Sanctimonious Keyboard warriors Watch

hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
(Original post by sammynorton90)
He did criticise it. You're arguments are just repetitive and pathetic. Its like arguing with Rainman.
More like your argument is pathetic. You last post pretty much conceded that I was right given that person 1 was ignorant of the moral truth. But shallow types such as yourself will never openly concede defeat and like to hide in their ivory towers thinking they hold the absolute truths to ethical issues. Tis why debating on TSR is pretty useless..
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Does that make you a hypocrite? Yes. Categorically 100% Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. Does it weaken your argument? Yes. Massively. It means that whatever you argue is just done in pretense and is fake. It's arguing for the sake of arguing.
If I present a reasoned argument grounded in logic, my actions are absolutely irrelevant. You’re presenting an ad hominem, and it’s the most obvious logical fallacy.

- I believe we should minimise suffering,
- to shoot this man would increase suffering
- Therefore, I should not shoot him

Whether or not I shoot the man is irrelevent to logic of the argument.
0
reply
thisisnew
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Yep ha.
For example earlier, on this forum, on a thread about the wedding. Someone states that they were annoying and astounded how quickly we have 'forgotten about japan' and how no-one cares or does anything and just moves on.

I asked her 'what did you do to help?'
Her reply 'well nothing.. but that's not the point'

Typical.

I don't do loads, i do what i can. I've donated to NSPCC & PDSA since i've had my own bank account (roughly £15 a month), volunteer'd with working with dogs for 3 years now (ye i like animals ;D), always donate and volunteer for the big charity events (red nose day etc) and several other small things. Nothing big, but i feel i do enough to get annoyed at people who sit back in their high horse and complain about society when in reality they do nothing worthy themselves.
High-five for donating to the PDSA, shame I can't rep you for a while.
0
reply
bestofyou
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Yes, but most people probably feel this way. And don't say 'the white man', and turn this into something race related. Most educated, enlightened people would love to live in a world were we're all equal, have the same, etc. But most, like you realise this world isn't a fairytale and just plug along and enjoy life the best they can. Why then, do some people feel the need to lecture others and say 'the way you're living is wrong' whilst living exactly the same way?
I don't think the most people would like to see live return to the way it used to be, otherwise, it quite simply would.

Well, it's just that the majority of oppressors, and coloniests are white, the main ones at that established the 'developed world' anyway.

Edit: P.S. I never lectured you, or justified other's lectures...
0
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
(Original post by Tommyjw)
What moral truths are you on about?
Yet more rambling.
Simple. Something like the Categorical Imperative. You don't need much training in philosophy to know that.
0
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
If I present a reasoned argument grounded in logic, my actions are absolutely irrelevant. You’re presenting an ad hominem, and it’s the most obvious logical fallacy.

- I believe we should minimise suffering,
- to shoot this man would increase suffering
- Therefore, I should not shoot him

Whether or not I shoot the man is irrelevent to logic of the argument.
Spot on mate
2
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
If I present a reasoned argument grounded in logic, my actions are absolutely irrelevant. You’re presenting an ad hominem, and it’s the most obvious logical fallacy.

- I believe we should minimise suffering,
- to shoot this man would increase suffering
- Therefore, I should not shoot him

Whether or not I shoot the man is irrelevent to logic of the argument.
For all the dressing up, by complaining about something, yet doing nothing about it, you become a whining little *****.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by sammynorton90)
For all the dressing up, by complaining about something, yet doing nothing about it, you become a whining little *****.
Yet another ad hominem.

You make a long thread, I address the obvious logical flaws, so you resort to name calling. Go to sleep.
3
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Ahh, we've come to the crux of it. You're a philosophy student. Explains so much. Judging by your feeble excuses for arguments your grades must be pretty awful. Have you ever seen 'Good Will Hunting'. I bet your like the pretentious pony tailed **** in that who gets completely owned by someone he considers below him intellectually (Matt Damon or in this case Tommyjw)
Another ad hominem attack. I don't need to say anymore, so I will repeat the sentiments of the other guy, go to bed.
1
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#50
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Yet another ad hominem.

You make a long thread, I address the obvious logical flaws, so you resort to name calling. Go to sleep.
It's not an ad honinem, as sometimes investigating and questioning a person isn't a fallacy. And this is one of those times. We're not arguing about an issue that you once failed to address but are now addressing, we're talking about something you claim to believe in but never practice.
2
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#51
(Original post by hunagdi)
Another ad hominem attack. I don't need to say anymore, so I will repeat the sentiments of the other guy, go to bed.
You do realise that simple name calling isn't ad hominem right? I mean after all you're a philosophy student. Although I also read on another post that you do Economics, so possibly you're just a bull****ter.
0
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#52
Report 7 years ago
#52
(Original post by sammynorton90)
You do realise that simple name calling isn't ad hominem right? I mean after all you're a philosophy student. Although I also read on another post that you do Economics, so possibly you're just a bull****ter.

Are you blind as well? In none of my posts have I said i studied economics and the fact that you are digging up my post history shows how desperate you are.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author"

You tried to speculate what grades I recieved as a substitute for an argument concerning the validity of my own arguments. Nuff said.
0
reply
Naomiimoan
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Firstly, I see the irony in writing this, I really do, but I'm not trying to change the world with my words, I'm just venting. I sometimes see posts or blogs on other sites from people saying how its disgusting that 'us people' in the developed world live in splendor and spend money on luxuries when there are children starving, and we should give all our money to charity.

I just think its a really hypocritical attitude. My friend for example said it's 'disgusting' that people spend money voting for things like the x-factor and buying clothes when people are dieing. I don't mind if I was getting this lecture off someone who'd given up all there personal possessions in pursuit of a spiritual life or to help others, but he spends more on alcohol than I spend on clothes.

Or people that buy guitars and think singing a song about african's plight makes them deep or means they care, why don't they give the money they spent on the guitar to charity. Or the people who write blogs about how it's disgusting, instead of spending money on a laptop and your time writing some sanctimonious blog, why aren't you out there helping the starving kids?

Worse still is people that go on gap years or go travelling to places like that. If you're going there purely to help the people then fair enough but it seems a lot of them just use it to brag.

A guy at Uni will constantly say how although he never had a part-time job, he did charity work because he went out to africa one summer. The thing is most people can't afford to just drop everything and do that, they actually have to work and get some money. I think we should be grateful for having what we have, and maybe try and do more if we can, but I can't stand people who tell you that you should feel guilty for spending money on something nice, or for working for money rather than just spending your life like Jesus.
1. :facepalm:
2. Usually the profit the song makes is more than the price of a guitar.
3. Even if they do it to brag (which is sad..) at least something was done.

I do see where you're coming from and agree with the majority of you post but, you're right, most people will not sell all their possessions and genuinely work for charity but at least something is being done.
0
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#54
(Original post by hunagdi)
Are you blind as well? In none of my posts have I said i studied economics and the fact that you are digging up my post history shows how desperate you are.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author"

You tried to speculate what grades I recieved as a substitute for an argument concerning the validity of my own arguments. Nuff said.
Don't talk to me about relevance of arguments. Both your examples to try and prove your point have been irrelevant and illogical.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
If I present a reasoned argument grounded in logic, my actions are absolutely irrelevant. You’re presenting an ad hominem, and it’s the most obvious logical fallacy.

- I believe we should minimise suffering,
- to shoot this man would increase suffering
- Therefore, I should not shoot him

Whether or not I shoot the man is irrelevent to logic of the argument.
That is not an example of ad hominem. :facepalm:

Let alone, if it were (by some stretch of the imagination) the logic would not be fallacious as certain questions of a person's character etc are relevant to the issue.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(Original post by Tommyjw)
That is not an example of ad hominem. :facepalm:

Let alone, if it were (by some stretch of the imagination) the logic would not be fallacious as certain questions of a person's character etc are relevant to the issue.
Yes it is. :facepalm:

'Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.'

You can question a person’s character, but you can't question the merits of their argument based on what they do. It is irrelevant.

So if I deduce that murder is wrong, and then murder someone. That doesn't make it OK for everyone else to murder - that would be a tu quoque flaw. And it certainly doesn't change the logic that leads to my conclusion.

Exact same principle applies to charitable giving.
0
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#57
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Yes it is. :facepalm:

'Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.'

You can question a person’s character, but you can't question the merits of their argument based on what they do. It is irrelevant.

So if I deduce that murder is wrong, and then murder someone. That doesn't make it OK for everyone else to murder - that would be a tu quoque flaw. And it certainly doesn't change the logic that leads to my conclusion.

Exact same principle applies to charitable giving.
Yes, you not giving to charity doesn't mean that the argument of giving to charity becomes invalid. It just means that you therefore aren't the right person to go around lecturing others about doing it. If you say murder is wrong than kill someone, it doesn't mean people should go out and kill. But it does mean that you therefore can't take the moral high ground, as you yourself are now immoral.

An ad hominem would be if I was a political figure saying taxes need to be raised, and someone went well he didn't pay his taxes a couple of years back. The fact it is, it would have been a mistake from my past that has now been rectified and is therefore irrelevant to the argument now. However, if I was a political leader protesting the ill treatment of ethnic minorities, than it was discovered I was actually the member of a racist organisation, it would be relevant because it would mean me arguing in favour of it would be invalid and hypocritical, the argument itself however would remain valid, but would have to be voiced by someone who has a much more savory character.
0
reply
Rascacielos
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Firstly, I see the irony in writing this, I really do, but I'm not trying to change the world with my words, I'm just venting. I sometimes see posts or blogs on other sites from people saying how its disgusting that 'us people' in the developed world live in splendor and spend money on luxuries when there are children starving, and we should give all our money to charity.

I just think its a really hypocritical attitude. My friend for example said it's 'disgusting' that people spend money voting for things like the x-factor and buying clothes when people are dieing. I don't mind if I was getting this lecture off someone who'd given up all there personal possessions in pursuit of a spiritual life or to help others, but he spends more on alcohol than I spend on clothes.

Or people that buy guitars and think singing a song about african's plight makes them deep or means they care, why don't they give the money they spent on the guitar to charity. Or the people who write blogs about how it's disgusting, instead of spending money on a laptop and your time writing some sanctimonious blog, why aren't you out there helping the starving kids?

Worse still is people that go on gap years or go travelling to places like that. If you're going there purely to help the people then fair enough but it seems a lot of them just use it to brag.

A guy at Uni will constantly say how although he never had a part-time job, he did charity work because he went out to africa one summer. The thing is most people can't afford to just drop everything and do that, they actually have to work and get some money. I think we should be grateful for having what we have, and maybe try and do more if we can, but I can't stand people who tell you that you should feel guilty for spending money on something nice, or for working for money rather than just spending your life like Jesus.
I partly agree and partly disagree. It's hypocritical of your friend to tell you to give your money away when he goes and spends his money on alcohol, true. On the other hand, I think the general attitude should be that we should be grateful for what we have and help others as much as possible, but that doesn't mean we should feel guilty for having luxuries. I suppose, if you look at it from an objective economic point of view, you could say that the luxuries we enjoy in the West are helping those in third world countries because that's where our commodities are manufactured.

As for the bloggers and musicians, I disagree. Whilst they could have spent the guitar or laptop money on giving aid to others, just because they decided to buy something for themselves doesn't mean they don't care. After the Japan earthquake, I remember reading that Sandra Bullock, amongst other celebrities had donated a lot to aid efforts over there. You could say that she should give up her expensive wardrobe in favour of donating more to Japan, but just because she hasn't doesn't mean that she doesn't care or hasn't helped already. The world is essentially a selfish society - it's natural that we want to look out for ourselves as well.

I've never really heard of someone who goes on a trip/gap year to third world countries simply to brag about it, without doing anything good. I acccept that most people use it as a CV booster and that's their main aim, but at the same time, if someone is going over there, putting money and aid into the local economy then surely it is a good thing, whatever their motives are?
0
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#59
(Original post by Rascacielos)
I partly agree and partly disagree. It's hypocritical of your friend to tell you to give your money away when he goes and spends his money on alcohol, true. On the other hand, I think the general attitude should be that we should be grateful for what we have and help others as much as possible, but that doesn't mean we should feel guilty for having luxuries. I suppose, if you look at it from an objective economic point of view, you could say that the luxuries we enjoy in the West are helping those in third world countries because that's where our commodities are manufactured.

As for the bloggers and musicians, I disagree. Whilst they could have spent the guitar or laptop money on giving aid to others, just because they decided to buy something for themselves doesn't mean they don't care. After the Japan earthquake, I remember reading that Sandra Bullock, amongst other celebrities had donated a lot to aid efforts over there. You could say that she should give up her expensive wardrobe in favour of donating more to Japan, but just because she hasn't doesn't mean that she doesn't care or hasn't helped already. The world is essentially a selfish society - it's natural that we want to look out for ourselves as well.

I've never really heard of someone who goes on a trip/gap year to third world countries simply to brag about it, without doing anything good. I acccept that most people use it as a CV booster and that's their main aim, but at the same time, if someone is going over there, putting money and aid into the local economy then surely it is a good thing, whatever their motives are?
I see your point on the musician thing and the Sandra Bullock thing sort of echoes my sentiment. Justin Bieber (Sad to mention hiim I know) is seen as the epitome of what's wrong with capitalist culture by some people, because they say hes fake and making millions whilst people are dying of starvation. But he still donated a lot of money to help Japan and does a lot for charity, much more than the people who insult him do. As for the people buying guitars and making a song that makes money that they give to charity, I dont think that is wrong. I mean the kind of douches who claim to be deep but actually just play the guitar to get in girls pants.

I don't have any problem with people doing charity work ,for whatever motivation it is, but its people who actually do nothing, but tell you that you should do something. It's just really hypocritical. They're not practicing what they're preaching.
0
reply
Rascacielos
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by sammynorton90)
much more than the people who insult him do.
I guess the amount of money you can donate to charity is relative to your wealth, but I get your point.

(Original post by sammynorton90)
I don't have any problem with people doing charity work ,for whatever motivation it is, but its people who actually do nothing, but tell you that you should do something. It's just really hypocritical. They're not practicing what they're preaching.
Agreed with that!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (190)
39.58%
No - but I will (29)
6.04%
No - I don't want to (33)
6.88%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (228)
47.5%

Watched Threads

View All