Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
Wasn't intentional. But, sometimes you just have to state facts, and 
sadly, in this case, the facts, much as with the case of Poe's Law, tend 
to reflect a similar sentiment to what the other side employs as a 
tactic. Example, just because someone else says you are "like" a 
murderer, and references a known one, it doesn't follow that, since its 
a fallacy to make the argument, its also a fallacy to claim that the 
known murderer was a murderer.

It may not be nice. But the truth is, there are common psychological 
traits to people that believe in supernatural explanations, and one of 
them is a refusal to see anything that doesn't support their own 
position, or to interpret some aspect of what "is" said, as supporting 
them, even when it doesn't. e.g. trying to claim that the existence of 
love isn't "explained" without god, and therefor god -> love -> Good. 
Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything 
you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise anyway.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message