The Proliferation of Disingenuous Arguments - Do people really believe the shit they’re saying?

Destacado
Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
This thread isn’t about that discussion. It’s about taking a step back and asking why you feel so strongly about this technical question of fact, when it’s clear that your true belief is ideological (i.e. a universal second amendment). Take a moment to consider how rabid you are acting in arguing against something raised as an example, and correspondingly how you are proving my primary observation. You have been brainwashed.
Presiona para expandir...
Ignoratio elenchi
 
They don't want any cost benefit analysis or discomfort with what they believe in and also want the easiest way to argue their point. For example, if you pretend immigration doesn't effect anyone in any real way then that must necessarily mean that it's just unreasonable racism to oppose it.

A lot of this is less how they think through their own world view and more so how they view their opposition.

Pro-choice people want to deny it being a baby because that's of course the easiest way to be comfortable doing it and paints opposition as unreasonable people who just want to deny them the ability because. It would be complex and emotionally fraught to consider that indeed it's a baby and yours but you may be in a position to consider such a thing anyway. It would also be complex and emotionally fraught to consider that you'd go through the pregnancy anyway despite all the reasons you think it would be a bad idea or the pregnancy being a result of abuse. People want to be comfortable and to have easily available solutions, not think through difficult situations. So then if you think about it as "not being a baby yet" and flatten it all down to "just an option that should be open", it's easier to live with, an abstraction you can stubbornly argue about rather than a harsh reality.

And so on.
 
Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
Pro-gun people will deny that gun control is effective in reducing mass shooting events or associated gun deaths
Presiona para expandir...
>1994 law banning bringing guns to schools
>uptick in people shooting schools because their status as a soft target is enforced by law. Columbine happened 5 years after bringing a gun to school was a case of playing Federal games to win Federal prizes.
Or, alternatively, the gun violence goes down. What goes up? Knife violence. People who want to kill each other will still find ways to kill each other, and instead of addressing why the people who want to kill each other are out for blood, assuming the government to be well-meaning, they see "oh no people are using guns to commit crimes, better take those away from the naughty scamps". The government is not well-meaning.

If I wanted a ghost gun, I could get one in hours. It's that trivial to illegally arm one's self and no amount of legislation to disarm and inconvenience law-abiding citizens will stop it.
 
Made In Wales dijo:
Bad faith arguments can be associated with 'I am being forced/paid to say this shit.'
Presiona para expandir...
reduce it to "i profit from saying this shit"
lots of people use bad faith argument in their daily life, even towards their family, if they can get something out of it, may that be something profane as someone else cleaning the bathroom
 
I would not be shocked if a non-zero percent of Kiwi Farms "Christians" were Paki Islamists engaged in a bit of tariq.
 
Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
Pro-gun people will deny that gun control is effective in reducing mass shooting events or associated gun deaths
Presiona para expandir...
You ruined your OP with this retarded statement. Gun control is not effective in America. All evidence shows it's not. There has never been a single anti gun law in America that had a meaningful effect on gun violence. Claiming that you can transplant laws from Japan to the U.S.A. and magically fix browns slaughtering people is fucking stupid and always has been. I don't even need to use a philosophical or ideological argument here, because we have a century of evidence proving that gun control never has and never will work in America, especially today.

Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
For gun guys, they’d typically opposite it even it it worked. The argument that it doesn’t work is just a convenient one for them, because it obviates the difficult task of balancing liberty and freedom with the wanton slaughter of children. Similar observations can be made of the other examples and many disagreements regarding public policy.
Presiona para expandir...
Yeah, the problem is that it demonstrably doesn't work in America, which is why we oppose it; the only way you can claim it works is by ignoring America and only talking about other nations that aren't America because your argument is inherently flawed form the outset. It's amazing that while making a post about disingenuous arguments, you lead with a disingenuous argument, even including the classic "won't someone think of the children!" angle, because you can't actually support your argument without deceit and emotional manipulation. You want to know why people are disingenuous in their arguments? Because they do not have an argument, and have to try to trick others into supporting them, much like you are here. You answered your own question with this very post.

leftist discourse.webp
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
You ruined your OP with this retarded statement. Gun control is not effective in America. All evidence shows it's not. There has never been a single anti gun law in America that had a meaningful effect on gun violence. Claiming that you can transplant laws from Japan to the U.S.A. and magically fix browns slaughtering people is fucking stupid and always has been. I don't even need to use a philosophical or ideological argument here, because we have a century of evidence proving that gun control never has and never will work in America, especially today.
Presiona para expandir...
You’re retarded if you care that much about the efficacy of gun control lol. Really supports the claims made above that some people are just dumb, LOL.
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
Ah, so the whole thread was bait. Alright, you got me.
Presiona para expandir...
The thread isn’t bait at all. You’re acting like the proverbial bull who’s seen red. I mentioned that some people say gun control doesn’t work, without expressly and vigorously affirming them (note that I also didn’t say they were wrong), and you’ve sperged out about “muh gun control doesn’t work”. That’s why I’ve called you stupid. You are stupid.
 
Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
You are stupid.
Presiona para expandir...
supporting gun control is stupid
sperging out when someone sais something stupid is not disingenuous
supporting, or not calling out, someones point because it agrees with your agenda, even tho it is stupid and you know it is stupid is disingenuous

agreeing with you on the proliferation of disingenuous arguments, without calling you out on the gun control, would be disingenuous
 
"this is not a dishonest argument, you either have free speech or you have censorship, cant have both at the same time
this is fact. no opinon."

