Miburo

Like Mal said, logic isn't some 'random trick.' I'm not making shit up here or 'playing some game.' I could link you to tons of websites that explain the principle of the burden of proof to you, no problem. All it would take is me going to google and typing in "burden of proof." Because, again, the rest of us aren't making shit up.

If you aren't either, then you could easily do the same. If you can't provide proof for your claim then there is no logical reason to take it seriously or abide by your made up rules. That's how logic actually works. Which I'm sure you're well aware of since you're a 34 year old genius possessing great maturity and wisdom.

So man up. Anyone with conviction and integrity would gladly show that he isn't all talk and no substance. Back up what you've said with some actual proof, or at least have the balls to own up and admit you can't. Don't pretend it's a matter of choice on your end like some coward. It's plain as day obvious to everyone that you couldn't prove this shit regardless of whether you wanted to or not.

ACt

Ooooo... looks like he's a hairbreadth away from the "I'm taking my ball and going home" defense.

I guess this has sprung from me calling him a "fence sitting douchebag" hasn't it? I guess I should point out if I removed the offensive "douchebag", he's still left with "fence sitter" which personally is the worst term. But whatever.

Also, Mal - I am duly impressed with all the logic and rhetoric. I really can't have time to master its use so that I can call it up in arguments.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

almightywood

Since when was logic ever required as a matter of faith?
Faith is belief in something despite no evidence to prove it is so.
To say that I must produce logical proof of my beliefs in order to practice them is very close to religious persecution (other than the fact that there's no deity involved, it is exactly the same)

Explain how the fuck I have to justify my beliefs to you in order for them to be valid?

Note that I never actually was trying to do this impossible task, I was merely enlightening you to them SINCE YOU ASKED FOR THEM.

Why don't you man the fuck up and say that you have just been fucking with me the whole time for shits and giggles, rather than claiming you were trying to disprove something I told you was impossible to disprove from the getgo?

Numinous

Sounds like this:



Everyone has to justify their beliefs if there's a reason to question them. Nobody gives a fuck about what color you like, but when you think that fairy farts and aerodynamics have the same validity, there's definitely some justification to be given.

Edit:
Belief =/= faith. Only putrid theists would confuse the two. For example, I believe it'll be a cold day tomorrow where I live, but I'm rather faithless in all aspects.

__________________

ACt

OK, let's pretend to live in almightywood's world for a minute, in that belief systems are valid without reproach. Here are a short list of belief systems he may not agree with but acknowledges a right to exist without being challenged:

Sexism
Racism
Slavery
Eugenics
Creationism
Santa Clause
Genocide/Holy War
Environmental destruction
That Shakespeare didn't write his plays
Unitarianism
Scientology
Snake Charming
UFOs and anal probing
Glee is a good TV show
Nazism/Master Race
Left Behind
The end of the Mayan calender actually being the end of the world
Y2K was the end the world
Free Market
I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is an honest ad campaign.
The world is still flat.

My friends... it is a glorious world where nothing can be discounted and everything can be true! Praise the buddha/christ/thor/shiva/mort/lack of a god!!

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Miburo

Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - “usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”

You're claiming that counter-arguments are ad hominens. No one else said that. That is what you said. You have the responsibility of defending it. It's not my job to disprove something that you have never proven to be true, after all. That'd be ridiculous, and I'm sure the last thing you want is for this discussion to take that turn.

For something to be logically valid you must demonstrate that it's logically valid. Do you honestly expect people to just go along with whatever you say without you showing them that what you're saying is logical first? Come on, this shit isn't complicated.

But hey, if you can't show that your belief is logically valid, then that's fine. Believe whatever stupid shit you want, I don't care. But don't expect anyone to take it even remotely seriously if you are incapable of providing any compelling reason for them to do so.


Edit: Oh, you edited your entire post. And somehow managed to make it way more stupid than before. Bravo. But yeah, I'm not trying to disprove anything right now, because you would have to actually provide some proof for your shit first. There isn't anything to disprove.

