The Burkini Ban

The video contained almost a dozen articles as well as data commission by the United Nations Human Rights Council. S'that good?

In short, the reason why we (as a society) put so much emphasis on sources is because some are historically unreliable. I'm with you there. That is to say, that they lie about what is true and do not report on events accurately. When we cannot research the event itself, all we have is their word. This is the justification for why it's okay to dismiss 'bad' sources. We can't fact-check the event, so all we've got (by and large) is their credibility. Until such time as they support their claims, we are justified in not accepting them.

If 'Fox News' made some crazy claims about the latest BLM riots? If we knew nothing else? It's hard to believe them. One would be justified in being skeptical of their claims. Because of the notorious unreliability of the source.

If they release police and eye-witness accounts of the events that echo exactly what was reported? This gives their own account more credibility. It becomes harder to dismiss their account of events due to them simply being Fox News.

If they publish video footage of the event from multiple angles, from by-standers and the police force alike that corroborate the story? That's yet more evidence in favour of believing their account. At this point, one would not be justified in being cynical of the Fox News account just due to the source. Because they have provided ample evidence to support their initial claims.

This is exactly what has happened here, with you and I.

If Alex Jones et al says that scary young male Mooselems are infiltrating and destroying Europe, that's one thing.

If Alex Jones et al cite statistics from the United Nations Human Rights Council, shows video footage of the events, and shares almost a dozen articles including data collected from Universities across multiple countries? Then that's another case entirely.

This is where I believe you've gone wrong. You've mistaken one for the other, which could have been remedied (and still can) by just watching the video that was linked and looking at the sources Paul gave.

 

From post #60 in this thread, that I've cited multiple times when talking to you.

> The source of an argument has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not the argument is valid (when we are able to inspect the arguments themselves). You should be addressing the content of the argument, not the person making it.

I think it's cut and dry as to whether it's a logical fallacy, when you dismiss content out of hand. Even if that wern't true though, I think this conversation makes you look terrible for the following reason. Again, it took until your 3rd sentence before we found an unhelpful snarky angsty remark. Not to mention there seems to be a constant desire to declare how amazing you are, rather than just showing it. It's this kind of attitude to difficult conversations, that makes them borderline impossible in the first place. Where it doesn't seem like we can fiercely disagree yet remain civil and cordial.

Once again, look at the way @Supreme_Overlord conducts himself. Even @Ranger0203 (whom I have my own gripes with) does not makes the conversations hostile and antagonistic. I think his comments are at times dishonest and lack integrity. No doubt he has some qualms about my posts too, which is fine. But it doesn't boil-over into bitter sarcastic personal attacks. And I'm just sad that you seemingly find it so tough to conduct yourself in the same way. I want instructive conversations, not destructive ones.

> Just because you start with something factual like in your example doesn't mean it can't be perverted to make a biased argument.

Right, and the only way you can know that, is if you take a look for yourself, and assess the conclusions that they're drawing from the story.

> Why even watch the Infowars/Alex Jones video unless you plan on representing his opinion as an opinion. Just circumvent the stupidity and move directly to the primary source.

Because I don't want to spend hours of life making a transcript for the key material contained therein, when I could just cite the video directly.

> Just because it's from the UN Human Rights Council which sounds fancy and official doesn't mean it's factually correct.

EXACTLY! Just because I cited a video from Alex Jones, doesn't mean it's factually incorrect either. The only way you can know that, and be rationally justified in dismissing it, is to scrutinize the facts. The same goes for the data collected from the UN.

I'm out, for now. Someone else can tag in for me.

 

Where did you get his piece of evidence please cite it now thanks bye

 

His numbers on % of men are correct
UNHCR Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean

Migrants have been shown to sometimes be violent, cause problems, and be generally ungrateful. Check Youtube if you want, plenty of videos.

His assertion that this is a media conspiracy is likely false, though a good portion of the population feels that the media is biased towards the left: Media bias in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Though it is very difficult to prove these accusations, and there is no reason to suspect that various media outlets have collaborated to distort the truth.

Rape in Sweden has in fact risen, and while many pro-migration sources would say it has nothing to do with migrants, that seems unlikely, given that 1) the events coincide. 2) Migrants come from areas that don't respect women's rights.

Swedish police: 55 official no-go zones


I can't find the actual letter regarding skirts, although a supposed quote from said letter is: "The Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to. Revealing tops or blouses, shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings,"


People who speak against any form of immigration are often called xenophobes and bigots. See Donald Trump as an example.

His opinion that immigrants will vote for big government is just that, his opinion.

Sweden’s welfare disaster: A 15.1% immigrant population burden 60.5% of the entire nations welfare costs
Yep. Hooray for welfare. (check their references. Pretty well known. Probably acceptable in a debate.)

In 2015, Czech Republic's economy grew by 4,2% and it's the fastest growing economy in the European Union.
Indeed, fastest growing economy in European Union.
Economy of the Czech Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His opinions regarding the effects of NATO are his analyses of the events, and as such, are his opinion.


