4 ms·
When someone's reasons for saying it are simply because it aligns with their own prejudices, shouting it down is reasonable.
by VBprogrammer 5y ago
When someone's reasons for saying it are simply because it aligns with their own prejudices, shouting it down is reasonable.
- arminiusreturns 5y agoAnd you presume to know peoples reasons for saying things? Perhaps you are the prejudiced one.
- silicon2401 5y agoThat's literally the ad hominem fallacy. We should investigate the claim on its own merits, not the merits of whoever is making the claim
- VBprogrammer 5y agoUh-huh, lets have a polite conversation sprinkled with some Latin. Mean while racists are empowered to attach Asian Americans in the street because they "created the virus".
- mylons 5y agolet's just turn our brains off because there might be racism around
- benmmurphy 5y agoThe premise should be up for debate but we shouldn't accept the implication that because a lab in China leaked the virus it is moral to attack Chinese looking people in the street. You are effectively accepting the racist's reasoning if you ignore the implication and devote your energy to attacking their premise. I see this over and over again. Someone says A can't be true when A is a statement of fact because a group will make the argument A => B where B is something they find morally repugnant. When it comes to statements of fact you are much better arguing over A => B than hoping facts about the world conveniently line up with your moral conclusions.
- bscvbscv 5y agoWhoa, I found someone who actually believes in the "racists attacking asians because they created the virus" narrative. Holy shit. Black people are attacking asians. You say that's because of this idea that Asians created the virus. Do you have any actual evidence of their motivations?
- Nemrod67 5y agoHyperbole isnt helping anything
- tzs 5y agoIt is ad hominem but not ad hominem fallacy. Wikipedia gives a good summary [1] of when ad hominem is not a fallacy: > Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest. For example, if someone tells you that hydroxychloroquinea will cure COVID and cites a doctor, it is an ad hominem not but not a fallacy to counter that the same doctor also says that infertility, impotence, cysts, and various other reproductive medical problems are caused by witches and demons that have sex with people in the dreamworld, where they also gather sperm from people and use it on other people to produce more demons. (And yes, there really is a doctor who says all that). It's not a fallacy because it is not offered to refute the claim that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID--it is offered to show that the person making the claim is not competent to make the claim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- HPsquared 5y agoHow do you determine a person's reasons for saying something, and how can you tell what a person's prejudices are?
- VBprogrammer 5y agoPresenting the idea of laboratory escape as a remote but possible scenario is perfectly reasonable. Presenting it as a fact, without backing it up with evidence or subtly is a good indication that they are speaking from a place of prejudice.
- mylons 5y agoit must be nice to understand everyone's intentions all the time