On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:30:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>> 
>> I disagree.  Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to
>> save others - no amount of money compensates for that.
> 
> This is a debate that has been around since before Shakespeare. Would
> you do it if it didn't make you feel good to have succeeded? Would you
> give money to the poor if you didn't get a glow out of helping the poor?
>  Etc.

Fair point, for firefighters reportedly there is a bit of a "rush" - but 
I wonder how many of those who went into the towers on 9/11 (and I hate 
using 9/11 as an example) went in knowing they were probably not coming 
out.

>> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
> 
> You know, I was wondering what that fallacy is called.  There has to be
> a name for "if only you agreed with me, you'd see that I'm right."

There does....Whatever it's called, taking that approach 
overemotionalizes the issue and attempts to conflate facts with 
opinions.  It's almost gotta be a kind of baiting, kinda like "no one has 
a relevant challenge?  Guess it would be like challenging the Sun." - the 
implication being that if nobody has "a relevant challenge", then "I must 
be right".

It's a common trolling tactic, but I have to admit to being surprised to 
see Patrick use it - I don't often see his posts as falling in that 
category.

Jim

Post a reply to this message