Feminist makes the case for calling Newton's Laws "Newton's Rape Manual". These are the people teaching college students.

submitted by Chipit from stephenhicks.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yellow_algebra_31 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Imo that part of his argument was a form of ad-hominem, using guilt by association. This is, of course, not my site to moderate, but I would like to present my reasoning for any readers and for mods/admins to consider or not in moderation decisions as they wish to.

This is my evaluation of his comment:

You are insane.

Imo this is closer to name-calling than ad-hominem.

These feminists are insane. This isn't a new idea, either. That you would take their side looks really, really bad for you.

[...] -- Susan Sontag, Feminist, 'Styles of Radical Will' (1966)

In the "pyramid of debate" graphic, the "Ad-Hominem" level is described as "attacks another's characteristics or authority but not the substance of their argument."

He made statements about "these feminists," and said that it "looks bad" if they and I are in agreement about anything. This would be "guilt by association," and it does not address any of the arguments I made (none of which were "argument from authority" of any feminist author -- this sort of attempt to discredit feminist authors might have been appropriate if I had made an argument like that.) Additionally, he merely quoted an author while calling them negative names ("insane," "looks bad"). While it still would not have been engaging with my actual arguments, he also did not engage with the arguments of the feminist he was quoting.

My arguments were roughly:

  1. rape and torture metaphors being present in the works of Bacon and Newton was new information to me

  2. I think the OP book text is meant to be subversive (I made comparisons to other things I think are subversive)

  3. there was a period of somewhat recent European history during which many Europeans turned on and attacked their own women

  4. we should find non-subversive ways to discuss information like is presented in the OP book

The feminist quote seems mostly meant to illustrate that its writer had an anti-Western attitude, but I already addressed that in point #2 and #4. That he would make this argument anyway shows a lack of engagement (for whatever reason) with my actual arguments.

If it addresses #1 or #3 I'm not sure how.

I maintain that the comment does not rise above the level of ad hominem. A statement supported by evidence and argumentation is still an ad hominem if that evidence and argumentation is directed towards attacking the author rather than engaging with the arguments.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Perhaps, but usually I judge comments by their highest part. So I would say the best part of his comment qualifies as a counter argument (as it does use a citation quote to back itself up)

https://saidit.net/static/PyramidDebate.jpg

However the lowest part of the comment is obviously him calling you insane, which classifies as name-calling, I'd agree completely.

Then everything else in his comment is somewhere between those two. So the overall quality is not great, no question about it.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

We're currently in agreement that he made a citation, but we're currently in disagreement about what that citation addresses.

If it addresses me or my character, then it's an ad-hominem, no? And if it addresses an argument I made, then it's a counter-argument or refutation, no?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think his point is "feminist ideology is insane" and the quote does back up his point, so I think it's a fair counter-argument. But the worst part of his comment is definitely name-calling. I wish he could just make his point without flinging names around like a child. Seems to be a pattern with him.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I find myself in disagreement on these points:

  • I think his argument about feminist ideology being insane does not rise above the level of namecalling. Though he quotes her, he does not make any argument regarding his opinion of Susan Sontag's work quoted there, and I don't think 'insane' really qualifies as a claim about an attribute of her work so much as just name-calling.
  • I think in general (not just specific to this particular author and quote) the argument that "feminist ideology is insane" is not really an argument, but a form of name-calling. Actually arguing that someone is insane usually requires some sort of evaluation of a medical problem of the brain of that person, and is usually done in more specific and technical language than "insane". "Feminist ideology is insane" here may as well be "Feminist ideology is ass-hat-ish".
  • I think the argument "feminist ideology is insane" doesn't address any of my arguments, and thus does not qualify as a counter-argument.

I find myself in agreement on these points:

  • he quotes a feminist author (I don't know much about Susan Sontag but I think she's usually considered a feminist author)
  • at least part of his comment qualifies as name-calling

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If I said "scientology is insane and here's a quote that shows it", then that's an argument, not just name-calling. But I get what you are saying.

