|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 13:52:27 GMT
In much of politics the majority is right by definition. If the majority chooses John Cartwright as governor, then he is in fact governor for that reason. Perhaps by some other measure Lawrence Majors appears a "better" choice. Perhaps he has much more education. Using the measure of education is irrelevant though. It does not matter even if indeed he does have a better education. John Cartwright is governor because the majority chose him. You need to recognize this issue of relevance. This applies to you. The majority is right about what claim there? You don't understand what fallacies are about apparently. No one is saying that a majority can not be correct about something. The idea of the fallacy is that nothing is correct because a majority claims that it's so. It's the argument ad populum fallacy. In other words, an argument that something is so, or more likely so, because it has the backing of the population (usually taken to imply a consensus in a domain or a majority). It's important to remember that fallacies are talking about arguments per se--statements of premises and conclusions, where there's a claim of valid implication. You're still losing this argument in two important ways. There are times when the majority is "right" simply because it is the majority, and this happens to be one of those times. Far more than that though, all others measures concur with the majority, as you would know if you heeded islandmur
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 13:56:05 GMT
You'd have to know something first. I knew that it wouldn't happen.... Thanks for proving my theory. I'm surprised that you believe that empirical claims are provable.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 13:57:32 GMT
Here's what I asked you: "The majority is right about what claim there?" And the answer to that question is?
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 9, 2018 13:58:51 GMT
Research on consent and research on sex and research on child developpement etc... Why should your criteria be a factor? Why don't you do your own research on your criteria if it's that important to you? Besides which, it's probable that some parts of your criteria was included in those researches. What i wrote was a comment about my criteria of consent. That's why I made that explicit with the parenthetical. I was anticipating someone responding as you did, so I specified that I was talking about my criteria. My criteria should be a factor in my view because they're the criteria that I agree with after spending time conceptually analyzing the idea of consent. I'm not going to think that criteria i don't agree with should be the hinge, assuming that we're even talking about criteria being spelled out, which they often aren't. I didn't say anything about researching this being important to me. Why should your criteria be a factor to us? Why should your criteria be viewed as any more valid as those that have done research and those that have made the rules? What makes your views any better? Again those are YOUR personal views, you want them to have any validity to the population at large... provide your research for it.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 14:06:38 GMT
Why should your criteria be a factor to us? How would I know? I never said that it should be. In general, I'm not fond of normative statements like that. Certainly none of them are true (or false), because truth-value is a category error for normative statements. Again, this is a category error. Criteria are not valid or invalid. They're about how people conceptualize things, what their preferences are, etc. I'm not saying that anything is more or less valid with respect to criteria, because that's not the sort of property that criteria have. Better is subjective. So again, there are no true or false statements re "This is better than that." It's simply a matter of individuals' preferences, how they feel about things, etc. Yes, obviously. No one said otherwise. The idea of my criteria having validity for other people doesn't even make any sense. I'd want people to realize that criteria aren't the sorts of things that have validity or not. Again, sometimes it seems like I'm having conversations like this with folks where they have just about zero idea what my views are, even though I type them over and over--all of the stuff I said above I've said many times.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 9, 2018 14:19:56 GMT
Why should your criteria be a factor to us? How would I know? I never said that it should be. In general, I'm not fond of normative statements like that. Certainly none of them are true (or false), because truth-value is a category error for normative statements. Again, this is a category error. Criteria are not valid or invalid. They're about how people conceptualize things, what their preferences are, etc. I'm not saying that anything is more or less valid with respect to criteria, because that's not the sort of property that criteria have. Better is subjective. So again, there are no true or false statements re "This is better than that." It's simply a matter of individuals' preferences, how they feel about things, etc. Yes, obviously. No one said otherwise. The idea of my criteria having validity for other people doesn't even make any sense. I'd want people to realize that criteria aren't the sorts of things that have validity or not. Again, sometimes it seems like I'm having conversations like this with folks where they have just about zero idea what my views are, even though I type them over and over--all of the stuff I said above I've said many times. Oh I get your views more or less. Consent should be on an individual basis and on most subjects ( sex / driving / playing sports / etc... ) and should involve a contract containing plenty of details. Consentee should be able to explain all aspects of the contract. Parents (nor goverment/nor society) should not be expected to dictate their children's choices. Children should be free to give consent, if they can articulate what they are consenting too in a coherent manner. Thing is you push aside our views and expect us to respect yours in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 14:25:45 GMT
Here's what I asked you: "The majority is right about what claim there?" And the answer to that question is? In my example the majority was right about who is in fact the governor. On this topic the majority is right that sex with minors is illegal if not also very disturbing. I'll answer your questions if and when I feel like answering them. You are not a moderator or judge here. I will only repeat myself as long as I think it isn't wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 14:38:56 GMT
expect us to respect yours in the conversation. I don't though. I don't expect anyone to respect, or adopt, to understand, or to even pay very much attention to my views. In fact, after more than 25 years of doing this on the Internet, I rather expect just the opposite. It would be nice if people respected each other online, especially to the extent where we could have conversations about a variety of very different views without resorting to calling other people names, etc., but that doesn't tend to happen unless folks' views are already pretty similar . . . and unfortunately that's kind of reflective of how people are offline, too, which is why there's always so much conflict.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 14:41:57 GMT
