How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 23.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 19, 2012, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:44:57 PM

It's not mud slinging if George's proposal is ridiculous. And it may not be the speaker's duty to prove everything back to first principles. And it might be worth knowing that George did cheat on his taxes.

No, it's still slinging mud. Even if he did cheat on his taxes, it doesn't affect the validity of the zoning proposal.
Ad Hominem:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

Valid argument:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. It puts the school next to a toxic chemical factory!"

Valid argument:

Quote

"Candidate George is not trustworthy. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

Valid arguments back up the first statement with the second. Ad hominem attacks back up the first statement with personally damning and irrelevant information.

Totally missing the point. You have not made an argument against the ridiculousness of George's proposal. Instead, you've deflected the statement about George's proposal into an argument about the integrity of the speaker's statement, which is in fact ad hominem in itself.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Ummm guys....

CAN I GET EVERY BODIES ATTENTION PLEASE!

http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/13eyie/rlibertarian_users_invade_rprogressive_downvote/

very relevant.

also popcorn.gif

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 19, 2012, 02:51:37 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:15:31 PM

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

You don't accuse someone of ad hominem, you accuse their argument of ad hominem.

You just used ad hominem in your argument! My usage of grammar is not related to my argument about ad hominem. LOL.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:44:57 PM

It's not mud slinging if George's proposal is ridiculous. And it may not be the speaker's duty to prove everything back to first principles. And it might be worth knowing that George did cheat on his taxes.

No, it's still slinging mud. Even if he did cheat on his taxes, it doesn't affect the validity of the zoning proposal.
Ad Hominem:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

Valid argument:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. It puts the school next to a toxic chemical factory!"

Valid argument:

Quote

"Candidate George is not trustworthy. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

Valid arguments back up the first statement with the second. Ad hominem attacks back up the first statement with personally damning and irrelevant information.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:15:31 PM

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

You don't accuse someone of ad hominem, you accuse their argument of ad hominem.

Otherwise, you'd be committing the exact same fallacy.

EG: I'm not surprised FirstAscent isn't sufficiently well educated to avoid embarrassing himself by utterly failing to comprehend well known rules of debate.
It's so typical for a Libertarian hater to be ridiculously deficient in intellectual rigor, yet go on the attack nevertheless.

/High School English Class

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 19, 2012, 02:30:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:15:31 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

Sorry, but no. An example from Wikipedia:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

You may accuse someone of using ad hominem in the above quoted statement. But you have refuted nothing. You have not refuted that George's proposal is ridiculous, nor have you refuted that he cheated on taxes.

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

Neither has the speaker proven that the zoning proposal is ridiculous, or that he was caught cheating on his taxes. He's just slinging mud.

It's not mud slinging if George's proposal is ridiculous. And it may not be the speaker's duty to prove everything back to first principles. And it might be worth knowing that George did cheat on his taxes.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:15:31 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

Sorry, but no. An example from Wikipedia:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

You may accuse someone of using ad hominem in the above quoted statement. But you have refuted nothing. You have not refuted that George's proposal is ridiculous, nor have you refuted that he cheated on taxes.

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

Neither has the speaker proven that the zoning proposal is ridiculous, or that he was caught cheating on his taxes. He's just slinging mud.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

How the Democratic party was created by ethnic cleansers and slave owners

How the Republican party was created by anti-slavery advocates

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: myrkul on November 19, 2012, 02:13:33 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

What he means is the statement that is intended to color the reader's perceptions. For instance, while "Hitler was an antisemitic asshole, so therefore his artwork was crap." says nothing about his skill as a painter, which while not earthshaking, was decent:

It still stands that he was an antisemitic asshole.

It does however impact the meaning of owning the artwork. It becomes a political statement for a reason.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

Sorry, but no. An example from Wikipedia:

Quote

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

You may accuse someone of using ad hominem in the above quoted statement. But you have refuted nothing. You have not refuted that George's proposal is ridiculous, nor have you refuted that he cheated on taxes.

