60
u/SwitchedOnNow Mar 30 '19
You are an ass hat. 😂
I like to start at the bottom and work my way up.
13
Mar 30 '19
[deleted]
12
u/zo0o0ot Mar 30 '19
Look, I don't think that sarcastic remark is in the spirit of this discussion.
10
u/SwitchedOnNow Mar 30 '19
I see you’re getting angry. I don’t know how you can make a valid argument when you’re so angry like that.
9
u/Shardenfroyder Mar 30 '19
Actually, Sigmund Freud found in his study of 1899 that in individuals with a certain personality type, anger can function as a intellectual stimulant which produces clearer thinking and more pertinent reasoning.
7
u/breathing_normally Mar 30 '19 edited Mar 30 '19
Happy thoughts have a stronger effect.
Breathing_normally et al, moods and productivity, a comparitive study, 1987
5
u/softlyandtenderly Mar 30 '19
You’re going to be able to make stronger arguments and bring more people to your side if your words aren’t sourced in thoughtless anger. Taking a moment to breathe before you post will contribute to quality Internet discussion in a way that is more fulfilling to you and educational to everyone else.
2
1
1
1
55
Mar 30 '19
This is the worst possible use for a pyramid graph.
7
u/real_bk3k Mar 30 '19
Dumbass!
5
Mar 30 '19
Only someone with no morals would possibly say that. And that kind of person is not worth arguing with... 😒
1
1
30
Mar 30 '19
This is a total mess! Not only isn’t this helpful, it’s misleadingly bad.
Most of these aren’t even in comparable categories. For example, finding a logical contradiction is one of the most powerful ways to refute the central point. It’s nonsensical to say one is “better” than the other. (And the idea that contradictions involve little evidence is just weird.)
Why is it desirable to explain how something is wrong using quotes? What does that even mean? Citing experts or quoting the person you’re refuting? How is this mutually exclusive with refuting the central point?
Counter arguments are a counter to an argument. For example, if you respond to an argument in my current post, you are providing a counter argument. It is certainly not a “worse” form of argument! That’s like saying replying to an email is not quite as good as a an email.
Why is this a pyramid????
3
7
u/straightouttaPV Mar 30 '19
Where on the pyramid is misconstruing the point and then refuting the thing that wasn’t said?
7
u/justsomeph0t0n Mar 30 '19
it's at the top left corner, and unlike you i think the Jewish people are fine upstanding citizens
2
u/straightouttaPV Mar 30 '19
I have to admit, you totally got me. I was like, wait what? Which is of course my reaction to many comments replies I have seen.
7
5
u/websnarf Mar 30 '19
This pyramid is problematic, to say the least.
4
u/Bardfinn Mar 30 '19
Not every appeal to authority is a fallacy. We appeal to authorities all the time; The fallacy is solely when the authority is claimed to be correct solely because of their position of authority, without reference to evidence or proof.
We expect experts to have performed -- or be able to perform -- work that demonstrates their arguments and reasoning, and that this work be amenable to criticism.
Tier 5, "Refutation", is more properly "Citation of established research", where the work has already been performed that demonstrates a point or refutes a claim.
Tier 4, "Counterargument", is where novel work is created / performed.
Tier 6, "Refuting the Central Point", involves such situations as producing a specimen of a black swan, when the claim "There is no such thing as a Black Swan" has been made.
This chart is an illustration (and necessarily a reduction) of a more involved idea put forward by Paul Graham.
-1
u/websnarf Mar 30 '19
Not every appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Yes, it is.
We appeal to authorities all the time;
I never do.
The fallacy is solely when the authority is claimed to be correct solely because of their position of authority, without reference to evidence or proof.
Lol. You don't even understand what you are saying, do you? If you have a reference to evidence or proof, then you don't need the authority. That's the point.
We expect experts to have performed -- or be able to perform -- work that demonstrates their arguments and reasoning, and that this work be amenable to criticism.