Oddly enough, this is the same argument that was used by both activists and the ACLU in the 1970s when child porn was banned in the US. Yet today you'd find few free speech activitists advocating for it's legalization.
 
Fuggalope dijo:
"this is not a dishonest argument, you either have free speech or you have censorship, cant have both at the same time
this is fact. no opinon."

Oddly enough, this is the same argument that was used by both activists and the ACLU in the 1970s when child porn was banned in the US. Yet today you'd find few free speech activitists advocating for it's legalization.
Presiona para expandir...
Most arguments have actual nuances you have to acknowledge.

If you look at half the libertarian and anarchist political philosophies, the serious ones actually address s stuff like this in:

We have freedom of speech, but you shouldn't be able to yell 'Fire!' in a movie theatre and cause a stampede, right?

(only the comically silly would argue so)

Usually theres one or two criteria here, like 'okay, you have freedom of speech till it infringes upon someone else's rights. If you yell fire in a theatre, you can cause a stampede killing someone, and generally, thats seen as a pretty big infringement'.

Where people fuckup is they try to stretch that to 'the big meanie booboo said something I dislike so I'm going to kill my self ( transfolk ) or I feel unsafe and this infringes upon my right to feel safe! (disingenuous leftists overall).

As someone in the thread already pointed out, its maybe that they are indeed disingenuous, or maybe that they don't actually understand the intricacies of their argument, position, etc. The only reason libertarians will accept an infringement on freedom of speech, is if someone else is infringed upon- and they do this very reluctantly because its a criteria of 'maximizing' freedom. I don't feel safe doesnt really justify infringing upon free speech if the reason you don't feel safe is riduculous or dumb.

If you do want the other side that some liberaltarians argue, just to illustrate, its not 'freedom from', but 'freedom for'. Positive social rights, you are called to be free to try to be the best person you can be, to optimize your social conditions, to live live with as much self-realization and joy as possible. Its not so much that you have rights to protect you, but to guide you towards a better existence. Free speech is one such thing, where we are supposed to see, mix with, debate, and explore ideas that cause growth and are challenging. To that effect, you want to hear uncomfortable things to grow, to challenge your own ideas, and to maybe gain perspective.

Most retards today don't think about these sorts of things, nor want to think about these sorts of things, and any sorts of nuances are completely lost on them.
 
Frederica Bernkastel dijo:
A lot of pro-choice thinking was influenced by eugenics. The founder of Planned Parenthood was one. A lot of their arguments just sound like eugenics, but they don't want to be honest about it.
Presiona para expandir...
It's very rare to find someone supporting eugenics. This goes across the entire political spectrum, even here on the farms!

This is so strange to me, as eugenics is something almost no one would protest if put in another suit of words. We already ban incest, which is a type of eugenics. Few would argue that it's morally right for someone with a horrible 100% inheritable disease to knowingly reproduce. Even fewer would say no to the chance of eliminating disease in their prospective child.

But "eugenics" has become this scary curse word that even proclaimed national socialists hesitate to use favorably.

Not going to go off topic here by actually starting to mass debate eugenics, but it's a great example of what the OP is discussing.
 
Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
This thread isn’t about that discussion. It’s about taking a step back and asking why you feel so strongly about this technical question of fact, when it’s clear that your true belief is ideological (i.e. a universal second amendment). Take a moment to consider how rabid you are acting in arguing against something raised as an example, and correspondingly how you are proving my primary observation. You have been brainwashed.
Presiona para expandir...
when it comes to gun control at least, the argument for gun control rarely takes this balance into consideration and there's a long standing structure of the government challenging "inalienable rights" under some pretty flimsy justifications while pretending to take the balance into consideration. Especially when it's something legally enshrined as of equal importance to the ability to speak freely

people dig their heels in because it's enshrined. the subversion of it is explicit in its goal, it's contrary to very thing the second ammendment guarantees. It does in fact explicitly state that speaking your mind is of equal importance to you owning a gun. That's the start point, work from there.
 
big pauper dijo:
people dig their heels in because it's enshrined. the subversion of it is explicit in its goal, it's contrary to very thing the second ammendment guarantees. It does in fact explicitly state that speaking your mind is of equal importance to you owning a gun. That's the start point, work from there.
Presiona para expandir...
Yeah that contextualisation is another aspect and a very good point. In that particular debate it could be said that it is actually the proponents of gun control who are being “disingenuous” in arguing for “common sense gun control” to subvert the second amendment, rather than directly attempting to repeal or amend it.
 
Rekieta’s Broken Penis dijo:
Yeah that contextualisation is another aspect and a very good point. In that particular debate it could be said that it is actually the proponents of gun control who are being “disingenuous” in arguing for “common sense gun control” to subvert the second amendment, rather than directly attempting to repeal or amend it.
Presiona para expandir...
Prima facie gun control would be actually controlling firearm accessibility in public settings, such as already acceptable in schools, courthouses, bars, gathering places, etc. The conceit is that "common sense" involves preventing individuals from possessing weapons in the first place. That's not common sense at all, that's contrary to the very principle that they're appealing to

Also the fact that most people who think guns need to be more controlled generally have no knowledge of how tightly controlled they actually are. Most people screaming about gun control legitimately have no clue you can take someone's guns away from them permanently by filing a restraining order against them
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo