Freedomain Radio

in
Latest post Thu, Mar 11 2010 6:29 AM by Logic fan. 56 replies.
Page 1 of 4 (57 items) 1 2 3 4 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 3:47 AM

    The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Sad

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 3:51 AM In reply to

    • hkw
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 18 2009
    • Posts 636
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Slave on slave attack.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 5:18 AM In reply to

    • Nathan
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Mar 23 2006
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Posts 13,120
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    It's nothing but straw men, arguments from intimidation, ad hominems and arguments from adjective.  Quite annoying

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 5:48 AM In reply to

    • Agalloch
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Oct 26 2009
    • York, England
    • Posts 735

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    arguments from adjective

    Hey,

    I've never heard this term before (and Google cites this very topic as the top result for it). Does it mean to argue from your own perceptions of the meaning of certain words, ignoring the authors perception of the definition? Thereby ignoring the point purely to contradict syntax, while leaving the semantic core unchallenged?

    Or am I missing the point completely?

    Thanks,

    James

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 6:12 AM In reply to

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    The bible got dissected...

    I laughed...

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 6:44 AM In reply to

    • Nathan
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Mar 23 2006
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Posts 13,120
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Agalloch:

    arguments from adjective

    Hey,

    I've never heard this term before (and Google cites this very topic as the top result for it). Does it mean to argue from your own perceptions of the meaning of certain words, ignoring the authors perception of the definition? Thereby ignoring the point purely to contradict syntax, while leaving the semantic core unchallenged?

    Or am I missing the point completely?

    Thanks,

    James

    Stef came up with the term in a video, it's basically this in its simplist form:

    Jan's argument is stupid and therefore it's wrong.

    You can fog a person more when you add the straw men, arguments from intimidation and ad homonems to it.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 7:10 AM In reply to

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    It's just an inconvenient fact that Rand was an atheist.

    I also like how the Bible, whatever it says, is considered amazing and completely philosophical; only corrupted by this other source.  But only children would believe anything Rand says.  What could possibly be the methodology that could lead to both of these being so?

    I see this a lot.  Statists like to appeal to the religion for two reasons:  they know many conservatives believe it and they think they have some opening towards using it to their advantage.  Rather than arguing against it, they just say fuck it lets just explore their text and use their morality (or our perception of their morality) against them.  It would be bad enough if they believed in religion, but it seems they just cynically pack it in a certain way as to gain political points.  Like "Jesus said love one another.  Ergo, we should sign this bill instead of arguing about it."

    It's the equivalent of anti-intellectualism on the left.  Not saying this is leftism in general, but it is something that is encountered a lot.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 7:13 AM In reply to

    • soma
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Jan 6 2008
    • Posts 483

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    What a pointless 'comic'... Even if you get past the bizarre mischaracterisations, it wasn't funny, even in a snide or nasty way.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 7:14 AM In reply to

    • Agalloch
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Oct 26 2009
    • York, England
    • Posts 735

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Nathan:

    Stef came up with the term in a video, it's basically this in its simplist form:

    Jan's argument is stupid and therefore it's wrong.

    You can fog a person more when you add the straw men, arguments from intimidation and ad homonems to it.

    Thanks! That does seem to be very much what this comic does.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 8:35 AM In reply to

    • GregG
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Feb 21 2006
    • Brooklyn, NY
    • Posts 14,288
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Nobody need get past frame two, to see what the cartoonist's view of Rand is: "sociopathic nut bag" - which, as has been stated before, is useless as an argument against Objectivism, and pretty intellectually lazy on his part. That, and later ad hom's against Libertarians, are the main "argument" in this cartoon.

    However, I think a few of his observations are unwittingly entirely accurate:

        * There is a segment of American conservatism that loves to use Atlas Shrugged as a rationalization for corporatism (which he implied through the "espoused greed and selfishness were great moral virtues" comment). They're wrong, of course, but they do.Why Atlas Shrugged, and not some other novel? What is it about that novel that draws "second-handers" (as Rand might have called them) like Newt Gingrich?


        * There is another segment of American conservatism that loves to use the Bible as a rationalization for corporatism. A handful will happily mingle rationalizations from both the misused Rand and the misused Bible, to justify some pretty reprehensible behaviors. However, most modern conservative Christians would be too frightened by Rand's atheism to do that.

    Just to clarify, when I say "corporatism", I am refering to the variety of "capitalism" that the Newt Gingriches of the world espouse: using government to reward friends and punish enemies in the corporate world. A "capitalism" in which artificial trade barriers are set up and defended with guns, in order to enrich onself.

    Where the cartoonist suffers a massive FAIL, I think, is in equivocating the rationalizations incorrectly gleened from Rand's work, for Rand's work itself. Atlas Shrugged is debatably an iron-clad argument against the whole concept of state as a just means of organizing society. Yet, "Randians" like Gingrich and Greenspan and even Peikoff will tell you that's not true. Why is that? The same, in a converse sense, could be said for the Bible. We here all know it's a massive brick of hysterical, self-contradictory, violent nonsense. But Christians will be happy to tell you all about how coherent and loving it "really" is (as this cartoonist did). Why is that?

    And, you can tell this cartoonist is a clearly a Christian:

        * He thinks altruism is in the same category as compassion.
        * He thinks submitting to torture and murder is a "nice" thing to do.
        * He refers to "Pure" Libertarians, attempting to project the label of "puritan" as well as the stigma of fundamentalism, on to Objectivists.
        * The last frame does not have a distraught Objectivist shocked at the missing pages in Atlas Shrugged, but a distraught Christian shocked at the missing pages in the Bible.


  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 8:44 AM In reply to

    • Nathan
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Mar 23 2006
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Posts 13,120
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Well said GG.  Tempted to post it on LLC.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 10:17 AM In reply to

    • ash
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Aug 10 2007
    • Posts 1,831
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Nathan:

    Stef came up with the term in a video, it's basically this in its simplist form:

    Jan's argument is stupid and therefore it's wrong.

     

    I can't tell from this thread if this is being used seriously or as a joke...

    www.ThinkCritically.net - Critical Thinking Articles+Videos.

    Latest Articles/Videos: Truth and Acceptability and Soundness and Cogency (FDR Links) Try the questions!

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 11:58 AM In reply to

    • Nathan
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Mar 23 2006
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Posts 13,120
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    ash:

    Nathan:

    Stef came up with the term in a video, it's basically this in its simplist form:

    Jan's argument is stupid and therefore it's wrong.

     

    I can't tell from this thread if this is being used seriously or as a joke...

    I was responding to his question about what the term "argument from adjective" means by using an example of one.

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 12:28 PM In reply to

    • ash
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Aug 10 2007
    • Posts 1,831
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    Ok, if that is an example, what would the definition be?

    www.ThinkCritically.net - Critical Thinking Articles+Videos.

    Latest Articles/Videos: Truth and Acceptability and Soundness and Cogency (FDR Links) Try the questions!

  • Thu, Mar 4 2010 12:39 PM In reply to

    Re: The disgusting arguments from adjective against Rand continue...

    I would define it as:

    "The use of pejorative adjectives in lieu of rational argument."

Page 1 of 4 (57 items) 1 2 3 4 Next >
Copyright 2005-2012 By Stefan Molyneux
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems