I propose that TC’s comment, the alleged ad hominem fallacy, was NOT part of any logical argument — 0 thru 9

An ad hom is an informal fallacy though:

"In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Informal_fallacy

I watched some of Rudy's interviews. A bit bizarre and incompetent but not that unexpected from a lawyer trying to protect his client.

Well, it's not a big deal, I suppose. I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of Hanover's mouth anyhow. (Unless he's talking about Sapientia's mother).

Maybe I should clarify what I was trying to argue:

1) It's fallacious to dismiss an argument on the basis of its origin.
2) It's also fallacious to dismiss an assertion/statement of fact (completely) on the basis of its origin.
3) It's not however fallacious to question the credibility of an assertion on the basis of its origin.

The first two would be fallacies of irrelevance. Which fallacy of irrelevance would depend on how the dismissal is phrased. It seemed like Hanover was trying to make an argument, so I thought @T Clark had probably committed a Bulverism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

"One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth."

And I just said that mostly as an aside without trying to get in between the two of them.

Here's how I entered the conversation by the way @frank.

Not taking sides or anything, but it sounds more like a Bulverism to me. — Baden

i.e. to say the original point of contention wasn't an ad hom.

When I say disagree, I mean as in quote one of my statements and then disagree with it.

Send him to my place, I'll sort him out. :up:

I never said it was.

If you agree, great, we're done, Frank. If you disagree with something, let me know.

My dog usually barks on Wednesday. It is Wednesday. Therefore my dog barked. That's fallacious. — Hanover

? That obviously fits with what I said.

And:

My dog usually barks on Wednesday. It is Wednesday. Therefore my dog is likely to bark. That's not fallacious.

Same thing:

What I said: The IDF said X and the IDF usually/often lie about X therefore X is probably/might be false (isn't fallacious).
What I didn't say: The IDF said X and the IDF usually/often lie about X therefore X is false (would be fallacious).

Trump says X and Trump usually lies about X therefore X is false is fallacious regardless of what X is.
Trump says X and Trump usually lies about X therefore X is probably false isn't.

That's a red herring. Another informal fallacy.

This is what I said:

"For example, to dismiss something Trump says as false simply on the basis that he's a pathological liar is fallacious even if it's understandable."

"No, the fallacy is the argument itself; in this case of the form: Trump made an assertion therefore the assertion is false."

"Trump being a bullshitter and liar doesn't preclude him from making assertions that are true."

Agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

Trump being a bullshitter and liar doesn't preclude him from making assertions that are true. The argument in the form I presented it is fallacious.

No, the fallacy is the argument itself; in this case of the form: Trump made an assertion therefore the assertion is false.

But, yes, all the assertions are false. :p

Liberalism is more analogous to R&D , while Conservatism is more about long term production, based on long term proven claims. — wellwisher

I would agree with this part at least; liberalism is quite analagous to R&D. And companies/liberal societies that focus on R&D tend to thrive and lead, while companies/conservative societies that are afraid to innovate (invest in R&D) tend to stagnate and fall behind. Of course, there has to be a balance, and implementing the results of R&D can be a risk, but what separates successful companies and successful societies from unsuccessful ones is as much as anything else the extent to which they are willing to discover and implement change.

Not taking sides or anything, but it sounds more like a Bulverism to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Sometimes we do downgrade credibility basked on who a person is: known pathological liar, for instance. — frank

It's not a question of credibility; philosophically speaking, arguments have to be addressed on their own merits. Any focus on the origin of the argument as opposed to the argument itself is considered irrelevant, and so fallacious as a counterargument. For example, to dismiss something Trump says as false simply on the basis that he's a pathological liar is fallacious even if it's understandable.

Going to close this as it's starting to become indistinguishable from the Shoutbox. And one Shoutbox is enough.

The main problem with dirty sexual jokes in the Shoutbox is that they are quite often not as funny or as dirty as we would have hoped for. Discriminating connoisseurs of dirty jokes should be in charge of censoring jokes which do not make it over the low bar established here. — Bitter Crank

I guess I'm the philistine now as I almost always laugh and as with Tiff they often lift my mood (as with the animal stuff). What they don't do is make me think but that's not the function of this type of humor in my view.

Thanks, Tiff, for your sensible and generous approach. :up:

Remaining gentle against the occasional White tower opinions, remain sensitive against those who say no one cares what you say, remain you and be proud of being sensitive! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

To be fair, Posty has shown he's not above not being gentle or particularly sensitive even when some concessions are made in his favor. In the end, it all comes down to posters employing strategies to get what they want and make the forum in their image. Anyway, on this issue, the debate is open and we're listening. I've given my opinion but I'd like to achieve some kind of consensus if possible.

Put it this way, if most of the mod team and most posters want to censor the dirty jokes to some degree, we could enact that and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I doubt that's the case though.

(One suggestion btw would be to have them hidden behind a reveal button like gifs should be.)

At least dead baby jokes tend to have a punchline — Akanthinos

That's the type of thing that would offend me actually. We all have our lines, I guess.

I laugh at both but would elevate neither. There are occasionally good examples of real humour and sometimes quite sophisticated humour around the forum but neither of those is it.

And Chez Guevera must be jumping up and down for joy in his grave. I hope he doesn't impale himself on his cigar. — Baden

And if that level of dirty joke actually offends you @Posty McPostface then the problem does lie with you, I would say. Fucking mothers and so on is a different level, which I'm more sympathetic to people being offended by, but still don't personally think should be censored when it's limited to a particular area on a philosophy forum orientated towards adults (even though it's definitely arguable it should be).

