<p>nspeds...you've made alot of really good points, good shafts to maize. good job. i don't agree with that the idea that liberals are justified in using straw man for the sake of garnering votes. political premises aren't as complicated as we make them to be -- leftist politics can and should be put in layman's terms. secondly, if you're a kantian, then you should know that the action itself is all that matters, and can never be justified through whatever end it brings about. hence, how could liberals be justified in shady tactics to win an election? i would love for them to actually effing win once in a while these days...but adapting republican, fallacious means is only bringing us down with them.</p>
<p>Normative: I ought to Y, You ought to X, We all ought not to Z</p>
<p>Postive: X is Y</p>
<p>A good example of a postive statement is the one you posted as nomative ( but then again theres that - "implied premise" that goes against the entire rest of my post, right?)</p>
<p>Check mate, killer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i don't agree with that the idea that liberals are justified in using straw man for the sake of garnering votes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, he's trying to say that I said that. Err, not said, implied. After he learned what his terms meant and had to make himself seem less wrong. I think he assumed I was a leftist.</p>
<p>My definition of "normative" is from Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals." </p>
<p>That is my first evidence.</p>
<p>Ad populum fallacies rarely make normative judgments, but assess that the justification of an argument is predicated by some sort of consensus.</p>
<p>That being said, let me go over this one last time:
1) This statement is an enthymeme... BECAUSE...
2) the implicit premise/conclusion .... AND THAT IS...
3) is that liberals are justified in opining straw mans for the sake of garnering votes, since a more intellectual campaign would have been too esoteric for voters... WHICH IS...
4) An ad populum fallacy.</p>
<p>When we derive the implicit premise from your reasoning, it is rendered an ad populum fallacy; if you do not wish to derive an implicit premise, then your argument holds no merit. It fails either way.</p>
<p>Maybe you should read my post again. I wasn't trying to argue that it was right wrong or indifferent. I was saying it was what happened. No implied premise of morality.</p>
<p>Posative, not normative.</p>
<p>Try again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
then your argument holds no merit
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what argument is that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
secondly, if you're a kantian, then you should know that the action itself is all that matters, and can never be justified through whatever end it brings about. hence, how could liberals be justified in shady tactics to win an election?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not endorse the actions of liberals. I am a Nozickian Libertarian. My friends refer to me as an idealist; perhaps they are accurate in their assessment. I however, prefer to adhere to principles, not popular appeals like our dear friend over here...</p>
<p>sorry, nspeds, i just read that post of yours without the 100 preceding it between you two.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No implied premise of morality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then next time, when defining the ad populum fallacy, substitute "right" for "true" or "justified".</p>
<p>Your incompetence in this matter is glaring.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nspeds...you've made alot of really good points, good shafts to maize. good job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Over everyone's head, correct maize&blue?</p>
<p>Ahh,yes, because she's SOOO nuetral. Better call me out on the extra "O" too.</p>
<p>You're too much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they ran on their pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-affirmative action, pro-tax burden, pro-welfare/social services agenda (instead of their "Bush is a moron and we're not Bush") - they would have lost be even more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that it is not an enthemyme, then it is a conditional statement; if you hold that the statement is valid without an implicit premise, it begs the question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
No implied premise of morality. </p>
<p>Then next time, when defining the ad populum fallacy, substitute "right" for "true" or "justified".</p>
<p>Your incompetence in this matter is glaring.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You still haven't told me why my original post was that. Now you're just attacking my definition of ad populum for using the word "right" instead of "justified"?</p>
<p>"The Northeastern limosine liberals have lost touch with America."</p>
<p>not really, America has developed a distain for intellectualism and education in general. the liberals haven't lost touch, the majority of america has embraced ignorance.</p>
<p>this statement is a trick by the new conservatives to try and push the left closer to the right by making them conform to a right-defined model of the left. if they can repeat that the "limosine liberals" have lost touch over and over again and get their followers to continously dispense the argument, eventually people will begin to accept it as fact having heard it for so long and expect the left to get more "in-touch." the real right does not actually think that the left is out of touch, they just want to create a perceptiion that stops the public from analyzing arguments rather than catch phrases.</p>
<p>this whole moral majority argument is absolute rubbish. this last election proves nothing other than the country is just as equally divided as it was 5 years ago. bush doesn't have a "mandate form america" nor does america nessessarily primarily care about morals; rove just got the damn cristians to vote. if the left could just get the youth of america to vote it'd be the other way around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not really, America has developed a distain for intellectualism and education in general. the liberals haven't lost touch, the majority of america has embraced ignorance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you God; though you are not going to give me an acceptance to Rice, this is the next best thing after an acceptance to Harvard and Georgetown:)</p>
<p>Excellent post!</p>
<p>
[quote]
If that it is not an enthemyme, then it is a conditional statement; if you hold that the statement is valid without an implicit premise, it begs the question.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If X than Y</p>
<p>(I guess you could say "not X" is an implied premise from empirical evidence of history, but that's far from implying a normative premise).</p>
<p>...or I guess you could say it's circular due to the fact that it would never be provable in the world (and thus circular if one attempted to defend it within itself), but I wasn't proporting to be propping it up with more than my opinion anyway.</p>
<p>Either way, they're both real stretches. You should probably just admit when you've been thrashed and move along. </p>
<p>I'll even give you one more spelling mistake so you can point it out and feel good about yourself on your way out of the thread.</p>
<p>nspeds, how did you find out about harvard already? ***! haha</p>
<p>Oh, I do not know about Georgetown or Harvard. I was just saying that an acceptance to either is the next best thing to getting into Rice.</p>
<p><a href="I%20guess%20you%20could%20say%20%22not%20X%22%20is%20an%20implied%20premise%20from%20empirical%20evidence%20of%20history,%20but%20that's%20far%20from%20implying%20a%20normative%20premise">quote</a>.</p>
<p>I guess you could say it's circular due to the fact that it would never be provable in the world, but I wasn't proporting to be propping it up with more than my opinion anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, a conditional statement does not yield a conclusion; it is either true or false. However, since you do not provide evidence for its trueness, it begs the question. If you do not want to beg a question, you can convert it into an enthemyme and it becomes a hypothetical syllogism. Since I thought you were more sophisticated, I thought you would have done the latter...</p>
<p>...when you make such a hypothetical syllogism, it commits the ad populum fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I wasn't proporting to be propping it up with more than my opinion anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was my mistake to assume that you would ever propound a substantive argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was my mistake to assume that you would ever propound a substantive argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So when someone makes a completely unproveable statement (such as "what if's" concerning the past) that's plainly opinion (and obviously so to everyone in the room), you usually assume that they are implying a premise that is directly contrary to their point?</p>
<p>You must walk around confused quite a bit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since I thought you were more sophisticated, I thought you would have done the latter
[/quote]
Why would you assume that? To do so without omnipotence or a time machine would be clearly fallacious.</p>
<p>are you going to answer the arguments (s)he makes? (rather than the joke)</p>
<p>paulreetz, are you responding to me?</p>
<p>no, the post right above mine.</p>
<p>nspeds - do you do AIM?</p>