5 ms·

This is like the definition of an ad-hominem attack. Your argument is basically "he believes some unpopular things so all his ideas should be discredited." I do

This is like the definition of an ad-hominem attack. Your argument is basically "he believes some unpopular things so all his ideas should be discredited." I dont know this guy and I doubt I think the way he thinks, but the essay is the essay -- it should stand or fall on its own merits.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
Saying women shouldn't be able to full civil rights is like saying gay people shouldn't be counted a full humans, or using the n word for black people. It's just not acceptable, in my opinion, and taints anything one writes. It's beyond the pale.
- overgard 10y ago
  So your point is that we should ignore any point he made because he thinks something bad on a separate topic? You realize if thats your standard you should probably exclude most famous historical philosophers, along with the 6 billion or so living humans who dont subscribe to modern western philosophy. It turns out you can learn something from people that dont share your values. Or you can read Jezebel all day and ride the outrage train.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    I do understand that anyone from history will have held views that are morally repugnant to anyone in the modern world. Think of Thomas Jefferson and having children with his slaves and I think those children were slaves, while also thinking about the universal rights of man (and not women, blacks, or non-landholding white men). But there is a historic millieu that one has to use to judge that person's views and ideas within, and that does allow me to consider the views of people from antiquity. But that notion also applies to judging the ideas of people writing in the world that I live in. Today, it's just clear that women should have civil rights and be equal partners in society with men. It's silly to state otherwise, and so when someone who is a contemporary states otherwise, it does call into question their views.
    - overgard 10y ago
      To be fair though, if you believe people from antiquity had some highly problematic views (no doubt), then wouldn't it be easy to extrapolate that people a hundred years from now are going to look on your beliefs in horror? I cant imagine slave owners thought they were bad people either. It's easy to write it off because you'll be long gone, so who cares, but we'd be a much better society if we realized a lot of what we think is fundamentally true tends to historically go in and out of fashion, and the people that are out of fashion tend to have ideas most of us havent heard. Again Im not arguing for his views, Im just saying, the reason we have the concept of logical fallacies (ad-hominem being one of them) is history is long and these ideas have worked well.
      - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
        I agree, I am sure some of my views will be judged to be wrong, horrifying. One I have thought of is because I like to eat meat, I'll be judged to be a monster. I have considered becoming a vegatarian, but I do love a steak with wine, or a burger. I used to visit my grandmother's farm when I was a kid and we had cows and chickens, and I'm under no misconceptions about where food comes from :-) Actually I'm interested in learning more about the world and educating my self and not just being stuck on one view of what is right and wrong. I will disagree with one thing your wrote, about ideas coming and and out of fashion over time - certainly that happens but the idea of civil rights for all individuals must be a universal thing. I think that's very different than views about religion or proper foods to eat or ideas about what are good jobs for men or women.
- pjscott 10y ago
  Did you actually read the article? Or even the paragraph? It's not arguing against civil rights for anybody.
  - woodruffw 10y ago
    This author is, in fact, against civil rights: > Universal suffrage elections are virtually always a bad idea. The process simply polarizes the population, and causes everyone to believe in myths and propganda. There is no way that the results of an election can be channeled into the subtleties needed to make good government and good policy.
    - overgard 10y ago
      He might also have problematic opinions about changing the oil in your car every 3000 miles. Which is about as relevant. (which to be clear, I dont support his viewpoints, but lazy arguments need to be called out)
    - pjscott 10y ago
      I read that more as an allusion to public choice theory, but your interpretation of that paragraph is also plausible; conceded! It looks like this guy discusses the matter at greater length here, if anybody is curious: https://devinhelton.com/2015/08/dictatorship-and-democracy https://devinhelton.com/2015/08/dictatorship-and-democracy
rhizome 10y ago
"Unpopular?" That's the word you choose to describe this? "Men have natural abilities and disposition towards leadership. To deny this, to mandate equality of results, to push women into masculine roles, to domesticate and feminize men, only results in misery for both men and women. Universal suffrage elections are virtually always a bad idea." Ad hominem doesn't render an argument invalid, it just speaks to the credibility of the author. So on that note, where are the merits?
- overgard 10y ago
  Just because I dont feel the need to vent my outrage doesnt mean I approve. "Unpopular" seems totally accurate. If you're talking merits/credibility, I feel like his opinions on the other things just aren't relevant here. Is the standard that every time someone shares an opinion their entire history is judged?
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Is the standard that every time someone shares an opinion their entire history is judged? To some degree (I won't say 'entire'), this is the very definition of "credibility."
woodruffw 10y ago
You're right that it's an ad hominem, as it rightly should be - the character and state of mind of author should be considered when judging their work. We might have an obligation to read charitably, but we shouldn't be obsequious towards ideas (or people) that are ontologically broken or fly in the face of basic humanism. This author falls firmly into that category, and a quick survey of their work will confirm that for you.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  That line of "reasoning" is only possibly justifiable if you can come up with a specific way it discredits his argument - ending at "see he thinks X, clearly we shouldn't listen to anything else" is just burying your head in the sand.
- overgard 10y ago
  I would counter that the reason we consider ad-hominem bad is because it enables lazy thinkers to avoid the topic at hand and redirect it to something thats a lot easier to criticize. Thats the path of sophistry.
  - woodruffw 10y ago
    Maybe it does, but that's perhaps not the point. The point, at least in this case, is that the author is counting on being treated as a serious thinker at the table of ideas. He is relying on our good faith to promote ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of exactly the kind of dialogue he's being given on this site. Do not think, should he win, that he will afford you the same charity. Criticizing someone who uses dialogue in bad faith is an exercise in futility. It's better to recognize their actions before hand and label them as such -- a sophist, or a pseudophilosopher, or whatever. That won't stop them from speaking (nor should we want it to), but it gives us the power to redirect dialogue towards more serious participants. Edit: I realize that I didn't make this clear: criticizing the easier thing is not sophistry. At the worst, it's poor argumentation. Sophistry involves using rhetoric to hide intellectual bankruptcy and bad faith.
    - 10y ago
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
I do think that one's overall world views and comments does change how I understand and think about their writing, but it is a little bit directed at the person of course to say that. So a bit of a fair criticism. :-) So what about his ideas - In regards to the article, I think the general direction of his ideas that we should send fewer people to college is wrong. One of many reasons for thinking that is that a lot more jobs will be eliminated by automation and the only way for people to have a chance at a great, productive life with enough money to live on and do the things he describes (live in a safe place, things to do, access to doctors, and most importantly craft beer), will be to have education that allows one to do creative work that is harder to replace with automation. People will have to study things that align with that creative work, and possibly reeducate themselves as they go along in life (like most programmers are constantly doing). Many of those fields he listed that people could do without extra education are likely to be automated away (financial adviser, executive, or a marketing manager).