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

What he means is the statement that is intended to color the reader's perceptions. For instance, while "Hitler was an antisemitic asshole, so therefore his artwork was crap." says nothing about his skill as a painter, which while not earthshaking, was decent:

It still stands that he was an antisemitic asshole.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 19, 2012, 01:13:04 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 07:47:46 AM

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

That^.

Plus, turnabout is fair play:

BANKERS CREATED COMMUNISM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSnarO9iw8E

An ad hominem attack can carry weight. Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 07:47:46 AM

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

That^.

Plus, turnabout is fair play:

BANKERS CREATED COMMUNISM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSnarO9iw8E

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 19, 2012, 11:38:16 AM

But how is Libertarianism not a big sham? I have never seen an example of a 'Libertarian Think Tank' that was not a big sham and doesn't engage in publishing deceptive data. Dig deep into these:

- The Heartland Institute
- The George C. Marshall Institute
- The Cato Institute
- The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
- Frederick Seitz

Of course, maybe the bad apples are heard the loudest. Such a shame if there was some legitimacy to Libertariansim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeywrenching

(Specifically, these groups, and the Libertarian Party are attempting this upon the libertarian movement... it may not even be conscious, much less intentional.)

Some real Libertarian organizations:
The Center for a Stateless Society
The Mises Institute

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 08:02:32 AM

Quote from: cunicula on November 19, 2012, 07:51:50 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 07:47:46 AM

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

I didn't see any intellectual argument here. They were just describing his moral character. If it were 50% ad hominen you might have a point, but 100%, no, then it's biography.

The beginning of the article is the heavy lifting the author has to do to get his payoff at the end. The last two paragraphs are the payoff. This is classic 100% ad hominem. The beginning proves Milton Friedman is a bad guy and the conclusion is that modern libertarianism is flawed and invalid.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- the point the beginning is supposed to justify -- with the key points bolded:

Quote

Like everything involving modern economics and libertarianism, it was a kind of giant meta-sham, shams celebrating a sham. Even the Nobel Prizes in economics awarded to people like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Friedman’s contemporary fans Heckman and Lucas, are fake Nobel Prizes — in fact, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics; its real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and it was first launched in 1969 by the Swedish Central Bank and has since been denounced by Alfred Nobel’s heirs.

And yet — in the words of Larry Summers, "Any honest Democrat will admit we are all Friedmanites now." Of course, there are no honest Democrats. And there are no honest economists. And these are the people who are framing our politics, the people who have told Greece and Spain they have no choice, and the people who today are making sure that the number one item on Obama’s and Congress’s agenda is cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare and cutting "entitlements" — and the only thing that divides the elites in charge of this mess is “how much of these moochers’ lifelines can we cut?”

The ad hominem formula is, basically, "because a particular person is a bad person or did some bad things, we can reject ideas he had or logical arguments he made". That is the overall formula of this article. Had he left out the last two paragraphs, it would be biography. With them there, the beginning sets up the conclusion.

But how is Libertarianism not a big sham? I have never seen an example of a 'Libertarian Think Tank' that was not a big sham and doesn't engage in publishing deceptive data. Dig deep into these:

- The Heartland Institute
- The George C. Marshall Institute
- The Cato Institute
- The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
- Frederick Seitz

Of course, maybe the bad apples are heard the loudest. Such a shame if there was some legitimacy to Libertariansim.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 08:02:32 AM

Quote from: cunicula on November 19, 2012, 07:51:50 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 07:47:46 AM

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

I didn't see any intellectual argument here. They were just describing his moral character. If it were 50% ad hominen you might have a point, but 100%, no, then it's biography.

