Page 3 of 16
Posted on May 16 at 12:36 p.m.
The genuinely best part of native's comment is this: "The argument they have to this would be “no, that’s not so”, or “so’s your old man, and you do it, too”, or “prove it, show me the (fill in the blank for the latest demand-du-jour), or “you’re a “homophobe” (the invented word used as a weapon against all who oppose them), or “that’s a hate crime”, or “that’s hate speech” etcetera ad nauseum, because native is providing commonly-seen examples of a tactic often used no matter what the issue.
The logical fallacy is ad hominem; the tactic is evasion by ad hominem, instead of answering the argument on its merits. In other contexts, the ad hominem might be "you liberal" or "you conservative" or "you socialist" or "you racist" or "you woman too ugly too rape" or "you animist"..."you Hippy-crite" or ...(too many to list).
On The Judiciary
Posted on May 13 at 1:44 p.m.
Finally. Thank you, loon, for a worthy contribution to the thread. See, that is how it is done.
On Vegan Group Protests Foie Gras in S.B. Restaurants
Posted on May 13 at 1:40 p.m.
The moral high ground in this thread does not come from eating vegetables instead of meat. It comes from the conduct of the conversation. Admittedly, there are any number of inhumane practices going on in the production of food at fast food restaurants and otherwise. The fact that this protest is focusing on one such inhumane practice does not ignore or excuse the others.
I am not supporting Jamse's good faith mistake. I am saying that JJ's first response was the correct response, and it should have been left at that. Sixty comments of mocking and derision is what I am opposed too, however, why on earth would anyone suggest that I might be feeling "hurt?" Apart from being untrue, it is irrelevant.
If there is no such thing as charity in this day and age, more's the pity. We should all be resisting that unfortunate trend, not embracing it and implying others should do the same.
If your question about Pomi were truly honest, and you were as genuinely concerned as you make out, I would expect to see you at the forefront of demonstrations against zoos, and you would be advocating not only on Pomi's behalf, but also giving up the clearly greater evil (as consistency would demand) of eating foie gras as an objection to the inhuman production methods. However, your tone and comments mark your objection to Pomi in a stroller as insincere bait.
I do not know Jamse, but Jamse might have acknowledged the rhetorical mistake if this thread were an environment of good faith discussion instead of using Jamse as the object of personal attacks. If you cannot overcome the human nature to deride, how can you expect Jamse to overcome the human nature to defend? Actually at no point did Jamse succumb to the provocation and give tit for tat..
His rhetorical mistake did you no personal wrong. Why would you expect an apology? Your bullying of Jamse is prima facie wrong. That is why you should man up and apologize for your bad behavior, not feign faux personal indignation over a rhetorical mistake.
I hope the the Independent forums could be high quality. Naive,maybe, like charity, but much better than the alternative on display in this thread.
Posted on May 13 at 12:16 p.m.
No, I did not say it was okay. Jamse's false analogy is deliberate but in good faith. It was a rhetorical mistake. What you are doing is entirely different. You could have pointed out the mistake in a good faith way, as JJ did (although he could have avoided the condescending tone). However, you chose to mock and bully and call names. You know perfectly well you are not asking an honest, good faith question, therefore it deserves no answer. Be a grown-up and apologize to Jamse for your bad behavior.
Posted on May 13 at 11:19 a.m.
Your point, native son?
How about one of you who disagrees with the protestors reasons for choosing to avoid foie gras make a logical, good faith defense of your position. If you cannot do it, except for reasons of self-gratification, just say so. Misdirection through ridicule will not do.
Posted on May 13 at 10:48 a.m.
Jamse is engaging in a bit of reductio ad absurdum and false analogy, but it is in good faith and with compassion. Asking Jamse to answer the deliberate reductio ad absurdum that sacjon is applying to Pomi with a sauce of playgound ad hominem is what is ridiculous. Jamse is right to ignore it.
While it might be human nature to make fun of easy targets like middle school bullies, the thing about being human and having a brain is that we can choose to act charitably, even if doing so is contrary to human nature. We have the ability to resist temptation. It is okay to be anonymous, but using anonymity as a cloak to hide under is not okay. Life is full of opportunities to take the high road, rather than using "human nature" to justify bad behavior.
If the level of discourse evident in this article and comments were confined to an issue as relatively minor as foie gras, that would be one thing. The problem is we see the exact same tactics employed to "discuss" every single issue, without exception, even important policy issues that determine what kind of country we want to be.
Posted on May 12 at 7:58 p.m.
JJ, See, that is not what I said at all. I said that since the protesters were not actually inside the restaurant yelling at anyone after they ordered foie gras, they would have no occasion to come unglued. It is also very strange to characterize "come full throttle" and "freak the mob out" as exercising the right to free speech and orderly participation. Orderly participation and freaking the mob out sound like diametric opposites, don't you think? Sounds more like road rage to me.
In the half hour since I posted my last comment, there have appeared several more instances of rhetorical fallacies or outright irrelevant comments. It seems like the participants in the Independent forums are often at cross purposes. Some people want to have a real discussion; most just want to sling arrows.
It seems like if we have a bigger problem than ducks if so many participants cannot even treat each other charitably and in good faith.
Posted on May 12 at 7:04 p.m.
The article and the comment together would make a great primary source for a logic class, especially as it is chock full of examples of how not to conduct discussion of an issue. If you throw out all the comments that rely on rhetorical fallacies like false analogy (not false dichotomy), red herrings, ad hominem, condescension, reductio ad absurdum, and a mocking tone that actually evades serious discussion of the question, there is almost nothing left.
When people cannot conduct a reasonable discussion that respects differing views and considers arguments on their merits, they cannot make sound decisions. A "discussion" that is limited to making and answering rhetorical fallacies is no discussion at all. This forum, as well as many other forums online, suffers from this shortcoming.
By the way, since according to the report, the protestors stayed outside, there would be no occasion to "come full throttle out of my chair" inside the restaurant "and freak the mob out."
Posted on May 12 at 11:31 a.m.
Maybe they do need to provide a trigger warning since the treatment of the birds is really quite distressing. Isn't that the main ground of their objection, and the main reason they want the public to give up foie gras? Why exactly are the foie gras fans offended? Is it because they would rather be offended than seriously consider whether their pleasure is worth the cost to another living thing. Human beings are supposedly the stewards of the earth and its animals. Does proper stewardship allow torture of a food source that has the ability to suffer in order to gratify our own pleasure?
Westerners do not mind censuring other cultures for questionable practices. Maybe we should be willing to examine ourselves first.
On what basis do you say the demonstration was in "a most inflammatory manner?" The article says they "implored"customers. It does not say they hurled defamatory insults, or anything like that. It says they distributed, not showed, a video that is probably quite disturbing. They also provided an alternative recipe.
Those so-called "offended" fans should simply ignore the demonstrators, of course. I am not sure where that question is coming from.
Giving up foie gras is really a very small gesture, and does not even approach the seriousness of whether abortion is murder or not..
Posted on May 12 at 10:59 a.m.
Improving your skill set is a start, and without a high quality skill set, you can even begin to compete for the higher wage jobs. Nevertheless, even if you possess a high quality skill set, you may be dismayed to find that there are simply not enough corresponding jobs to go around.
On It's a Matter of Equity