Why we exist

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps this call out on ad homs would be a good wake up for everyone to take a step back from what seems to be a rising trend in contentious argumentation - for each of us to ask, before we press Send, if we are addressing the argument or the arguer.

 

[wellwisher]

Perhaps this call out on ad homs would be a good wake up for everyone to take a step back from what seems to be a rising trend in contentious argumentation - for each of us to ask, before we press Send, if we are addressing the argument or the arguer.

This tendency is a trademark of the left. The reason is, the left is more grounded on emotions, than it is on thought. Therefore, it is harder for them to argue using logic and data, without relying on emotional appeal, like prestige or fear. On the other hand, attacking the messenger is effective using an emotional approach, since you can paint strangers with a broad brush, so other emotional thinkers become biased, so they don't have to reason.

This appears to come from the top down; leftist leadership. If you look at those who oppose Trump, it is all about trying to kill the messenger instead of engaging in a rational discussion based on the facts. For example, ObamaCare has gotten too expensive and is causing insurance companies to pull out. There is a need for change. But instead of dealing in reality, the left attacks the messenger of these facts. It is still referred to as the affordable care act even though it is not affordable. The disconnected between words and reality is made easier by an emotional attachment to this law. This is taught by the media, and may even be taught in publics schools. Trump and company are working on cutting the head off the snake, so the leftist can return to reason; critical thinking versus emotional propaganda.

Trump is unique in that the same leftist emotional tactics that has works on politicians and celebrities, bounce off Trump. Trump can deliberately step into crap but the left can't use this to take him out. Trump is setting an example of how to defend against irrational people.

If you go back to why we exist, is the reason we exist to ignore reality and live in a communal fantasy held together with emotional glue, or is it to become a unique person attached to reality?

 

[James R]

Taking multiple eyewitness accounts at their word is not gullible.

It fails to appreciate that eyewitnesses are far from infallible purveyors of fact, as I have explained in some detail to you on multiple occasions.

It is going by the evidence, the same way detectives and reporters do with crimes and accidents.

Good detectives and reporters know not to rely solely on eyewitness accounts, since they so often turn out to be unreliable. There are, of course, a lot of shoddy reporters out there. On the other hand, you don't usually achieve the rank of detective without displaying some competence, but detectives can make mistakes too.

It is an ad hom meant to discredit me with some character flaw or mental disability.

Believing everything people tell you might well endear you to some, Magical Realist, so it's not necessarily a character flaw. It just makes you useless as an investigator. As for mental disability, from your posts you seem to me to be a human being who probably functions adequately within the usual socially-accepted bounds. But I am not your psychiatrist.

If I am a gullible person, then what I say is evidenced and real cannot be trusted.

A sensible person would not take your word alone as good evidence of alien invasions or bigfoot or ghostly apparitions, but would look at the wider evidence for and against such things. That this does not occur to you just reinforces the point I made previously regarding your naive and abiding trust in individual testimony.

I am essentially written off as a source of accurate observations.

I can't remember you ever posting any first-hand observations of your own. You rely entirely on second- or third-hand sources to make your case for the woo, as far as I can tell.

You have undermined my credibility in order to refute my claims.

You mean that my questioning your claims has tended to undermine your credibility. I make no apologies for that.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Perhaps this call out on ad homs would be a good wake up for everyone to take a step back from what seems to be a rising trend in contentious argumentation - for each of us to ask, before we press Send, if we are addressing the argument or the arguer.

It would be, it could be, heck, it should be...
but...this is sciforums...so...

 

[Magical Realist]

It fails to appreciate that eyewitnesses are far from infallible purveyors of fact, as I have explained in some detail to you on multiple occasions.

Good detectives and reporters know not to rely solely on eyewitness accounts, since they so often turn out to be unreliable. There are, of course, a lot of shoddy reporters out there. On the other hand, you don't usually achieve the rank of detective without displaying some competence, but detectives can make mistakes too.

Good detectives use eyewitnesses all the time to determine what happened. And good reporters and the court system do to. That disproves your claim that eyewitness accounts are unreliable.

Believing everything people tell you might well endear you to some, Magical Realist, so it's not necessarily a character flaw. It just makes you useless as an investigator.

LOL! No..you are not using it as an endearing quality. You are using it as an ad hom on my character and mental abilities to discredit me and which you just confirmed by calling me useless as an investigator. I should report you for that but I know nothing will be done about it.

Sci Forum rules:

• • Do not engage in ad hominem attacks (i.e. attack the argument, not the person).

It's interesting that in the same breath that you condemn paddoboy for calling someone gullible you then justify calling me gullible. So which is it? Is calling someone gullible ok or not? Or is it only ok when you do it?

"In a follow-up post you call him gullible and impressionable (and don't say you didn't mean him).

None of this is necessary."