And just answer this: Can you back up the 'counter-arguments are ad hominens' thing with proof or not? If you can, then just do it. Should be easy, and I'll gladly admit my error and thank you for educating me. If you can't, then nothing else you're saying matters.

almightywood

Another trick.

There's a reason that it starts off with the word usually:

If we were talking about just random beliefs on whether the sun would come out tomorrow, then you would be correct.
But since we are talking about the philosophy I base my life on, it becomes something much more, and you are not.

I did in fact prove that attacking my character is abusive and circumstantial, there was no valid reason ever given why the definitions of the words I linked shouldn't apply the way I stated.

Definition #1 is the only definition that could apply to calling someone a jew bastard instead of arguing against them.
If definition # 1 is applicable to the term character as used in the logical fallacy, then attacking my beliefs is abusive and circumstantial since my beliefs are one of my traits.

I have already provided proof of this statement you are saying I didn't.

Either explain how that would fit under another definition in a way that wouldn't also entail my belief system to fit under that definition, or quit saying I didn't prove what I already proved.

Numinous

Let's drop another cold turkey:

Let's say the Orb of Absolute Truth is discovered and hypothetically says that AW is absolutely wrong in his personal philosophy. Since AW keeps saying that his beliefs can be equal to himself, does that mean that, in the hypothetical situation of his beliefs ceasing to exist due to be proved absolutely wrong, he'll cease to exist?

I'm only applying this silly line of thought to see where it goes.

__________________

Miburo

How fucking dare you bring my personal beliefs into this! I base my entire life philosophy on the sun rising. For you to trivialize it by calling it 'just a random belief' and that your philosophy is "something much more" is a blatant insult against me.

So looks like I win this one. Unless, of course, you stop being retarded and realize that you basing your life philosophy around some random beliefs doesn't make them special or unassailable in any way. All it does is make this discussion that much more amusing, and make you kind of pathetic. That's it.

You taking something personally like some egomaniac doesn't mean anything. I'm not talking about you, I don't care about you. Even if you didn't exist there would still be no compelling logical reason to take the statement of 'counter-arguments are ad hominens' seriously. That's all I'm talking about. Just that statement. I would just like to see some proof of it's logical validity. That's all.

almightywood

Whatever, the difference here would be that I didn't do it to ATTACK your belief (see the definition of abusive and circumstantial above)

It does indeed. If someone bases their life around a belief, it is a trait. If it's just something they happen to believe, it isn't.



I linked the definition of abusive and circumstantial.
I linked the definitions of the words in question.
By the very definitions needed for the logical fallacy I proved my case.

Either disprove what I have proven, or quit lying that it wasn't.

By the way 'counter-arguments are ad hominens' is your statement, not mine.

I said "to attack the philosophy at all would be an attack on my character."

Prove your own words, I already proved mine.

Miburo

Then there is no difference at all, since no one is doing anything in here to ATTACK your beliefs. They're attacking statements that you just so happen to believe. Just like you trivialized beliefs about the sun rising as no big thing. My beliefs are coincidental. Same exact thing.

You've stated a lot of stupid things. Pointing out glaring flaws in your reasoning through the use of satire isn't a trick.



Post 115: "By the very definition of it being a counter-argument (although counter-argument doesn't even fit since there was no argument on the other side, argument implies an attack as well) it is in fact an attack."

Counter-arguments are attacks. Attacks against any statement you hold as a belief = ad hominen. This is what you believe, correct?

Then any counter argument against any statement you hold as a belief would therefore be an ad hominen. According to you, of course. But you have not demonstrated this. Again, that's what I'm asking for.

I'm not questioning the fact that a counter-argument that only attacks your character are ad hominens. I already knew that, because I understand logic. That's what your little definition quoting is addressing. That's not what I'm asking you to prove though. Since no one has ever attacked your character to discredit a statement. Someone would have to say "You're stupid, AW, therefore your statement is stupid." for that to apply. No one has done that in here. So, again, all that shit is irrelevant.

