Problems on Dart with commonly made type of arguments

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 43
Topic's author
#31
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Wylted
appeal to authority is something that will always be a problem in any heavily liberal environment. Establishment bias means and liberals having control of the establishment means that sources considered credible by the establishment and also coincidentally funded by the establishment, will be liberally biased. It's not that there are no experts that agree with conservative positions (even many who are liberal), it's just that the establishment chooses which experts get heard. 
Just to be clear, I think you're specifically talking about anti-white 'Progressive' shitlibs, not the Classical Liberals that espouse the works of David Hume and the like. If so, I 100% agree.

Since liberals are intellectually lazy (part of the reason they uncritically accept whatever the establishment tells them), they will just lazily say 

1. Believe A, because expert said believe A.

You can respond that the experts premises are flawed or that experts disagree, but they just come back with.

1. This is an establishment backed expert, and premises should be ignored for the experts opinion, however if we do look at premises, the silenced experts premises aren't to be trusted because they don't have the backing of CNN. 
Yeah you're right.

It's a pretty nasty spiral of silence.
#32
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Can you name me a single right-wing society/nation that isn't rampant with appeal to authority for any conflict of ideas within it? I can think of many left-leaning progressive nations that have less so than any right-wing society you can name but all human societies have this flaw due to what authority entails (in a genuine sense not just abusive sense).

There's good reasons, not only corrupt reasons, why we trust information and claims made by those with greater authority in a field than those with very little.
#33
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Sum1hugme
I have a major problem with Kant's moral ethic, that something done is not good or evil based on the consequences, particularly to others, but on whether or not the action was consistent with one's duty. What is dutiful may, please the actor, but5 in the process may, in fact, cause harm to another. One's personal duty, just as their rights, cannot infringe on another's rights or duty, and yet be described as being moral action. Duty is entirely relative; right ands wrong, or good and evil, are not relative.

A valid case in point may be this nonsense action reported by Bob Woodward regarding Chairman Milley of the Joint Chiefs of Staff alleged to have called his Chinese counterpart to advise warning him should a military strike against China be initiated by the U.S.  Milley may feel it is his duty to protect a potential target of US action, but, if this allegation is true, it runs contrary to his what his duty really is, which has no chain of command relative to acting on foreign policy. His job has no operational authority, so it actually is contrary to his duty, but not accordfing to him.
Topic's author
#34
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
There's good reasons, not only corrupt reasons, why we trust information and claims made by those with greater authority in a field than those with very little.
Yeah it's because you have an authoritarian view on knowledge and you're too intellectually bankrupt to think for yourself. That's why you constantly Ad Hom in a lot of the interactions you have with people you disagree with: you actually don't understand at all what you're talking about.

So of course you appeal to authority at every opportunity you get -- you can't do anything better.
#35
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you name me a single right-wing society/nation that isn't rampant with appeal to authority 

It's equally stupid in right wing societies, but their appeals are different. Liberals behave like I mention with those appeals to authority and conservatives are more like

"Derp just obey cops and bend over for the government and you won't get shot, derp"

It's just stupid shit of a different variety. 
#36
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
There's good reasons, not only corrupt reasons, why we trust information and claims made by those with greater authority in a field than those with very little.
Authority in the field is determined by the establishment for reasons that align to whatever narrative they want to push.

For example when the "killing fields" of pol pot were happening, every liberal academic called it a conservative conspiracy and the overwhelming evidence was said to be from cranks.

It's a pretty typical leftist tactic, and it didn't just randomly end after american academics defended pol pot by lying. 

10 days later

#37
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@949havoc
  Kant's theory is a deontological ethic, meaning that an action is moral if it is done because of a rule that prescribes it. He argued that reason legislates these rules a priori. 


  There are a lot of ways to refute consequentialism. One major distinction Kant makes is between a thing that is good in itself, and a thing that is good as an instrument. The thing he identifies as good in itself is the good will, because it doesn't rely on the satisfaction of some preference in order to qualify it's goodness. The good will is to action, happiness, and talents, what a gemstone is to a ring, it has its full value in itself, and it's value isn't modified by it's setting. Acting from the motivation of duty to the moral law doesn't require the satisfaction of a consequence to qualify it's morality, it's good in itself.