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

Saying women shouldn't be able to full civil rights is like saying gay people shouldn't be counted a full humans, or using the n word for black people. It's just not acceptable, in my opinion, and taints anything one writes. It's beyond the pale.

overgard 10y ago
So your point is that we should ignore any point he made because he thinks something bad on a separate topic? You realize if thats your standard you should probably exclude most famous historical philosophers, along with the 6 billion or so living humans who dont subscribe to modern western philosophy. It turns out you can learn something from people that dont share your values. Or you can read Jezebel all day and ride the outrage train.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  I do understand that anyone from history will have held views that are morally repugnant to anyone in the modern world. Think of Thomas Jefferson and having children with his slaves and I think those children were slaves, while also thinking about the universal rights of man (and not women, blacks, or non-landholding white men). But there is a historic millieu that one has to use to judge that person's views and ideas within, and that does allow me to consider the views of people from antiquity. But that notion also applies to judging the ideas of people writing in the world that I live in. Today, it's just clear that women should have civil rights and be equal partners in society with men. It's silly to state otherwise, and so when someone who is a contemporary states otherwise, it does call into question their views.
  - overgard 10y ago
    To be fair though, if you believe people from antiquity had some highly problematic views (no doubt), then wouldn't it be easy to extrapolate that people a hundred years from now are going to look on your beliefs in horror? I cant imagine slave owners thought they were bad people either. It's easy to write it off because you'll be long gone, so who cares, but we'd be a much better society if we realized a lot of what we think is fundamentally true tends to historically go in and out of fashion, and the people that are out of fashion tend to have ideas most of us havent heard. Again Im not arguing for his views, Im just saying, the reason we have the concept of logical fallacies (ad-hominem being one of them) is history is long and these ideas have worked well.
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      I agree, I am sure some of my views will be judged to be wrong, horrifying. One I have thought of is because I like to eat meat, I'll be judged to be a monster. I have considered becoming a vegatarian, but I do love a steak with wine, or a burger. I used to visit my grandmother's farm when I was a kid and we had cows and chickens, and I'm under no misconceptions about where food comes from :-) Actually I'm interested in learning more about the world and educating my self and not just being stuck on one view of what is right and wrong. I will disagree with one thing your wrote, about ideas coming and and out of fashion over time - certainly that happens but the idea of civil rights for all individuals must be a universal thing. I think that's very different than views about religion or proper foods to eat or ideas about what are good jobs for men or women.
pjscott 10y ago
Did you actually read the article? Or even the paragraph? It's not arguing against civil rights for anybody.
- woodruffw 10y ago
  This author is, in fact, against civil rights: > Universal suffrage elections are virtually always a bad idea. The process simply polarizes the population, and causes everyone to believe in myths and propganda. There is no way that the results of an election can be channeled into the subtleties needed to make good government and good policy.
  - overgard 10y ago
    He might also have problematic opinions about changing the oil in your car every 3000 miles. Which is about as relevant. (which to be clear, I dont support his viewpoints, but lazy arguments need to be called out)
  - pjscott 10y ago
    I read that more as an allusion to public choice theory, but your interpretation of that paragraph is also plausible; conceded! It looks like this guy discusses the matter at greater length here, if anybody is curious: https://devinhelton.com/2015/08/dictatorship-and-democracy https://devinhelton.com/2015/08/dictatorship-and-democracy

