anti-intellectualism

Originally posted by stellspalfie
and he has a pretty poor chess rating. now that weve sorted that out i guess you will no longer be throwing up yours and others chess ratings as a sign of intelligence.

are you saying that chess is not an intellectual activity?

Originally posted by FMF
I think there is ample evidence: this thread, page 7 onwards. People can judge for themselves. If they reckon I've got it wrong, then I will respond to their analysis.

and yet you cannot provide any evidence other than a rather glaring argumentum ad populum. Do you often a produce logical fallacy when its pointed out that you seem to have little more evidence for your claims than some value you have imbued to your own words?

Lets put it in context again, you asked a question, I made a reference to a piece of literature, you said that this was emotionalism, can you tell us your thought process that helped you arrive at this conclusion so we can begin to understand how it is emotionalism?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet you cannot provide any evidence other than a rather glaring argumentum ad populum.

I am not resorting to "argumentum ad populum". I am saying that I laid out my case in my last 3 or 4 posts on this thread. And I am saying that the evidence is found in your posts [and my responses to them] from page 7 onwards. Inviting people to have a look and decide for themselves is not "argumentum ad populum".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lets put it in context again, you asked a question, I made a reference to a piece of literature, you said that this was emotionalism, can you tell us your thought process that helped you arrive at this conclusion so we can begin to understand how it is emotionalism?

I cannot imagine the circumstances in which you would admit to being anti-intellectual and emotional. So it is not you I have to persuade. Others will judge for themselves. I will address any comments they might have on your demeanour and your argumentation on this thread if and when they post any.

Originally posted by FMF
I cannot imagine the circumstances in which you would admit to being anti-intellectual and emotional. So it is not you I have to persuade. Others will judge for themselves. I will address any comments they might have on your demeanour and your argumentation on this thread if and when they post any.

You were asked about claims for the veracity of a statement you made FMF and you cannot produce a single iota of evidence other than a logical fallacy and a vain appeal to other peoples opinions. Clearly you have little evidence for any of the claims you have made with regard to emotionalism and all they amount to is a value that you yourself have imbued to them, or in other words, they amount to nothing more than a belief in your own propaganda. I really should thank you for demonstrating this fact in such a thoroughly expository manner.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were asked for claims for the veracity of a statement you made FMF and you cannot produce a single iota of evidence...

I laid out my case in my last 3 or 4 posts [before I went to bed] on this thread. The evidence is found in your posts from page 7 onwards. You don't have to accept what I am saying.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...you cannot produce a single iota of evidence other than a logical fallacy and a vain appeal to other peoples opinions.

Inviting other people to decide for themselves is not a "logical fallacy".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Clearly you have little evidence for any of the claims you have made with regard to emotionalism and all they amount to is a value that you yourself have imbued to them, or in other words, they amount to nothing more than a belief in your own propaganda.

I don't expect you to agree with the case I laid out.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not resorting to "argumentum ad populum". I am saying that I laid out my case in my last 3 or 4 posts on this thread. And I am saying that the evidence is found in your posts [and my responses to them] from page 7 onwards. Inviting people to have a look and decide for themselves is not "argumentum ad populum".

you have done exactly that,

its true because other people will say its true, as bona fide an argumentum ad populum as you can get. You have nothing effhim but your own propaganda, some value that you thought to imbue to your own words with little evidence and its sorry to see you reduced to this grovelling about for the opinions of others to verify a statement that you yourself made! yes a sorry state of affairs indeed.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't expect you to agree with the case I laid out.

until you produce a shred of evidence either way effhim, how can one agree or disagree with anything you claim?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have done exactly that, its true because other people will say its true, as bona fide an argumentum ad populum as you can get.

Perhaps you don't understand what "argumentum ad populum" is? If I say, I am right because most people agree with me, then that is "argumentum ad populum". But me saying I rest my case so people can make of it what they want is not "argumentum ad populum".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
until you produce a shred of evidence either way effhim, how can one agree or disagree with anything you claim?

I have no reason to think you will agree with me. Other posters my agree with you [and your claim that I have not produces evidence] while others may agree with the case I have made and may find the evidence supporting it exactly where I said they would find it.

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you don't understand what "argumentum ad populum" is? If I say, I am right because most people agree with me, then that is "argumentum ad populum". But me saying I rest my case so people can make of it what they want is not "argumentum ad populum".

on the contrary you have made an appeal to the opinions of others when pressed upon for evidence for the veracity of claims you have made. that is an argumentum ad populum or in other words my argument will be seen to be true because other people will say that its true. Illogical and fallacious. here are your words again when pressed upon for evidence of your claim.

People can judge for themselves. If they reckon I've got it wrong, then I will respond to their analysis.

notice the appeal to other people when pressed upon for evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary you have made an appeal to the opinions of others when pressed upon for evidence for the veracity of claims you have made. that is an argumentum ad populum or in other words my argument will be seen to be true because other people will say that its true. Illogical and fallacious.

Other people may well think you are right and I am wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
Other people may well think you are right and I am wrong.

so they might but I am not interested in whether they think anyone is wrong or right, I am interested in evidence, which you have so far failed to produce.