Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Don't fall for arguments that merely appear to be reasonable

Scroll to see replies

I have nothing to base this assumption on? You may want to have a look at KingBradly's post history! I am fully aware of the context this thread was made in, hence what I said.

Reply 21

KingBradly

Original post by Plagioclase

I have nothing to base this assumption on? You may want to have a look at KingBradly's post history! I am fully aware of the context this thread was made in, hence what I said.

The point is, does this context change the legitimacy of the argument I am making?

Reply 22

Plagioclase

Original post by KingBradly

The point is, does this context change the legitimacy of the argument I am making?

It doesn't and I didn't say that, I just said it would have been nicer if you just made your point without bringing your politics into it...

Reply 23

KingBradly

Original post by Plagioclase

It doesn't and I didn't say that, I just said it would have been nicer if you just made your point without bringing your politics into it...

By "politics" you mean "politics I don't agree with", given the fact that you didn't complain about the Catholic priest example. So essentially you're trying to divert this discussion by trying to make it about the fact that the politics in the OP doesn't fit in with your agenda, but you're not actually trying to have an interesting input or say anything that refutes anything I said or say anything which is even relevant to it.

Is that correct?

Reply 24

KingBradly

Original post by Coreling

What really gets me about the OP is that I imagine you genuinely believe you didn't just fall into the trap you so correctly admonished in the first place.

If by correctly admonishing it I fell into the trap myself then therefore it is a paradox and is not a cogent argument. However it is not a paradox and I didn't do anything which my argument was criticising.

Reply 25

Plagioclase

Original post by KingBradly

Out of all the examples you could have chosen, you went with the most contentious one you could think of which, incidentally, is the same topic as 90% of your posts. It's just boring.

Reply 26

KingBradly

Original post by Plagioclase

Out of all the examples you could have chosen, you went with the most contentious one you could think of which, incidentally, is the same topic as 90% of your posts. It's just boring.

I don't care that it doesn't suit your agenda. Either say something relevant to the actual argument, or go away.

Reply 27

KingBradly

Original post by Coreling

You correctly admonished the common pitfall of spurious reasoning. You then proceeded to reason spuriously.

Where?

Reply 28

KingBradly

Original post by KingBradly

Original post by Coreling

You correctly admonished the common pitfall of spurious reasoning. You then proceeded to reason spuriously.

Where?

Still waiting for your reply. Or were you just talking crap?

Reply 29

username1921011

The few bad apples argument is legitimate and obviously so, not all muslims are suicide bombers ie the Jihadist nutters because not every muslim explodes when you get near them. Those that actually act on such thoughts are objectively minorities. How prevalent the thought is becomes a different question, do people agree or sympathise? Not that it really matters anyway for the purposes of the bad apple argument, sympathy is not support. People can see why but still not agree. You are making two questions in to one.

I agree the term moderate is pointless as there is no grounding for it. If the default is so crushingly extreme, the moderates will still be relatively extreme. Generally speaking moderate is used to describe those in line with the values of the culture they occupy as its a relativist term but i appreciate it isnt always understood as such