 

[DaveC426913]

Sci Forum rules:

• • Do not engage in ad hominem attacks (i.e. attack the argument, not the person).

We've been over this before. It is true that an ad hom attack is directed at the person, not the argument.

But anything said by that person within the scope of the discussion is fair game.

JamesR (et al) is addressing your explicit admission - your words - entirely within the scope of the discussion - that you believe whatever people tell you.

Believing whatever one is told is a bad way of investigating. James R is rightfully addressing that argument, which you have brought to the table.

In short: it is not an hom to attack something that one's opponent has themselves explicitly brought to the discussion.

 

[Michael 345]

In short: it is not an hom to attack something that one's opponent has themselves explicitly brought to the discussion.

I legal terms it is known as " you opened the door "

 

[DaveC426913]

I legal terms it is known as " you opened the door "

I know the term, yeah.
I think it's important that MR see that it isn't merely a matter of opening a door and letting someone else use the same door. MR actually brought it** in through the door himself and put it on the table in front of us.

** 'it' being specifically the habit of believing whatever one is told.

 

[Michael 345]

I know the term, yeah.
I think it's important that MR see

I don't think MR will ' see ' even with 2 pair of beer bottle glasses

 

[timojin]

Why we exist.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." - Isaac Newton

The biggest question we have ever asked is why we are here and how everything that is, is... Everything that exists is in balance, therefor we exist because nothing exists. When one wonders how everything can be, it is because it isn't. Nothing exists... If nothing ever existed than in balance something must exist, and because 'nothing' is the opposite of 'anything', everything must exist. Our existence and every possible variation of existence, is an actuality of the balance created by nothing existing.

"We are here, because we aren't"
-Thomas Williams

We exist, to learn our environment and to see if we can improve our God given life

 

[Magical Realist]

JamesR (et al) is addressing your explicit admission - your words - entirely within the scope of the discussion - that you believe whatever people tell you.

I never said I believe whatever people tell me. I said I believe what multiple eyewitnesses say they saw. Just like detectives and reporters and the courts do. That isn't gullibility. It is common sense. And calling someone gullible IS an ad hominem whether you like it or not. Get with the program and quit defending ad hominem attacks.

 

[Michael 345]

We exist, to learn our environment and to see if we can improve our God given life

You want us poor sinners ' to learn our environment and to see if we can improve our God given life ' ?

And if we see a way to improve our god given life how do we explain to god what we think would be an improvement?

Have you ever known god to issue a recall of a defective human model?

 

[DaveC426913]

I never said I believe whatever people tell me. I believe what multiple eyewitnesses say they saw. Just like detectives and reporters and the courts accept. That isn't gullibility....

From the horse's mouth:

I believe what people say they've experienced when I see they have no agenda or reason to be lying about it. That's just normal sane living. It may make me gullible...

I think that pretty much wraps this up with a bow and a card.

 

[timojin]

You want us poor sinners ' to learn our environment and to see if we can improve our God given life ' ?

And if we see a way to improve our god given life how do we explain to god what we think would be an improvement?

Have you ever known god to issue a recall of a defective human model?

I believe we are set free, and He give us a better brain than to animals so we can make an improvement to our needs.

He made the beginning than after that we depend on us and on the environment .

 

[Magical Realist]

I think that pretty much wraps this up with a bow and a card.

I changed my mind. It doesn't make me gullible. It makes me objective about the evidence. Anyone who doesn't believe multiple eyewitness accounts has serious paranoia issues.

 

[Michael 345]

I believe we are set free, and He give us a better brain than to animals so we can make an improvement to our needs.

He made the beginning than after that we depend on us and on the environment .

OK

You restated your beliefs but a restatement is not an answer to the two questions

 

[timojin]

OK

You restated your beliefs but a restatement is not an answer to the two questions

Sorry I responded to you and not to the opening. Should I had dismissed your position to me ?I just tried to be polite.
I did not have to answer your comment,

 

[DaveC426913]

I changed my mind. It doesn't make me gullible.

That is a matter of debate.
You're entitled to your opinon on the matter of course (though you can't be objective about it).
But your credibility is a matter of whether others see your belief as an indication of gullibility.
Yes. People get to make that call as within the scope of debate.

 

[Michael 345]

Sorry I responded to you and not to the opening. Should I had dismissed your position to me ?I just tried to be polite.
I did not have to answer your comment,

I'll take that as you don't know the answers

 

[Magical Realist]

That is a matter of debate.
You're entitled to your opinon on the matter of course (though you can't be objective about it).
But your credibility is a matter of whether others see your belief as an indication of gullibility.
Yes. People get to make that call as within the scope of debate.

No they don't. There is a clear rule against ad homs and insulting members. And calling me gullible is a violation of it. James even warned paddoboy not to do it. Read over the rules if you're unclear about it.