[–]Aureus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree. IMO it's valid to make a value judgement as part of an argument. If that was not allowed, it would be impossible to debate morality, or discuss whether something is "good" or "bad".

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. The idea "x is bad" is kind of the basis of morality, in a way. So it has to be allowed as a valid argument

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you disagree with my assessment of chipit's comment in question and where it falls on the pyramid of debate?

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I find myself in disagreement.

I would consider "<ideology> is <insult>, just look at this <insult-like> quote!" to be a form of name-calling.

I would consider "<ideology> has <trait>, which is exemplified in <trait-exhibiting> quote" to be an argument.

I would consider "insane" (and other words like "crazy," "nuts," etc) to be more insults and stigmatizing words than to be actual arguments. Like the "ass-hat" from the pyramid of debate graphic. What is "insane" supposed to mean? Out of touch with reality? Well then you have to show how what they're saying is false. Aggressive? Uncomfortable? Abusive? Subversive? Anti-Western? Inconvenient? Incorrect? Not in alignment with my views? And typing this out I can understand why I've always felt unsatisfied when others have told me, "oh don't mind that crazy guy on the corner, he's nuts." It doesn't address the actual argument, and I'm left feeling like I don't understand why he's nuts, insane, crazy, whatever. The only additional information I've been given is that someone else thinks it's appropriate to dismiss what the person is saying, and I have no information about why.

A "trait" would be something more like "is hostile to men" or "is anti-Western". Or one could simply argue that a claim is inaccurate.

And regardless of this, "<ideology> is <bad thing>" does not address any of my arguments (as I described in my first reply), and it is explicitly used to stigmatize me as an ad-hominem (and again, ad hominem can use arguments and citations but they will be directed against the author rather than the author's arguments).

I still find myself in disagreement on these points.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I mean, sometimes an ideology can be a bad thing, that's a valid point for someone to make. But again I don't like the insulting way he went about doing that.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Of course an ideology can be a bad thing! But I don't think "<ideology> is <insult>" is anything other than name-calling. It doesn't add more information about what's bad about the ideology.

For example "communism is insane" vs "communist groups tend to kill a huge number of people in political purges when they take power, and many people under communist governments end up starving."

But again though, it's my assessment that this isn't really relevant to whether the comment was an ad-hominem against me. Whether or not it is an ad-hominem against feminism, making a negative assertion about feminism and using that to then make a negative assertion about me, and by extension my arguments, would be an ad-hominem.

It's like if someone were to say, "hey look at this commie writing, isn't it insane?!" and I were to say, "I think there's something to it. I can see that it's harmful in that it's goading people to hurt others, but I also think the point that switching to a life of factory work when people had previously been working on farms is a pretty drastic change and we haven't dealt with all of it. I think we should be able to talk about these things without goading people against factory employers." And the person were to reply and say, "you're insane, just like all commies are insane, look at this other thing that's totally insane." In this example the last reply would be name-calling and ad-hominem, and would not be an example of engaging with the actual arguments.

That's still my assessment at this point.

[–]I-0x0-I 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I lurked for a long time (almost 2 years) before i made an account. magnora7 dropped a line in r/conspiracy, another place i lurked. i havent been very active but i appreciate the content from u/chipit and u/endlessSunflowers. i dont think that u/chipit is harmful and its suspicious that a 24 hour old account is trying to get them banned through bending the pyramid of debate rules. I never went to college to learn these fancy debate terms like 'ad hominem' or understand what 'micro-aggressions' are. i have had to look these things up. i love liberty and believe in free speech for all and dig what u/magnora7 and u/derr have got going. i think just because someone is blunt or crass it doesnt diminish their viewpoint per se, as much as some idea totalitarian who demands a user be punished in long-winded college edumacted paragraphs. its almost more of an attack or obsession, does it elevate the discussion? (edited some spelling)