You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 16340960? ago 

Moly certainly has his flaws, but the way you write this makes you seem like you're sad some retards got owned by some of the laziest/easiest methods of argumentation.

Arguing/debating is not always about arguing just the facts, sometimes it's about shaking someone out of their beliefs.

Yes, understanding logical fallacies is absolutely necessary when you're trying to have a productive conversation.

But when trying to change minds or undermine someone's beliefs, rhetoric is far more valuable.

When someone won't even consider the facts, because they're so embedded in their illogical beliefs, sometimes you have to employ rhetoric and a few logical fallacies in order to undermine their beliefs, before they're willing to look at the facts with an open mind.

Try going full autistic mode and just reciting facts to a person who is directly opposed to you. They'll play you and turn the crowd against you. Additionally, unless you're willing to get stuck in the mud of semantics, you're going to need to Google that shit each and every time they challenge a statistic you bring up.

Writing a book or giving an instructive speech is where you want to avoid logical fallacies and is where you have the chance to just bury people in facts and statistics, but when you're arguing it's far less solid ground and you need to be clever in hoe you avoid their debate traps, while catching them in your own.

Discussion, speeches, educational books/classes, etc; that's where being logical and succinct matters.

Debating? You're a moron if you think you're going to change any minds by rattling off stats.

0
0

[–] 16341912? ago 

Debating? You're a moron if you think you're going to change any minds by rattling off stats.

Typical moneyjew followers. You literally just act in the way b34506 criticized. So what is moneyjew? A honest philosopher as HE claims himself to be, or one of (((our))) agents?

This is why you don't take people who call themselves "philosophers" seriously lads. No real philosopher EVER called himself one. Serious, just look through history. Even lolberg/anarchist kikes like Rand and Mises didn't even have the chutzpah to call themselves that.

But moneyjew is stupid enough to do so. And what is worse, there are cattle who actually listen.

0
0

[–] 16341904? ago 

Why should you desire to change someone's mind if you do not know that they are wrong? Why should you 'shake them out of their beliefs' when your beliefs are, at least to the observer, no more justifiable or true? It's bad form to use logical fallacies in a debate and exposes the user as either a manipulator or someone with poor arguments.

I imagine you are one his many sycophantic followers. He has said much the same as I just did in reference to many other commonly-held beliefs which he later turned against (stuff like race and IQ). Why should he be allowed to shake people out of 'wrong-think', but then get mad when progressives try to shake him out of 'wrong-think' by using similar fallacies against him (scientific community condemns = appeal to authority; racist = ad hom)?

Molyneux is a hypocrite and your support of his methods despite this colour you in a bad light. As I've said before, he has done a lot of great documentaries. Try being fair in your assessments of people and that way you can appreciate the good whilst opposing the bad.