any of those can be twisted and interpreted by the writer in any number of ways, but the complete raw data is there for you to look at and make up your own mind, it takes a basic understanding of statistics, mathematics, and a capability of rational and critical thought. I bring up race, crime and climate change as those are the most contentious, yet the data is widely available in full for anyone to analyze.

My point was that on most issues, especially humanities issues that are based on stats, you can find experts that disagree wildly. Heck, we're almost in full on clown world where there are PhDs (luckily, not PhDs in biology, yet), who claim sex is not real or men can turn into women, figure that one out, and I don't mean gender or some other made up term, I mean biological sex.

 

[Vadinho]

So the interesting thing about this clip and man is that upon first glance, he looks like a confederate flag waving hillbilly. I am sure he wore that shirt on purpose just to throw you off. He is very bright and somewhere along the path of his life he was taught how to think. Every high school kid in the country should have a class in logic and this clip would be a great way to begin the course. Well done.