  Therefore, morality is held in the motive for action. Kant makes a further distinction between the two kinds of motives: duty and inclination. All inclinations are arbitrary, which only leaves the motive of duty. Acting from ones duty to the moral law doesn't require the satisfaction of consequences in order to be moral.
#38
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
It's equally stupid in right wing societies, but their appeals are different. Liberals behave like I mention with those appeals to authority and conservatives are more like

"Derp just obey cops and bend over for the government and you won't get shot, derp"

It's just stupid shit of a different variety. 
No, that isn't quite what I meant.

In right-wing societies, even science itself becomes something authority figures can redefine as they see fit. In Saudi Arabia, Pokemon got banned completely in 2016 (it was previously in 2001 and then got lifted then gradually they banned the trading cards of any kind, even yu-gioh and then pokemon) because it was seen as to interfere with the 'truth' that evolution doesn't occur. It also had another element to it (you are technically gambling when you engage in pokemon duels where the winner can loot cards as a prize) so it became outlawed for that. Similarly, any and all research proving that homosexuality is natural and an involuntary aspect of sexuality is often completely censored in right-wing societies.

If you think I am joking or exaggerating, understand that gays were interrogated and tortured to snitch on the other secret gays/lesbians/transgenders (there, trans just means dressing in drag at all) they knew of. Then, when asked about it, the official statement given was: 


During an interview with HBO, Mr Kadyrov denied there were any gay men in Chechnya and dismissed reports of a “gay purge” in the Muslim republic as “nonsense”.

David Scott, from HBO’s Real Sports, asked the 40-year-old head of state: “I wanted to ask you about the alleged roundup, abduction, and torture of gay men in the Republic. What, Mr President, do you want to say about that?”

“This is nonsense,” Mr Kadyrov said. “We don’t have those kinds of people here. We don’t have any gays. If there are any, take them to Canada.”
He added: “Praise be to God. Take them far from us so we don’t have them at home. To purify our blood, if there are any here, take them.”
This guy is not only unchallenged, he is applauded. Everyone else within Chechnya that supports him refers to this quote with pride. This is what I mean by appealing to authority in right-wing society, that is considered a solid piece of evidence that there are no gays there, literally.
#39
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
that's a different beast. I understand where you're coming from. We are using two different definitions for right wing. 

I get your point now. I see myself as right wing, so when you say right wingers want to kill gays or ban trading cards, I don't identify with that . It seems silly. 

I guess I just consider Saudi Arabia a Muslim country, not a conservative one. Muslims when they are in charge of a country kill homos.  
#40
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Wylted
I guess I just consider Saudi Arabia a Muslim country, not a conservative one. Muslims when they are in charge of a country kill homos.
Actually, that's not far from the truth. The loud ones are currently getting chased. Generally, non-muslim countries reject extradition requests but yeah, what you say is kind of true. There are countless Muslim court cases in which death penalty is sentenced, but can't be carried out because most foreign countries don't consider religious doctrines as justification for extradition. In recent times, If you actually follow Saudi Arabia media, a portion of the clerics of the two most holy mosques has advocated that the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth.
#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@MarkWebberFan
It's very far from the truth because he is separating Islam from conservatism in political spectrum of Sharia nations... Islam is inherently conservative especially in its politics.
#42
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Muslims when they are in charge of a country kill homos.  
So do (or at least did) Christians, what changed was that most of them have separated the church and the state.

In Eastern Europe and Latin America as well as certain Christian African nations this still happens.
#43
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I ignored that bit (i.e. Conservative) while I was reading his post. My understanding of both conservatism and sharia is localized to the middle east. For example, in the third world, civil law is usually harsher than sharia. You have greater chances of being slapped with a death sentence for minor drug offences because British colonialists in the past had found out that Sharia Law was too lenient on drug offenses. Drug cases in most muslim countries are always handed to civil courts because sharia courts tend to let drug abuses go. Of course, this sort of stuff isnt true for the current, modern capitalist states in the west.

This is why Singapore, the false "Switzerland" of the East, slaps death sentences for drug offenders and why Sharia courts are overruled by Civil courts in Muslim countries because Muslim tyrants fear that sharia is soft on drug offenders. I think harsh punishments are still apparently popular, especially among Muslims.

Of course, the "stoning adulterers, lgbt" part are often favored by Sharia courts and civil courts tend not to overrule that, for whatever reason.