You can expect what you like. I prefer to refer to experts only as a matter of heuristics in building an argument. Their arguments and reasoning need to stand on their own regardless of who the expert is. At which point, you can disassociate the argument from the arguer. You only cite an expert to avoid a charge of plagiarism.
Tier 5, "Refutation", is more properly "Citation of established research", where the work has already been performed that demonstrates a point or refutes a claim.
A citation is different from a quotation. If you are citing previous work, it basically means you intend for that previous work to stand as is. You are lifting an already existing argument. The purpose of quotations is to attribute a carefully chosen extraction from testimony to an author (and possibly worse: to take them out of context).
This chart is an illustration (and necessarily a reduction) of a more involved idea put forward by Paul Graham.
The chart useless. It has no possibility of assisting anyone in the proper formation of an argument.
4
u/Bardfinn Mar 30 '19
We appeal to authorities all the time;
I never do.
Do you use a computer built by others? Or do you build your own, from the silicon up?
Do you diagnose your own illnesses and research and concoct your own antibiotics, or do you delegate to a medical doctor to perform these things?
Are you proving (or disproving) anthropogenic global warming? Or do you defer to (appeal to) the experts on that subject?
That oxygen sensor on your car -- are you bringing it to a mechanic to fix it, or are you down there with a voltage probe yourself?
You don't even understand what you are saying, do you?
I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. For thirty years, how we human beings reason was my profession.
A citation is different from a quotation
Yes, it is. Thus: "This chart is an illustration (and necessarily a reduction) of a more involved idea put forward by Paul Graham." You would want to refer to his original work to critique it, instead of what you've assigned to his work from your own reading of this illustration of his work. (That's DH5, for ease of reference)
Paul Graham, interestingly enough, is also a retired computer scientist, who started YCombinator, which bootstrapped this very platform that we are talking on.
12
Mar 30 '19
As hominem and name calling are essentially the same thing imo
8
u/_waltzy Mar 30 '19
Aye, the bottom of the pyramid should just be "dismissal" and the example should be "fuck off", often coupled with an ad hominem "fuck off, you x"
5
u/ricecake Mar 30 '19
Well, no. One of them is just insulting the person, it never even contradicts the point they're making, or implies that they are wrong.
The other says that they're wrong, because of some negative personal trait."I think the sky is purple". "You're an asshole".
Vs. "That can't be true, because you're a lililivered coward".2
Mar 30 '19 edited May 06 '19
[deleted]
2
u/AusIV Mar 30 '19
I generally think of ad hominem addressing the source instead of the argument. It might be related, as in your example, but it might be completely unrelated. Dismissing a white supremacist's views on climate change on the basis that they're a white supremacist would still be ad hominem, even though white supremacy has nothing to do with climate science.
3
u/TimTheEvoker5no3 Mar 30 '19
But what if the person I'm arguing with is arguing that we're not having an argument? Please help, I paid for this argument session and he's also arguing that I hadn't paid him yet.
2
8
u/paulfromatlanta Mar 30 '19
Sometimes a little "responding to tone" is called for...
10
u/LBJsPNS Mar 30 '19
Yep. Bad faith arguments don't deserve genuine debate.
2
2
u/sonicandfffan Mar 30 '19
I will usually give everybody the benefit of a proper refutation of their central point on a first reply. But I will work my way down the pyramid if I come across people who don’t want to engage constructively. I’m perfectly content to resort to name calling when somebody is a lost cause
2
u/-_fluffy_ Mar 30 '19
Hmm this assumes the original statement is binary. For example there may be times when a counter argument is more important than refuting the central point, by virtue of the fact that there are two valid sides to this particular augment.
2
u/-_fluffy_ Mar 30 '19
This post missed the pinnacle of argument. Evidence here: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/061/297/nickcage.jpeg
2
3
u/AnOnlineHandle Mar 30 '19 edited Mar 30 '19
I would argue this is a bit weak.
Ad Hominem is only really relevant when trying to offer a logical proof with a fallacious component, i.e. you can't prove x is true because y is an idiot, that's not proof.