rhizome 10y ago

"Unpopular?" That's the word you choose to describe this? "Men have natural abilities and disposition towards leadership. To deny this, to mandate equality of results, to push women into masculine roles, to domesticate and feminize men, only results in misery for both men and women. Universal suffrage elections are virtually always a bad idea." Ad hominem doesn't render an argument invalid, it just speaks to the credibility of the author. So on that note, where are the merits?

overgard 10y ago
Just because I dont feel the need to vent my outrage doesnt mean I approve. "Unpopular" seems totally accurate. If you're talking merits/credibility, I feel like his opinions on the other things just aren't relevant here. Is the standard that every time someone shares an opinion their entire history is judged?
- rhizome 10y ago
  Is the standard that every time someone shares an opinion their entire history is judged? To some degree (I won't say 'entire'), this is the very definition of "credibility."

woodruffw 10y ago

You're right that it's an ad hominem, as it rightly should be - the character and state of mind of author should be considered when judging their work. We might have an obligation to read charitably, but we shouldn't be obsequious towards ideas (or people) that are ontologically broken or fly in the face of basic humanism. This author falls firmly into that category, and a quick survey of their work will confirm that for you.

nebabyte 10y ago
That line of "reasoning" is only possibly justifiable if you can come up with a specific way it discredits his argument - ending at "see he thinks X, clearly we shouldn't listen to anything else" is just burying your head in the sand.
overgard 10y ago
I would counter that the reason we consider ad-hominem bad is because it enables lazy thinkers to avoid the topic at hand and redirect it to something thats a lot easier to criticize. Thats the path of sophistry.
- woodruffw 10y ago
  Maybe it does, but that's perhaps not the point. The point, at least in this case, is that the author is counting on being treated as a serious thinker at the table of ideas. He is relying on our good faith to promote ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of exactly the kind of dialogue he's being given on this site. Do not think, should he win, that he will afford you the same charity. Criticizing someone who uses dialogue in bad faith is an exercise in futility. It's better to recognize their actions before hand and label them as such -- a sophist, or a pseudophilosopher, or whatever. That won't stop them from speaking (nor should we want it to), but it gives us the power to redirect dialogue towards more serious participants. Edit: I realize that I didn't make this clear: criticizing the easier thing is not sophistry. At the worst, it's poor argumentation. Sophistry involves using rhetoric to hide intellectual bankruptcy and bad faith.
  - 10y ago

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

I do think that one's overall world views and comments does change how I understand and think about their writing, but it is a little bit directed at the person of course to say that. So a bit of a fair criticism. :-) So what about his ideas - In regards to the article, I think the general direction of his ideas that we should send fewer people to college is wrong. One of many reasons for thinking that is that a lot more jobs will be eliminated by automation and the only way for people to have a chance at a great, productive life with enough money to live on and do the things he describes (live in a safe place, things to do, access to doctors, and most importantly craft beer), will be to have education that allows one to do creative work that is harder to replace with automation. People will have to study things that align with that creative work, and possibly reeducate themselves as they go along in life (like most programmers are constantly doing). Many of those fields he listed that people could do without extra education are likely to be automated away (financial adviser, executive, or a marketing manager).