|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Norway has plenty of private enterprise |
Excellent. So we agree then
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Norway's government own's over 30% of the Norwegian economy |
Well, that's splendid and comradely news for you and other followers of your absurd little politician creed. |
Don't you mean political, because if there's one thing I hate it's people who use the wrong word. Probably had his education on the public dime.
You are the one with the absurd political creed. It's funny watching you twist things and change positions all in order to make everything fit into your narrow world view. I'm not a socialist, I don't think that Norway's system would work in most countries. Your argument mostly boils down to calling people socialist, which is weak propaganda at best.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| An ad hominem attack is attacking the person making the argument or other proponents of the argument rather than the argument itself |
Only if the "attack" in question is used as evidence that a claim is false.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| The problem, here is that the source of statistics is being attacked |
And how does that differ from the definition of "Ad hominem" that you just gave?
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| If I said "According to The Green Friends of the World, France has the biggest economy, there are no fat kids, and no one dies," you might want to question the source I'm citing |
No. I would question the claim itself. Claims are always true and false independently of the nature and character of the source. |
Not necessarily. The way in which statistics are presented can determine their meaning, but that doesn't mean that the statistics are true themselves. Anyone who has taken an introductory research methods class knows this. The fact that you choose a clearly biased source shows intellectual laziness.
| Leon wrote: |
A quote from Ron Paul.
"During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions. He stated: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?""
Ron Paul's views on Israel are closer to my own than almost any other politician, and you were saying? |
I remain utterly convinced that what is, in my view, a morally dubious and disproportionate interest in Israel enjoys very close relations with subscription to essentially left wing economic ideas. Indeed, in a great many cases, today's Judeaphobes were yesterday's apologists for the Soviet Union. United in Hate by Dr Jamie Glazov (and The Top 200 Chomsky Lies) - read 'em and weep. Ron Paul is a rare and isolated exception to this general rule.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| the implication was that the grammar error was a result of public education |
Well, if someone has an undergraduate degree and doesn't know how to use an apostrophe, what other possible interpretation is available? |
Again intellectual laziness. You are claiming correlation based on causality. You dislike America's position on Israel = You are a socialist. Judeaphobes, come on man if you are going to call people names call them antisemitic. This has nothing to do with anything anybody has said, this is ridiculous. You never did tell us what you thought about my claim that countries can be economically free but still have large amounts of government involvement. You are the one who agreed with me that Norway is largely economically free, and Norway does have a large amount of government involvement. Explain that away in a clear rational manner with out any name caller or grammar policing and then you might earn a tiny amount of respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leon, please
The quote function is very straightforward. Please use it in the traditional fashion.
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't think that Norway's system would work in most countries |
Yeah. I must confess, I had slightly underestimated the extent of state-ownership in Norway. I thought the oil licences, for example, weren't owned by the government. As such, Norway sees a striking similarity, fiscally at least, to Saudi Arabia. But hey - that's not as bad as it sounds. The House of Saud is oil-rich and has a fairly generous redistribution philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Leon, please
The quote function is very straightforward. Please use it in the traditional fashion. |
Sorry, new to this board, still getting used to the quoting system. Will preview next posts to check I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Well, that's splendid and comradely news for you and other followers of your absurd little politician creed.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| An ad hominem attack is attacking the person making the argument or other proponents of the argument rather than the argument itself |
Only if the "attack" in question is used as evidence that a claim is false. |
So, by this definition, saying that one would disregard evidence from a disreputable source is not ad hominem. No one said "The Heritage Foundation is a known conservative think tank so everything they argue is wrong." The validity of their research was called into question, not the validity of their conclusions.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| The problem, here is that the source of statistics is being attacked |
And how does that differ from the definition of "Ad hominem" that you just gave? |
Once again, the evidence is being attacked, not the conclusions, not the arguments.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| If I said "According to The Green Friends of the World, France has the biggest economy, there are no fat kids, and no one dies," you might want to question the source I'm citing |
No. I would question the claim itself. Claims are always true and false independently of the nature and character of the source. |
So, when someone makes a claim, backs it up with "evidence", and says "If there's one thing the religious hate, it's facts" you accept the evidence without question?
Saying someone's evidence is not reliable is not a logical fallacy. I don't know how many more ways I can possibly write this to get you to understand that not all evidence is equal. If you cite a source whose sole purpose is to further conservatism, they tend not to conduct objective, "empirical" research.
Edit: Ok, I'll give a more clear example of what does and does not constitute ad hominem.
"The theory of evolution via natural selection states that beneficial traits will be selected through differential reproductive success of offspring. Hitler believed this. Hitler killed millions of people and was a horrible man. Therefore, this theory is wrong."
That is ad hominem.
"You said your cousin's friend saw millions of frogs reproduce, and the frogs who had a novel mutation survived longer and produced more offspring. The frogs with novel mutations overtook all of the other frogs with whom they could no longer procreate. I don't really accept your argument based on the word of your cousin's friend. Care to show me some legitimate research?"
That is not ad hominem. While the conclusion of the observations may be correct, it is not unreasonable to question the observations themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
| The validity of their research was called into question, not the validity of their conclusions. |
And yet you have provided absolutely nothing in the way of evidence as to the validity of their research. You have merely made an accusation.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Once again, the evidence is being attacked, not the conclusions, not the arguments. |
What is wrong with the evidence? Be specific
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| So, when someone makes a claim, backs it up with "evidence", and says "If there's one thing the religious hate, it's facts" you accept the evidence without question? |
I would at least make some attempt to engage myself with the evidence in question, rather than simply dismiss it. And if there was something amiss with the evidence, I would cite it, rather than simply dismiss it.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Saying someone's evidence is not reliable is not a logical fallacy. |
In the absence of an actual discussion as to why it is unreliable, yes, it is
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| I don't know how many more ways I can possibly write this to get you to understand that not all evidence is equal. |
In other words, accept evidence when it fits the prevailing vision and reject it when it doesn't
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| If you cite a source whose sole purpose is to further conservatism, they tend not to conduct objective, "empirical" research |
.
I don't really know where to begin. You leap from one nonsequitur to another.
Firstly, what was the most convincing piece of evidence you came across suggesting the purpose of the source in question was to "further conservatism"?
Secondly, on what grounds do sources "whose sole purpose is to further conservatism" tend not to conduct objective, "empirical" research?
And thirdly, are you going to actually discuss any of the claims made?
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
Edit: Ok, I'll give a more clear example of what does and does not constitute ad hominem.
"The theory of evolution via natural selection states that beneficial traits will be selected through differential reproductive success of offspring. Hitler believed this. Hitler killed millions of people and was a horrible man. Therefore, this theory is wrong."
That is ad hominem. |
I agree - a classic case of ad hominem.
Now you're catching on!
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
You said your cousin's friend saw millions of frogs reproduce, and the frogs who had a novel mutation survived longer and produced more offspring. The frogs with novel mutations overtook all of the other frogs with whom they could no longer procreate. I don't really accept your argument based on the word of your cousin's friend. Care to show me some legitimate research?"
That is not ad hominem. While the conclusion of the observations may be correct, it is not unreasonable to question the observations themselves. |
"care to show me some legitimate reseach?" isn't what occurred. Rather, the evidence was simply dismissed as inherently dubious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Firstly, what was the most convincing piece of evidence you came across suggesting the purpose of the source in question was to "further conservatism"? |
| Quote: |
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution�a think tank�whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. .....
Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. |
http://www.heritage.org/about
It seems pretty straight forward that the purpose of the foundation is to further, promote or support conservative views. The say so themselves.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Secondly, on what grounds do sources "whose sole purpose is to further conservatism" tend not to conduct objective, "empirical" research? |
If a person has a job to provide evidence to support a particular hypothesis, how much evidence will be included which falsifies said hypothesis?
Empirical research tends to follow falsification. You start with a hypothesis and test it. After testing it thoroughly, you arrive at a conclusion. If you start with a conclusion, and seek out any evidence which supports that conclusion, the research tends not to be as valid because evidence which doesn't support the conclusion is either ignored or twisted to fit the conclusion.
| Quote: |
And thirdly, are you going to actually discuss any of the claims made?
|
No. There are several other people who will take you up on that. Economics doesn't interest me much, and the socialism vs capitalism debate has been going on for quite a while. [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Empirical research tends to follow falsification. You start with a hypothesis and test it. After testing it thoroughly, you arrive at a conclusion. If you start with a conclusion, and seek out any evidence which supports that conclusion, the research tends not to be as valid because evidence which doesn't support the conclusion is either ignored or twisted to fit the conclusion. |
Unless you're going to actually cite examples in favor of your view, instead of continuing to whine about the source, you're wasting good electricity.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| And thirdly, are you going to actually discuss any of the claims made? |
No. |
In which case, please stop wasting my time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