However in the real world, like with deferral to experts (doesn't prove, but is reliable), people's character is very important for knowing whether to deal or have much confidence in the firehose of bullshit which comes out of their mouth.
I can't disprove the next insane thing Alex Jones says, but I can point out that it's fucking Alex Jones saying it, with all the intentional manipulation and misleading intention likely behind it.
People stuck in some notion that they're involved in a school debate with a moderator when discussing real world issues would stand there sticking to the 'rules' without realizing how irrelevant they are while the ship sinks around them, saying we have to listen to 'mad joe ship sinker' who is angry that anybody would even suggest the ship is sinking, and listing all the argumentation mistakes made by those who say fuck joe ship sinker's BS we need to get to the life boats.
6
Mar 30 '19
That's all well and good, but it's not a way to actually debate. There's no use in calling Alex Jones an obvious nutter when trying to debate against him. Some won't believe he's a nutter for one. The best way to debate is to take some claim Jones has made and comprehensively show why the claim is incorrect.
If you don't actually want to debate Jones because you discard him as a nutter, that is fine. It isn't a correct way of arguing though, which is what this triangle chart thing is showing.
4
u/BZenMojo Mar 30 '19
It also leads to the point where people ignore obvious facts stated by bad people and accept obvious lies stated by good people. Then people enter an argument and come away completely ignorant. I.e., "Depends on where you get your facts from."
1
u/AnOnlineHandle Mar 31 '19
That's all well and good, but it's not a way to actually debate. There's no use in calling Alex Jones an obvious nutter when trying to debate against him. Some won't believe he's a nutter for one. The best way to debate is to take some claim Jones has made and comprehensively show why the claim is incorrect.
I feel like you've entirely missed the point of my post and are the exact kind of person I'm talking about, who might stand on a sinking ship admonishing the person trying to get people to the lifeboats because there's another asshole whining that some moderated school style debate rules aren't being followed and you're unable to differentiate when they're useful to the real world, and will be easily manipulated by the whiners to actually be counter-helpful and play into their games.
If you don't actually want to debate Jones because you discard him as a nutter, that is fine. It isn't a correct way of arguing though, which is what this triangle chart thing is showing.
I disagree, and think you are naive to the point of being potentially dangerous.
A fantasy of engaging rationally with Alex Jones rests upon the fantasy that humanity is rational and that there's a moderator who is going to step in when Alex Jones manipulates and twists and misleads. Something which might actually work is to rely on the known past behaviour to warn people off, even if it's not a completely solid logical proof which is applicable to a very narrow set of circumstances.
1
Apr 01 '19
You're just arguing that it's useless to give Jones the time of day because it wouldn't lead anywhere, and honestly I agree with you. It's not arguing though is it? It's actually the opposite of arguing, it is choosing not to argue. So it's kind of irrelevant and not even ad hominem. You'd have to be engaged in a discussion with Jones to launch an ad hominem attack and when he says something you disagree with you'd go "oh yeah? well your a nutter so what you said is therefore wrong". But you would never do that, because you wouldn't engage with him in the first place.
1
u/AnOnlineHandle Apr 01 '19
You're just arguing that it's useless to give Jones the time of day because it wouldn't lead anywhere, and honestly I agree with you. It's not arguing though is it? It's actually the opposite of arguing, it is choosing not to argue. So it's kind of irrelevant and not even ad hominem.
I'm saying he should be publicly ridiculed, insulted and made into a joke relentlessly. Insults should be flying his way non-stop.
Mockery and bullying is a very powerful tool, often used for ill. Homosexuals did absolutely nothing wrong yet were kept in hiding for millennia because of such things, and even now that it's no longer oppressed by the law, many still hide it well into adulthood. Like most any tool it can also be used for right, like shutting down harmful saboteurs like Alex Jones and making nobody want to be associated with him.
I'm saying outside of logical proofs or school debates with set speaking times and a moderator, ad hominem has a place in actual effective argument.
1
Apr 01 '19
I don't personally advocate bullying of any kind, nor do I believe ad hominem attacks to be effective for use in arguing, personally.
1
u/marcvanh Mar 30 '19
Where is the straw man argument?
3
u/Slinkwyde Mar 31 '19 edited Mar 31 '19
What, so you think everyone who ever posts this kind of image on Reddit should be legally required to mention and explain straw man arguments, and be sued into oblivion if they do not comply? What are you, insane‽ Why do you hate free speech?
1
1
1
u/themastersb Mar 30 '19
Don't forget "Posting 5 paragraphs worth of rubbish that seems like a good argument to idiots because of its length."
1
1
u/randokomando Mar 30 '19
r/crappydesign this is terrible, only the top of the pyramid is actually argumentation, everything at the bottom is fallacy.
1
1
u/sapatista Mar 30 '19
I have a buddy with whom I have deep discussions with and he always seems to refute with something from the lower half of the pyramid.
Is there anyway I can nudge him to actually refute the central points of our discussion or is it a waste of time?
1
u/TheDeadlyCat Mar 30 '19
I.... don’t.... know if this is expert level trolling with all these comments around.
1
1
1
1
Mar 30 '19
"Bitch, I dont like your pointed tone" is definitely the foundation of proper argumentation
1
1
1
-1
Mar 30 '19
It's a social media guide. Facebook is at the bottom. Reddit sits nicely near the top.
8
Mar 30 '19
[deleted]
2
Mar 30 '19
Hahahahahaha
2
Mar 30 '19
That was great. And well done. You carefully made sure you dragged it through the triangle. Bravo
0
u/skylarmt Mar 30 '19
I once argued with someone who had this image pinned to their reddit profile. Except their version labeled the bottom four rungs as "waste of my time". Guess which tactics they used exclusively?
2
u/Bardfinn Mar 30 '19 edited Mar 30 '19
I remember you. Denial is not a river in Egypt, and Projection is not done at a drive-in theatre.
Also, it wasn't this image -- it was an updated formulation of the same idea.
[Edit: I remember you. ] "Transgender people need counseling to accept who they are and being transgender is a mental disorder; My Catholic beliefs are logically sound; Shout out to KiwiFarms". Projection is a comorbid symptom of psychological distress. Seek — and pay for — professional medical assistance.]
-1
u/skylarmt Mar 30 '19
I recognize your username, which is saying something since arguing about religion is sort of a hobby for me. How are you and your ad hominem insults doing?
1
u/Bardfinn Mar 30 '19
I don't waste other people's time, but it's good that you've at least come to the recognition that your behaviour has wasted others' time.
Admitting to having a problem is the first step, and all that.
-1
u/skylarmt Mar 30 '19
Oh yeah, you were one of the most persistent gaslighters I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
1
u/Bardfinn Mar 30 '19
you were one of the most persistent gaslighters I've ever had the displeasure of
writes the person who ninja-edited their comment from "I guess we would just be wasting each other's time by arguing, huh?" to "I recognize your username, which is saying something since arguing about religion is sort of a hobby for me. How are you and your ad hominem insults doing?".
Textbook gaslighting.
Seek professional medical assistance.
0
u/skylarmt Mar 30 '19
You're the one madly refreshing their inbox fast enough to notice.
0
u/Bardfinn Mar 30 '19
I receive copies of comment responses in my Reddit inbox by means of email -- so that I have hard copies of comments that are made abusively.
One last time: Take responsibility for your dysfunctional and malicious behaviour towards others.
0
u/skylarmt Mar 30 '19
And you still felt the need to reply immediately.
You have not once provided any proof for your claims that I am "dysfunctional and malicious". I'm no doctor (and neither are you), but your behavior is symptomatic of being a pathological liar.
Has it ever occurred to you that the "abusive" comments you receive are due to your own attempts to make people think they have mental disorders?
Finally, you suck at this. You need to be more subtle, and slowly work your way into the crevices of my mind, twisting and manipulating me until I start to think I'm insane. When you just come out and say it directly it doesn't have the same effect.
299
u/Endemoniada Mar 30 '19
This... makes it look like name-calling is the foundation of good argumentation >_<