So as not to impolitely derail a certain thread in Debates:
I don't mind admitting that "no true Christian" is an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
However, it could also be said that some appeals to "holy texts" are examples of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy -- and even worse than that (taking it to another level!) -- of the "Appeal to a Supernatural Authority."
Which is not to say that I disbelieve in the sustaining, comforting, strengthening, and hope-giving power of belief.
1 edit
Oh holy heck, I have just now realized that appeals to the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, further Amendments, and the subsequent body of Constitutional law could also all just be dismissed as an "Appeal to Authority."
I think "Heaven help us now" would not be too hypocritical in the context of my vague and questioning beliefs, such as they are.
@Arkturos saidDo you think we should end colleges because we have people who are considered authorities in specific areas? We should not hire tour guides because they are knowledgeable about the area and want to be paid to share their expertise. I think your complaint needs some fine-tuning. 🙂
So as not to impolitely derail a certain thread in Debates:
I don't mind admitting that "no true Christian" is an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
However, it could also be said that some appeals to "holy texts" are examples of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy -- and even worse than that (taking it to another level!) -- of the "Appeal to a Supernatural Autho ...[text shortened]... say that I disbelieve in the sustaining, comforting, strengthening, and hope-giving power of belief.
@KellyJay saidI agree: we might not like how many things would unravel or be undermined if we were always on the lookout for "Appeals to Authority" -- which is probably why logical fallacies generally don't seem to be taught in American schools (if I am not mistaken). 😉
Do you think we should end colleges because we have people who are considered authorities in specific areas? We should not hire tour guides because they are knowledgeable about the area and want to be paid to share their expertise. I think your complaint needs some fine-tuning. 🙂
@Arkturos saidBottom line, if you stop at the authority’s word, you are a convert, not a free thinker who tests everything you hear. If, for example, we are wrong about some treatment of a disease and we help end lives instead of saving them, wouldn’t you want the authoritative treatment questioned and better ways to treat questioned? If something as important as what it means to be human, where did we come from, and why are we here, for what purpose, don’t you think being wrong about that may have bad consequences, if we blow off those types of questions, or outright get them wrong?
I agree: we might not like how many things would unravel or be undermined if we were always on the lookout for "Appeals to Authority" -- which is probably why logical fallacies generally don't seem to be taught in American schools (if I am not mistaken). 😉
@Arkturos saidKevin,
Oh holy heck, I have just now realized that appeals to the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, further Amendments, and the subsequent body of Constitutional law could also all just be dismissed as an "Appeal to Authority."
I think "Heaven help us now" would not be too hypocritical in the context of my vague and questioning beliefs, such as they are.
No one says 'holy heck' it is usually 'hell' 😉
-VR
2 edits
@Arkturos saidThis only shows us it is not our opinions, but the truth that matters. When I worked at a global company I realized I could not look at anyone and know who they were and what they did, janitors and engineering department heads looked no different for one another. That took nationality, color, biological sex, and age out of the equation.
Oh holy heck, I have just now realized that appeals to the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, further Amendments, and the subsequent body of Constitutional law could also all just be dismissed as an "Appeal to Authority."
I think "Heaven help us now" would not be too hypocritical in the context of my vague and questioning beliefs, such as they are.
So people who identify people as you have done by highlighting “white” as something less than, it looks like to me you are spending more time worrying about fitting in than thinking for yourself.
More than a few divide people here by politics as if the wrong choice there destoyies all credibility going forward.
Is what we believe defendable without attacking someone, must it get personal? If we are going to address some about their faults we should at least be able to give examples and not just lump them into a group without specifics.
Appeals to authority also removes from us our ability to understand the issue if we have not looked into it, saying others believe something with explaining why is as vague as saying some subset of our race is less than.
@Arkturos saidI just let people define what they believe as they see fit, and if they want to go pretty far down the path of 'no true Scotsman,' so be it. If someone chooses to make their own position seem less credulous, that is their business...
So as not to impolitely derail a certain thread in Debates:
I don't mind admitting that "no true Christian" is an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
However, it could also be said that some appeals to "holy texts" are examples of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy -- and even worse than that (taking it to another level!) -- of the "Appeal to a Supernatural Autho ...[text shortened]... say that I disbelieve in the sustaining, comforting, strengthening, and hope-giving power of belief.
It's almost like you are winning the debate if you allow them to sabotage their own position by going that far.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidActually, I do agree with you that truth is truth and reality is as it is, no matter our surmises and conjectures and assertions.
This only shows us it is not our opinions, but the truth that matters. When I worked at a global company I realized I could not look at anyone and know who they were and what they did, janitors and engineering department heads looked no different for one another. That took nationality, color, biological sex, and age out of the equation.
So people who identify people as ...[text shortened]... rs believe something with explaining why is as vague as saying some subset of our race is less than.