In my example the majority was right about who is in fact the governor. Okay, but that's not an argument then, is it? There aren't premises and a conclusion, where we're saying that the conclusion follows from the premises because it's what a majority or consensus of people think, is it? Re answering questions, obviously you can do whatever you want. It's just a matter of whether you want to have a conversation (that I'll bother with/be interested in). If you just want to talk to yourself, or heckle or whatever, then that's easy enough.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 14:50:20 GMT
In my example the majority was right about who is in fact the governor. Okay, but that's not an argument then, is it? There aren't premises and a conclusion, where we're saying that the conclusion follows from the premises because it's what a majority or consensus of people think, is it? Re answering questions, obviously you can do whatever you want. It's just a matter of whether you want to have a conversation (that I'll bother with/be interested in). If you just want to talk to yourself, or heckle or whatever, then that's easy enough. It is an argument whether you think it is or not, whether you can recognize premises or conclusions or not. No, I am not especially interested in having a conversation with someone who prefers to remain lost in the deep dark forest of his misguided imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 14:54:36 GMT
Okay, but that's not an argument then, is it? There aren't premises and a conclusion, where we're saying that the conclusion follows from the premises because it's what a majority or consensus of people think, is it? Re answering questions, obviously you can do whatever you want. It's just a matter of whether you want to have a conversation (that I'll bother with/be interested in). If you just want to talk to yourself, or heckle or whatever, then that's easy enough. It is an argument whether you think it is or not, whether you can recognize premises or conclusions or not. Maybe so. Let's state what the argument would be then.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 15:20:36 GMT
It is an argument whether you think it is or not, whether you can recognize premises or conclusions or not. Maybe so. Let's state what the argument would be then. I would continue if I thought it would do you any good. Vegas has already realized there is no reasoning with you, and I agree with him on that too.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 16:58:56 GMT
Maybe so. Let's state what the argument would be then. I would continue if I thought it would do you any good. Vegas has already realized there is no reasoning with you, and I agree with him on that too. Well, that was certainly an impressive effort at least.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 10, 2018 12:27:53 GMT
It is an argument whether you think it is or not, whether you can recognize premises or conclusions or not. Maybe so. Let's state what the argument would be then. Arlon10 and Vegas may have the right idea about you, but I'm bored enough to humor you. The argument is: John Cartwright is governor of a State. There are premises to that argument. - The State has a democratic constitution. - The State regularly holds elections for the governor. - The candidates for governor are all ready to take their post if they get elected. - The candidate that, on election day, gets the most votes, is nominated governor within 4 weeks. And now, the majority of voters of the State, by voting, has determined: - John Cartwright got the most votes. Conclusion: - John Cartwright is governor of the state. Therefore, we get a conclusion that was made thanks to a majority vote. If the majority had voted for Lawrence Majors, then Lawrence Majors would be governor. I am now more or less expecting evasive responses about category errors and stuff, but they only affect me in a peripheral way.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 12:37:23 GMT
Maybe so. Let's state what the argument would be then. Arlon10 and Vegas may have the right idea about you, but I'm bored enough to humor you. The argument is: John Cartwright is governor of a State. There are premises to that argument. - The State has a democratic constitution. - The State regularly holds elections for the governor. - The candidates for governor are all ready to take their post if they get elected. - The candidate that, on election day, gets the most votes, is nominated governor within 4 weeks. And now, the majority of voters of the State, by voting, has determined: - John Cartwright got the most votes. Conclusion: - John Cartwright is governor of the state. Therefore, we get a conclusion that was made thanks to a majority vote. If the majority had voted for Lawrence Majors, then Lawrence Majors would be governor. I am now more or less expecting evasive responses about category errors and stuff, but they only affect me in a peripheral way. That's way more complicated than it needs to be, and I wouldn't say that it works as presented. But this is the trouble you get into by trying to second-guess why I'm asking a question. You assumed that I'd say that no argument would work here. I asked the question for another reason, however. All you need to say is this: The person who is (recognized as) governor is determined by majority vote. Joe Smith received the majority vote. Therefore, Joe Smith is (recognized as) governor. Now, if you want to second -guess, and you're bored enough, what's the reason that I'm pointing this out? What's different about this claim than a claim like "an eight-year-old can't understand sex"?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 10, 2018 12:58:19 GMT
That's way more complicated than it needs to be, and I wouldn't say that it works as presented. But this is the trouble you get into by trying to second-guess why I'm asking a question. You assumed that I'd say that no argument would work here. I asked the question for another reason, however. I didn't have to second-guess anything. I just replied to your post, which said: "Let's state what the argument would be then." I did. I never said anything about you saying that no argument would work here. Did you just... second-guess my motivation? Now, if you want to second -guess, and you're bored enough, what's the reason that I'm pointing this out? What's different about this claim than a claim like "an eight-year-old can't understand sex"? If you have a reason for pointing this out: Why don't you just state it?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 13:07:02 GMT
If you have a reason for pointing this out: Why don't you just state it? Obviously because I'm not interested in doing conversations like this that way. My aim is to get folks to think. I don't ever expect to be successful, really--I'm trying to teach a class that people didn't sign up for and aren't about to start thinking they need, but that's what I'm interested in. So what's different about the claim?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 10, 2018 13:08:57 GMT
Now, if you want to second -guess, and you're bored enough, what's the reason that I'm pointing this out? What's different about this claim than a claim like "an eight-year-old can't understand sex"? If you have a reason for pointing this out: Why don't you just state it? It's like pulling teeth, ain't it?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 10, 2018 13:57:36 GMT
If you have a reason for pointing this out: Why don't you just state it? It's like pulling teeth, ain't it? More like the Emperor's new class. A class people didn't sign up for? More like no class at all and a poster trying to hide the fact that he has no point.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 10, 2018 14:15:08 GMT
I'm not interested in doing conversations like this that way. And I'm not interested in second-guessing your motivations. If you have a point to make, just make it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't expect others to play your semantic games.
|
|