Re: Converting Fundy Repug Preachers

From: Immortalist (Reanimater_2000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:21:07 -0700

"Albert" <alwagner@tcac.net> wrote in message
news:10nr4bdkvdo76d4@corp.supernews.com...
> Immortalist wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Googlebot strikes again.
>

Converting Fundy Repug Preachers by comparison of agreed upon protocals that are
mistaken is Google?

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted
for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

   1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the
claim).
   2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that
it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's
the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of
legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to
reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad
absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to
show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result
follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group
cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a
minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males
could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist
organizations."

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist
organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member
of a minority cannot be a racist is false.
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

   1. "Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is
just laughable."

   2. "Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah!
Hah!"

   3. "Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to
peace!"

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim
by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self
interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a
person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation,
ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

   1. Person A makes claim X.

   2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to
claim X.

   3. Therefore claim X is false.

   1. Person A makes claim X.

   2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.

   3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and
circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.
While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain
claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a
person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the
truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example:
"Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as
when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests.
For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not
cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because
the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not.
However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does
not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a
fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to
say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

   1. "She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since
she is only saying it because she is a Republican."

   2. "I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the
ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father
Jones is required to hold such views."

   3. "Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending.
After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."

   4. "Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of
course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html

> --
> "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
> range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
> impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
> -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

In the post-holocaust wasteland the cyborg warlord Job needs to harvest the blood
of 10,000 people and orders his army to capture people. The orphan Nea is the
only survivor after the cyborgs slaughter the farming community that has adopted
her. She is saved by the mysterious cyborg Gabriel who reveals he has been
created to eliminate Job and the other cyborgs. Nea agrees to lead him to Job's
encampment if he will train her how to fight.

http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/knights.htm
http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=3516&reviewer=295