So we see that pretty much every fact that he stated has some basis in reputable statistics, or some other form of evidence.

Why were you so keen to dismiss him?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 24, 2016 ---

Considering that both would probably agree that dismissing an argument based merely upon who is making it is a fallacy, I would say that both are correct.

 

No, I don't think he did.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]


I believe you are referring to the first part of the second clause: "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact..."; however, this is not applicable in the case of the video, as his facts can be checked, and while not all are from the highest sources, they do stand up to scrutiny. More importantly, though, what was being referenced by @TheDebatheist were his ideas. Ideas aren't, and can't be, objectively true or false, and aren't held to the same standards as facts. Thus, the first part of the second clause has no effect.

As to the second part, I would guess that it refers to certain deficiencies that a person may have that would preclude them from the proper reasoning, for instance, insanity (practical), or in some instances, sociopathy or psychopathy (moral).

Since neither of these seem to affect the current topic, they can be put aside while we observe the definition.
Ad hominem, which is what, I believe, you are being accused of, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted, which is what you did by refusing to deal with it, by attacking the character (calling Infowars.com uncredible, deservedly or undeservedly,), motive

, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

What you have done is dismissed any arguments made in the video by attacking the character of the source. By doing this you have, as outlined above, committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. Furthermore, in the name of not wasting time, you have spent four days going back and forth with thedebatheist, over a petty disagreement that you, intentionally or not, have escalated into a full-blown debate.

 

But, if you're talking about when he later accused you of committing a genetic fallacy:

Then I'd have to back him up on this one too, despite the fact that I don't like to.

What you have done is dismissed the claims and arguments made in the video because of past videos being inaccurate and thereby suggested a conclusion (that the video was wrong/not worth your time) based solely on other videos (that would be the history and origin of the content). You're overlooking the fact that, in this video, there is a decent argument made, backed up by some decent evidence, and you're transferring negative esteem from the earlier context.

I'm not admitting anything, that implies that I want him to be credible, and there is no reluctance with which I denounce infowars' credibility.

That has no bearing on this particular video, however.

Because in this instance, a reasonable argument is presented backed up by reasonable evidence.

Who do you consider more credible?



"Not all information is created equal."

Right off the bat we see that you don't quite understand what's going on.

Students today have access to so much information that they need to weigh the reliability of sources. "

Same as the first.

"Evaluating Sources"
Same as the second
"The world is full of information to be found—however, not all of it is valid, useful, or accurate."
Same as the third.



From every source of an argument that you cited on how to evaluate a source of information, we receive a very useful message: Not all sources are good. This is very true. I would much rather trust a PEW Research poll than an MSNBC poll. The only problem is, the video is not a source of information. It cites sources of information, that then can be judged based upon their credibility, but it itself is a source of an argument. This is not subject to the same screening process as information, as different arguments can be made based upon the same evidence.

 

@Old_Pink -- Again, address the point that we are all laymen here, you guys are interpreting something that's widely used in academia to be a fallacy. Who is more likely to be right, you guys or academia?

That's 2 fallacies. The 'Appeal to Authority' and most importantly, it also seems to be a strawman. You can't just claim, "Semantics" without addressing his point, while simultaneously trying to mind-read the guy's intentions. There is a massive difference between:

"People can lie about the studies they conduct. We can't go back in time and check if they followed their methodology or not. So their credibility is all we have."

and...

"People can lie about the conclusions of a story, and the arguments they create on the back of that. We can fact-stories, and we can logically dismantle arguments. Almost all of which (if not, all) stand and fall on their own merit."

Please, for the betterment of other people that you argue with and most importantly, you? Familiarize yourself with the logical fallacies. Honestly, just read this, and you'll be so much better for it. I promise.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I tried to make it as simple as I could.

I think you're confusing Chart 1 for Chart 2

 

I'm now convinced you're trolling at this point to some degree. But just so I have a reference point for my sig:

1) 'All these smart people in academia agree with me, therefore I am right' is fallacious. Because not everyone in academia is an expert on logical fallacies. (Even if you were citing an authority on the matter, there are 2 definitions of the fallacy, of which I've already linked to.)

2) The straw-man is that what you're doing is not the same as what's widely done in academia. Credibility of the author is (typically) [all that] students have to go on, which is why Universities tell their students to use it. This isn't true with the overwhelming majority of cases in the 'real world'. Good evidence and argument trump bad source every day of the week. Likewise, for bad evidence and illogical argument over-riding a good source.

3) "Yes [we should fact-check], along with checking credibility, bias, etc." -- You have this the wrong way round, as demonstrated in my chart example. Arguments+Evidence matter more than the source.

