3 ms·

Why do you need to focus on personalities? Is it because the arguments are too persuasive to discuss?

by 1gor 18y ago

thaumaturgy 18y ago
I'm tempted to not even reply to this, but most of your previous comments aren't so trollish. Did you completely skip over the first part of my last paragraph? "I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority." So, yes, naturally the relative backgrounds of the authors in question should be completely ignored. In principle, it's wrong to attack a person's reputation in a debate, but I'm not entering the global warming "debate" here. I am instead criticizing the stupid tone of both the article and the headline posted here on News.YC. Furthermore, even though in principle either ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies shouldn't be used in debate, there are practical reasons for doing so. For one, I could devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to analyzing global climate patterns and the vast array of variables that influence them, and I still would not understand the field perfectly. Therefore, given two dissenting opinions, I will be more inclined to lend more credence to the opinion coming from the person that has spent that kind of time on analyzing the system. I'd prefer not to fall into the tarpit of debating Darwinism with a creationist, nor social responsibility (or human rights, or liberty, or ... well, pretty much any sociological subject) with pretty much any current member of the U.S. Congress, nor global warming with Christopher Monckton. And, finally, in case you missed it the first time: this is coming from someone who takes a stance very far away from what passes for environmentalism in the U.S.
- 1gor 18y ago
  The bulk of your first post still reads like a character attack, regardless of the disclaimers you've put in. A nazi can do perfectly good rocket science, an oil company researcher can produce perfectly valid climate studies. Discussing character of your opponent in a debate in any form is off topic, unless you are on the Oprah show. P.S. Sorry for the Godwin's.
  - jsmcgd 18y ago
    A Nazi can do perfectly good rocket science. But can a Nazi be trusted to do good science when it comes to race, sexuality or disability? There are times when a person's background and motivations must be weighed against their position.
- hugh 18y ago
  I still don't see why you needed to talk about his views on AIDS though.
demallien 18y ago
I'm guessing that it's probably because the arguments are too involved to go into in a blog post...

Why do you need to focus on personalities? Is it because the arguments are too persuasive to discuss?

by 1gor 18y ago

Why do you need to focus on personalities? Is it because the arguments are too persuasive to discuss?

I'm tempted to not even reply to this, but most of your previous comments aren't so trollish. Did you completely skip over the first part of my last paragraph? "I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority." So, yes, naturally the relative backgrounds of the authors in question should be completely ignored. In principle, it's wrong to attack a person's reputation in a debate, but I'm not entering the global warming "debate" here. I am instead criticizing the stupid tone of both the article and the headline posted here on News.YC. Furthermore, even though in principle either ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies shouldn't be used in debate, there are practical reasons for doing so. For one, I could devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to analyzing global climate patterns and the vast array of variables that influence them, and I still would not understand the field perfectly. Therefore, given two dissenting opinions, I will be more inclined to lend more credence to the opinion coming from the person that has spent that kind of time on analyzing the system. I'd prefer not to fall into the tarpit of debating Darwinism with a creationist, nor social responsibility (or human rights, or liberty, or ... well, pretty much any sociological subject) with pretty much any current member of the U.S. Congress, nor global warming with Christopher Monckton. And, finally, in case you missed it the first time: this is coming from someone who takes a stance very far away from what passes for environmentalism in the U.S.

1gor 18y ago
The bulk of your first post still reads like a character attack, regardless of the disclaimers you've put in. A nazi can do perfectly good rocket science, an oil company researcher can produce perfectly valid climate studies. Discussing character of your opponent in a debate in any form is off topic, unless you are on the Oprah show. P.S. Sorry for the Godwin's.
- jsmcgd 18y ago
  A Nazi can do perfectly good rocket science. But can a Nazi be trusted to do good science when it comes to race, sexuality or disability? There are times when a person's background and motivations must be weighed against their position.
hugh 18y ago
I still don't see why you needed to talk about his views on AIDS though.

demallien 18y ago

I'm guessing that it's probably because the arguments are too involved to go into in a blog post...