And it seems you are commenting here about something I wrote about "getting in good with the whites" in a post in Debates. Or was it something else?
To pull an Ann Coulter: I think some of the blue-eyed whites are cold-blooded and vicious, without remorse. 😉
re: "as you have done by highlighting 'white' as something less than"
Please explain. Where have I done that?
re: "it looks like to me you are spending more time worrying about fitting in than thinking for yourself"
On my side, I believe I generally try to think for myself (on a side-note, I don't go around calling myself a freethinker as some do).
@Arkturos saidIt was the getting in good with the whites.
Actually, I do agree with you that truth is truth and reality is as it is, no matter our surmises and conjectures and assertions.
And it seems you are commenting here about something I wrote about "getting in good with the whites" in a post in Debates. Or was it something else?
To pull an Ann Coulter: I think some of the blue-eyed whites are cold-blooded and vicious, w ...[text shortened]... try to think for myself (on a side-note, I don't go around calling myself a freethinker as some do).
2 edits
@KellyJay saidOh, the context is that "getting in good with the whites" was a reference to the persistence of racism (subtle or not) in our country where "whites" are seen as superior and the rightful controllers of our society and culture -- not at all that "whites" are lesser humans.
It was the getting in good with the whites.
Sure, I get that many "whites" are not doing well economically and actually see others as equals beyond the flesh and (to merge a couple branches of thought) are to some extent forgiving of the evolutionary baggage of the flesh.
I imagine you might know that about 125 years ago, Irish Americans were not considered "white" and were shunned from employment.
And what's "white" in America could mean something different somewhere else. For instance, in some Asian cultures where there isn't or hasn't been so much of an ethnic mix as we have, there still exists something called "colorism" where the more pale someone is, the more noble or upper-class they are perceived to be, and people with a tan or darker skin tone are considered to be lower-class humans.
I also imagine you are not unaware of "White Supremacist" groups in America -- so when it comes to political power or leverage or even self-protection, there is a lot of value in "getting in good with the whites" -- whether one is Black or Asian or Hispanic or Latino or Jewish (etc.).
Hoping that was enough to explain without being too much.
@Arkturos saidI believe we are one people, and when someone puts whites up or down, blacks up or down, they are hurting all of us, don’t care that some identify themselves as better than, that is exactly what I was complaining about. There is no distinction in human value due to color; it is not acceptable to hate due to color, or anything else, and to play with that by their rules is to turn into one of those who do. A lot of factors are at play, which variables do you think are acceptable to use while dividing us up to enhance one’s identity? It matters more what we do than what we look like, and if you can pick someone out of a crowd and find something about them, be it color or anything else physically about them, you are not looking at an individual; your prejudice is showing.
Oh, the context is that "getting in good with the whites" was a reference to the persistence of racism (subtle or not) in our country where "whites" are seen as superior and the rightful controllers of our society and culture -- not at all that "whites" are lesser humans.
Sure, I get that many "whites" are not doing well economically and actually see others as equals beyo ...[text shortened]... or Hispanic or Latino or Jewish (etc.).
Hoping that was enough to explain without being too much.
At the foot of the cross of Christ, we are all one people, all the distinctions are gone, no one can select us out apart from Him. People here often give false witness about others, fabricating stories to justify their hatred. They don’t even have to be true; they can make things up and level a charge.
3 edits
@KellyJay saidRE the first paragraph: I do not disagree.
I believe we are one people, and when someone puts whites up or down, blacks up or down, they are hurting all of us, don’t care that some identify themselves as better than, that is exactly what I was complaining about. There is no distinction in human value due to color; it is not acceptable to hate due to color, or anything else, and to play with that by their rules is to ...[text shortened]... o justify their hatred. They don’t even have to be true; they can make things up and level a charge.
RE "At the foot of the cross of Christ, we are all one people, all the distinctions are gone, no one can select us out apart from Him."
Well, I get what you mean by that in a Christian context, but you and I don't believe the same things; and I would say that Christ doesn't even need to be brought into the discussion for me to agree with your assertions in the first paragraph -- not that I in particular need to be convinced of anything, of course.
I will add that we seem to have been talking past each other a little.
The basis for some of my posts in this thread is the observation that some people do seem to see the world through racist filters and conceptions, and some people in politics do seem to take advantage of that for their own purposes.
@Arkturos saidReality doesn’t change because of preconceived ideas, so it is better to really examine our own beliefs do they stand up to questions?
RE the first paragraph: I do not disagree.
RE "At the foot of the cross of Christ, we are all one people, all the distinctions are gone, no one can select us out apart from Him."
Well, I get what you mean by that in a Christian context, but you and I don't believe the same things; and I would say that Christ doesn't even need to be brought into the discussion for me to ...[text shortened]... d conceptions, and some people in politics do seem to take advantage of that for their own purposes.