4) You still don't seem to know what the ad-hominem and genetic fallacy are, and have still yet to concede that the latter is a branch from the former. (and that dismissing an argument due to its source is logically fallacious)

5) You have been concerned with credibility, but then flip the script as soon as sources are presented to you. Your rationale went from, "I get to dismiss this because of their [infowars] reputation" to "Despite their [UNHCR] reputation, we should fact-check it anyway". (which has been my position from the outset)

6) You have repeatedly claimed that I've lied about my 'true position' on the subject, despite making it clear in post #60 and in multiple posts since then. (that there are rare occasions in which it's acceptable to use credibility, though *this* is not one of them)

7) You thought that homeopathy was religiously based, and constructed a rebuttal on the basis of that. You then had the gall to accuse me of cherry-picking homeopathy, while moments earlier you proudly proclaimed how great your posts are. This should have been a humbling experience for you, yet it seems to have had the opposite effect. As of now, you still havn't refuted my example regarding the NHS.

8) You also don't seem to know the 'Appeal to Popularity' fallacy -- as you have defended your PoV by saying, 'Go ahead and do that. Just watch what everyone else thinks of you when you do.'. We should (almost always) do something because it's rationally justified, not based on what other people will think of our decision.

9) You said that we should dismiss someone saying "the sun won't set" because they're a conspiracy theorist, rather than because they have no evidence or argument to support their claims.

10) You have (twice) failed to take me up on a 1-on-1 civil real time conversation on Discord to sort this mess out. Instead, you've opted to bloviate about how amazing you are. This says it all, for me.

[E: Grammar+Spelling]

 

...

 

How did we get here lol

 

Just like every other debate thread. Someone sees that they lost the argument so they question the sources of the opponent.

 

Keep it going, I just got some snacks.

 

Good debate fellas

 

Edit: Oops I forgot stuff.

It's not a narrative that is being created but an argument. If the argument fits into a narrative, so what?

It mean all your websites say the same thing, so I don't have to address them individually.

Not really. Whatever source gives information and no analysis is a source of information, and any source that cites information, either from another source or something they've created themselves, in order to make an argument, is a source of an argument.

Not quite. I'm saying that a source that is information (say statistics on a U.S site) is a source of information, while a source that makes an argument based on cited information isn't a source of information, as they did not compile it in any way, they merely used it. For instance, Wikipedia would, in most cases, be a source of information, because all they've done is take information from loads of sources and put it together. They don't, in most cases, use it to make an argument.

 

Yeah, I get that.

It isn't a source of information, it's a source of an argument. I've said this several times now.

My own thought... I assume I'm allowed to think. And it really makes sense. If a source provides information, then it would be a source of information, but if a source uses information to make an argument, it is a source of an argument.

A scientific journal, or similar paper, definitely has analysis and a conclusion. Not all studies do though, and studies aren't the only sources of information (my example of wikipedia, for example).

But take this: In Their Own Words: Why Voters Support – and Have Concerns About – Clinton and Trump for example. All it is is data that has been collected, and displayed in graphs and in writing. There is no analysis, no conclusion, no argument. It's just data.

Now, I think this is where the lack of understanding between us occurs. Your position is that the credibility of a source affects whether it should be believed or not, both in terms of information presented, and arguments made.

As to the first: credibility is only relevant when the information cannot be checked, that is, when sources are not cited, or studies were carried out by the person or organization in question. Since sources were cited, the credibility of the video is not in question, though the credibility of the sources may still come into play. Since the sources have been checked, and their credibility ranges from passable to U.N. level, this isn't a factor either.

As to the second: Arguments require no credibility, they stand or fall on their own merit. None of the academic sources you cited had any position that even remotely suggested credibility was a factor when it came to arguments, and if any of them did and I missed it, they are wrong. Arguments are by definition biased in their own favor. THAT'S WHAT AN ARGUMENT IS.

 

I'd be willing to accept that.

Yes I did...

You want to know why they said that? Because, in their data, the largest factor in candidate support was: Disliking the opponent. They drew no conclusions, and gave no explanations. They literally took their data, and put it in words. That's not analysis.

^

^

^

Definition. Singular.

ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun

1. 1.
   an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
   "I've had an argument with my father"
   synonyms: quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, dispute, wrangle, clash, altercation, feud,contretemps, disputation, falling-out; More
   
   
2. 2.
   a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

It is, by it's very nature, biased. There are no unbiased arguments. They simply don't exist.

Not really.
The theory of relativity is not an argument. Not even close. It's a mathematical explanation of the way the universe works. Any argument based off of it is using it as evidence.

Actually, it's favoring or being against something, usually unfairly.

The argument would be biased in it's own favor (the favor of the conclusion). The same way, and argument that supports the standing opinion would be biased towards it.

He doesn't have to represent his source's conclusion. He can arrive at a different conclusion based upon the same data.



I'm done.

 

Found this in my bookmarks in the today. Thought it was relevant (and useful).



File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Remember guys, the first one to call the opposition a Nazi automatically loses.

 

... Do I want to go back and read what happened?

 

Law enforcement should be able to identify you and if they cant see your face how are they supposed to do that
+1 to france