The beginning of the article is the heavy lifting the author has to do to get his payoff at the end. The last two paragraphs are the payoff. This is classic 100% ad hominem. The beginning proves Milton Friedman is a bad guy and the conclusion is that modern libertarianism is flawed and invalid.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- the point the beginning is supposed to justify -- with the key points bolded:

Quote

Like everything involving modern economics and libertarianism, it was a kind of giant meta-sham, shams celebrating a sham. Even the Nobel Prizes in economics awarded to people like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Friedman’s contemporary fans Heckman and Lucas, are fake Nobel Prizes — in fact, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics; its real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and it was first launched in 1969 by the Swedish Central Bank and has since been denounced by Alfred Nobel’s heirs.

And yet — in the words of Larry Summers, "Any honest Democrat will admit we are all Friedmanites now." Of course, there are no honest Democrats. And there are no honest economists. And these are the people who are framing our politics, the people who have told Greece and Spain they have no choice, and the people who today are making sure that the number one item on Obama’s and Congress’s agenda is cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare and cutting "entitlements" — and the only thing that divides the elites in charge of this mess is “how much of these moochers’ lifelines can we cut?”

The ad hominem formula is, basically, "because a particular person is a bad person or did some bad things, we can reject ideas he had or logical arguments he made". That is the overall formula of this article. Had he left out the last two paragraphs, it would be biography. With them there, the beginning sets up the conclusion.

Apparently the author has never heard of tl;dr. Always put the payoff at the beginning. No one gets that far.

It is indeed ad hominem. I just scanned the document and didn't notice any reference to economics/libertarianism at all. Very offensive that they confound the two concepts. Grouping Heckman and Summers with the scum of the Earth. It is just wrong. I mean Heckman is advocating increased state intervention in the education of very young children. He is one of the good guys.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1011

Quote from: ?? on ??

Cliff notes, anyone? Text wall; no time...

But first, I'll take a wild guess: it turns out that the pillars of Libertarianism: strong private property rights, pseudo-non-aggression religion, and freedom of market-makers, if left unchecked actually encourage corrupt business practices and creeping Fascism? Cheesy

Not even that high an intellectual mark.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: cunicula on November 19, 2012, 07:51:50 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 07:47:46 AM

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

I didn't see any intellectual argument here. They were just describing his moral character. If it were 50% ad hominen you might have a point, but 100%, no, then it's biography.

The beginning of the article is the heavy lifting the author has to do to get his payoff at the end. The last two paragraphs are the payoff. This is classic 100% ad hominem. The beginning proves Milton Friedman is a bad guy and the conclusion is that modern libertarianism is flawed and invalid.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- the point the beginning is supposed to justify -- with the key points bolded:

Quote

Like everything involving modern economics and libertarianism, it was a kind of giant meta-sham, shams celebrating a sham. Even the Nobel Prizes in economics awarded to people like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Friedman’s contemporary fans Heckman and Lucas, are fake Nobel Prizes — in fact, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics; its real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and it was first launched in 1969 by the Swedish Central Bank and has since been denounced by Alfred Nobel’s heirs.

And yet — in the words of Larry Summers, "Any honest Democrat will admit we are all Friedmanites now." Of course, there are no honest Democrats. And there are no honest economists. And these are the people who are framing our politics, the people who have told Greece and Spain they have no choice, and the people who today are making sure that the number one item on Obama’s and Congress’s agenda is cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare and cutting "entitlements" — and the only thing that divides the elites in charge of this mess is “how much of these moochers’ lifelines can we cut?”

The ad hominem formula is, basically, "because a particular person is a bad person or did some bad things, we can reject ideas he had or logical arguments he made". That is the overall formula of this article. Had he left out the last two paragraphs, it would be biography. With them there, the beginning sets up the conclusion.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 19, 2012, 07:47:46 AM

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

I didn't see any intellectual argument here. They were just describing his moral character. If it were 50% ad hominen you might have a point, but 100%, no, then it's biography.

It seems like that hinges almost entirely on what he does and not what he says or writes.

Keynes was not a very reputable guy either.

Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 23. (Read 24009 times)