This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Legal Drinking Age in the United States
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They're already imposing an arbitrary ethical system on us. Therefore, Laihendi is perfectly right to suggest that it's a possible explanation for why they ban alcohol before 21.
No commentary on whether such an ethical system is 'right' or 'wrong', only that it exists.
The thread is about
why should or why shouldn't
alcohol be available before 21.
Post by
Squishalot
Laihendi's argument still holds then, even with your extrapolation.
The fact that you believe a 1984-style government where the government bans a whole raft of stuff is bad, or that people who suggest such things lack credibility, is irrelevant to the fact that it's a valid argument. It's one reason why alcohol shouldn't be available. That you don't like it doesn't change its validity as an opinion.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The fact that you believe a 1984-style government where the government bans a whole raft of stuff is bad, or that people who suggest such things lack credibility, is irrelevant to the fact that it's a valid argument. It's one reason why alcohol shouldn't be available. That you don't like it doesn't change its validity as an opinion.
And a
reductio
is a valid response.
And I never said it wasn't a "valid opinion".... Anything is a valid opinion, because opinions don't need to have any truth value to continue being an opinion.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
And a
reductio
is a valid response.
But an
ad hominem
isn't.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And a
reductio
is a valid response.
But an
ad hominem
isn't.
Oh, come on. Don't go pulling @#$% out of your ass. I didn't make a single
ad homimen
remark this entire thread.
E. I just went through all my posts with a fine-toothed comb. I see curtness and sarcasm, but not a single
ad hominem
.
Post by
Squishalot
And a
reductio
is a valid response.
But an
ad hominem
isn't.
Oh, come on. Don't go pulling @#$% out of your ass. I didn't make a single
ad homimen
remark this entire thread.
And that's where your argument loses all credibility.
You just gave the government the authority to do whatever the heck they want if they think it's a good idea.
It reads as an attack on Laihendi, rather than on the argument. I mean, he thinks that's fine. An attack on the credibility of his opinion is, by definition, an attack on his credibility.
This made more sense when I was thinking about it before.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It reads as an attack on Laihendi, rather than on the argument. I mean, he thinks that's fine. An attack on the credibility of his opinion is, by definition, an attack on his credibility.
Uh...
Really? You're going to call my attack
on his argument
an
ad hominem
.
I'm surprised, and a little off-put.
Post by
Squishalot
Yeah, I'm just thinking about that :P
Actually, yes.
You can demonstrate that an argument is flawed, and that would be an attack on the argument. By discrediting an argument with no basis, you're discrediting him, essentially, because you're not providing a valid counterargument, you're simply saying that he's wrong. You're stating that his argument has no credibility - you've already responded with a
reductio
at that point, which he has accepted and incorporated. There's no value to yet another
reductio
argument.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yeah, I'm just thinking about that :P
Actually, yes.
You can demonstrate that an argument is flawed, and that would be an attack on the argument. By discrediting an argument with no basis, you're discrediting him, essentially, because you're not providing a valid counterargument, you're simply saying that he's wrong. You're stating that his argument has no credibility - you've already responded with a
reductio
at that point, which he has accepted and incorporated. There's no value to yet another
reductio
argument.
You understand what a
reductio ad absurdum
is right?
Reducing to the absurd.
So, it's understood that I'm claiming that the government banning "cars and processed food" is absurd. But his argument leads to that. Then he says that he agrees that it leads to that, but still holds it. Thus, based on the assumptions I came into the argument with, the argument is absurd in the technical sense, and thus holds no credibility for me.
And claiming that my argument is bad is one thing, but then saying that it's therefore an
ad hominem
...
Post by
Squishalot
Thus, based on the assumptions I came into the argument with, the argument is absurd in the technical sense, and thus holds no credibility for me.
To harp on a point that you raised with Aestu, it hasn't lost all credibility, as you originally stated. It's lost credibility with
you
. You can't speak for everybody else.
Anyway, I'll withdraw my point about the
ad hominem
. It came across as a personal attack on Laihendi, as it seemed to imply that he had no credibility because of his argument. I must have skimmed over it a bit too fast.
Post by
MyTie
You understand what a
reductio ad absurdum
is right?
Reducing to the absurd.
So, it's understood that I'm claiming that the government banning "cars and processed food" is absurd. But his argument leads to that. Then he says that he agrees that it leads to that, but still holds it. Thus, based on the assumptions I came into the argument with, the argument is absurd in the technical sense, and thus holds no credibility for me.
And claiming that my argument is bad is one thing, but then saying that it's therefore an
ad hominem
...
The problem I have with this is that I reject your argument. If it were more acceptable to me, I would accept it, however I don't. I think your usage of words is ad sillyum, which means that you are to silly to understand, thus I find you to 'fail' completely. Also you seem to suffer from ad rebuttle, which means that instead of forming an argument against the point, you just say stuff that could be used against any argument. You have no credibility.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
To harp on a point that you raised with Aestu, it hasn't lost all credibility, as you originally stated. It's lost credibility with
you
. You can't speak for everybody else.
Who else's position was I arguing if not my own?
I say things about other people's arguments all the time. It has nothing to do with anyone else. It's my understanding of the argument and how it corresponds with what I know and believe.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
i never really did research on this law..
so people under 21 can drink alchohol legally? they just can't buy it?
Depends on the State. About a third have laws against it, a third have specific exceptions from minors at home or with a guardian, and the last third don't have any pertinent laws.
Post by
Squishalot
You understand what a
reductio ad absurdum
is right?
Reducing to the absurd.
So, it's understood that I'm claiming that the government banning "cars and processed food" is absurd. But his argument leads to that. Then he says that he agrees that it leads to that, but still holds it. Thus, based on the assumptions I came into the argument with, the argument is absurd in the technical sense, and thus holds no credibility for me.
And claiming that my argument is bad is one thing, but then saying that it's therefore an
ad hominem
...
The problem I have with this is that I reject your argument. If it were more acceptable to me, I would accept it, however I don't. I think your usage of words is ad sillyum, which means that you are to silly to understand, thus I find you to 'fail' completely. Also you seem to suffer from ad rebuttle, which means that instead of forming an argument against the point, you just say stuff that could be used against any argument. You have no credibility.
/amused
Who else's position was I arguing if not my own?
That just means that your initial statement is incorrect, and your subsequent statement in the post above (that he lost credibility with you) is the more appropriate response. You could be speaking on behalf of others who have issues with Laihendi's argument.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You could be speaking on behalf of others who have issues with Laihendi's argument.
That's a stupid assumption to make. If I'm speaking on behalf of someone, I say so.
And I said "with me" in this latest post percisely because you're pulling these imaginary compatriots out of the air.
Pop quiz:
Who thinks your statement is stupid?
A) HsR
B) Everyone in the world
C) The Boogieman
Post by
MyTie
You could be speaking on behalf of others who have issues with Laihendi's argument.
That's a stupid assumption to make. If I'm speaking on behalf of someone, I say so.
Pop quiz:
Who thinks your statement is stupid?
A) HsR
B) Everyone in the world
C) The Boogieman
What parallel universe do you live in?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What parallel universe do you live in?
Earth-7207
Post by
MyTie
HSR, you have an uncanny ability to take a very simple statement, and twist it into the most jumbled nonsense imaginable.
Let me give you an example of a classic HSR tactic:
Dude1: I like carrots.
HSR: 'Like' is a simile, and since there is no supporting evidence for your statement, and your evidence presented is antecedal, you are arguing from a platform of ad hominem. Further, carrots cannot communicate over the internet. Thus, you cannot be anything like a carrot. You are an idiot.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.