That's non-responsive to what I wrote. If you are just going to sulk instead of actually engaging, fine. I'm not going to indulge you.

(E.g. You totally ignored this:

I basically share his view that they can function in that way, but then there's a balance of when and where and with whom it's appropriate to engage in them (and it's at least arguable that the shared space of the Shoutbox is not an appropriate place) — Baden

When it is used as a vehicle for thought the depth or significance of the thought is more often proportional to the crudity of the delivery: When this is not the case, genius (as in the case of Zizek) may often be at the table. It is a loss if one misses genius because ones gentle sensibilities are being molested. — Marcus de Brun

Apart from exhibiting some level of genius and having a potty mouth, Zizek also talks in detail about how dirty jokes function. I can't find the video right now (in fact there are probably several where he mentions this somewhere) but the basic idea is that they allow, and in some cases are even necessary, for a certain from of friendship and comradeship to flourish. I basically share his view that they can function in that way, but then there's a balance of when and where and with whom it's appropriate to engage in them (and it's at least arguable that the shared space of the Shoutbox is not an appropriate place). Anyway, it's not just the simple case that anyone who regularly engages in dirty jokes is stupid and crass and those who object are of a higher more refined moral character. It's far more complicated than that. And some people just need to get out more, frankly.

The point was that immorality and indecent talk was being encouraged, for the sake of one-upmanship and some idiotic ego games. — Posty McPostface

No more idiotic than pretending to be a chicken or a pig I would have thought. It's not exactly cutting edge social commentary is it? What you do is express yourself in your own idiotic way. Which is totally fine, but how we do that does vary across personalities and the Shoutbox is a limited area where that is acceptable.

Would you want to fly with drunk pilots flying your plane had you witnessed them taking a drink in front of everyone before the flight? — Posty McPostface

Nobody's drunk and making a dirty joke does not indicate stupidity or an inability to carry out the job of moderation (any more than pretending to be a pig would). Get a grip, Posty.

Not at all! You have made a new line, and people have not just fallen, but jumped in it. Congratulations! Viva la revolution! — unenlightened

And Chez Guevera must be jumping up and down for joy in his grave. I hope he doesn't impale himself on his cigar. Is that a dirty joke? Mea Culpa.

No, it's not. I have no investment in it and will happily stop. I'm just not going to try to dictate to others that they do. I'll leave that to you and those who object most. Goodnight.

So, Hanover's name has now been mentioned 9 times in this discussion. Let's all congratulate ourselves on our achievement before he gets to congratulate himself on it. Goodnight.

you too enjoy the dirty jokes — Posty McPostface

I find them harmless as I said above and fun sometimes. But I will personally be more careful in future seeing as it bothers you and some others.

and don't want Hanover to stop — Posty McPostface

It's not something that keeps me awake at night one way or the other tbh.



I'm not personally for banning dirty jokes in the Shoutbox or telling Hanover he can't make them. I'm sure the other mods have their own opinions on it, which they may share here.

Or possibly, moderators should be a bit more moderate. — unenlightened

Generally speaking, yes, but I don't consider making dirty jokes (or any jokes) in the Shoutbox as being immoderate in any important way unless they are deliberately being done to bully or belittle, which is not the case with Hanover.

I agree the Shoutbox is too prominent. It is easy to change to Categories mode though. Maybe more posters should do that.

Summary of my 2C: The jokes are harmless but the Shoutbox is too prominent.

OK, well, if everyone tells @Hanover they don't like his dirty jokes, he will no doubt...make more dirty jokes. Would you like that on your conscience?

(Sorry, Un, that's the best I can do at 2am.)

Well, I personally could survive without making dirty jokes, so I'm listening, but it might be the death of Hanover. Would you want that on your conscience? Anyway, I sympathize with the points you made, but it's not really a mod issue but an issue of differing personalities and their expressions.

Not in my view; fatalism would be a resignation to the fact that we are mere puppets of forces beyond our control or will, particularly in the face of pain and death. This looks more like pragmatism applied to extreme situations. I don't see him generalizing this as an attitude to be borne regardless of context.

OK, I read a bit and he does present the argument I was supporting accurately. I'll get around to his counter when I get a chance.

OK, but you've seen the logic works differently when you're dealing with an agent. An agent has rights that imply they can't be manipulated for the benefit of another in ways a non-agent can. However any sentient being, agent or non-agent, should not have to suffer unnecessary physical pain considering that's intrinsically an undesirable. The result is a bit counter-intuitive, killing them is OK, hurting them is not, but that's not necessarily morally contradictory. By killing them you deny them further life (and life which you made possible in the circumstances you made it possible through manipulation of generations of their species) but you do not cause them pain, so it's the difference between denying the continuation of a positive (further life) and enforcing a negative (pain). And what I propose is ethical is to give an animal you breed for meat a better life than a similar wild version of the domestic species could expect (all things being equal) in terms of comfort, freedom from disease and parasites, protection from other animal predators, shelter etc. and then end that life without inflicting pain.

This statement was posted on another thread, I have deliberately withheld the name of the original poster. — Marcus de Brun

It wouldn't be bad etiquette to quote them and reveal their name. Anyone could read the quote in context anyhow.

Interesting demonstration, eh? Next...

The horse broke its leg and could never fully recover. It was put down for its own benefit. (OK)
The human broke her leg and could never fully recover. She was put down for her own benefit. (Not OK)

I'll answer this part though:

Shooting my dog is clearly not better or more acceptable than kicking her. — NKBJ

It is under certain circumstances including if the dog is in chronic pain. Ask yourself this question, why is it OK to put down an animal (execute it) to stop it feeling pain or discomfort and not do that for a human?