I want to see proof that demonstrates the logical validity that producing a counter-argument against a statement (which irrelevantly is a belief you hold) are ad hominens. If I'm mistaken and you don't believe they are ad hominen fallacies then just say so. If you do believe that then show how that in particular is logically valid.

almightywood

I completely disagree.
If you had merely mentioned it in passing not having realized I was here, or stated it being unaware of my beliefs, then it would be coincidental.
But since my beliefs were the start of the discussion, bringing it up in direct opposition to my beliefs is not coincidental in any sense of the word.



I misread what you said initially and have since changed my response.





No, against any statement I hold as a belief I base my life around.

Again this isn't what I am claiming, the 'base my life around it' is the difference, and it is entirely valid. Once I base my life around it it becomes both a trait, and a moral and is applicable under definitions #1-#4 of character.

I do not claim that producing a counter-argument against a belief I just so happen to hold is abusive and circumstantial.

I do maintain that an attack on a philosophy I base my life around is indeed abusive and circumstantial by way of the definitions linked earlier to prove exactly this.

Mal

Okay, so by your own admission it's exactly the same. There is no logical reason to believe any deity exists, therefore there is no logical reason to believe you are correct. Thank you for once again saving me some work by proving yourself wrong.



Valid: sound, just, well-founded. You don't have to justify your beliefs for them to be valid, but if they are valid then they should be easily justified, and if you cannot justify them then they are not valid.



Saying something is impossible to disprove doesn't make it so. We have several times over proven you incorrect, you just can't accept it.



Osama bin Laden based his life on the philosophy that America was evil. Joseph Goebbels based his life on the philosophy that Jews were sub-human. Charles Manson based his life on the philosophy of Helter Skelter.

You are claiming that these evil beliefs are perfectly valid simply because they have become a part of the character of the evil individuals who held them.



Attacking your character is, but your beliefs are not your character.

And I apologize for leaving the internet to get stuff done, I did not realize there was some arbitrary time limit on disproving claims (especially claims that weren't proven to begin with).



You have no idea what you're talking about. Calling someone a "Jew bastard" is an ad Hominem because it is an attempt to disparage their integrity or reputation instead of properly disputing their claim. It doesn't matter how much a part of your "character" your beliefs are, nor does it matter how much your beliefs are attacked. If no attempt to stain your reputation or question your integrity is made, then no ad Hominem is committed.



Really? You mean to say that raising a logical counter-argument to someone's statement doesn't happen by chance? Preposterous.



The "base your life around" part makes no difference. A belief is a belief, no matter how much you cry when people hurt your feelings by questioning how you can believe hyper-intelligent Velociraptors are secretly manipulating the world governments.

No matter how core a belief is it is never a trait, so definition 1 does not apply. That whole "moral" thing is part of definition 3 (which I didn't say was applicable, because it isn't), you're equivocating again.



Again, no.

Human Rasengan

wow dude it's official..you have been given AW initials.. you've been branded and nohting you said will ever be forgotten..I told you ot be careful but you keep waling into the same trap

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

almightywood

Bullshit.
Every single one of those definitions may be used and it would still be abusive and circumstantial.

1. You've read his autobiography. You know what he's done, what he believes, and where he's from.

2. The guy only has one leg for christ's sake.

3. He lied about his name when they picked him up.

4. He pissed his pants when they picked him up.

5. I've heard that he is a mafia crime boss.


Just because you feel like pulling this interpretation out of your ass, that isn't stated anywhere in the definition in any way shape or form doesn't mean it means a damn thing.

If attacking someone for being a jew is something about reputation, their reputation is being attacked for their beliefs, don't try and give me some bullshit that calling someone a jew as an insult isn't belief based.

If you want to try to say they are all reputation based, well then attacks on the philosophy that I subscribe to would also be going against my reputation.

Quit insisting upon your understanding of things to disprove the definition, and keep telling me I'm being illogical in the same breath.