Corgan Sow

I don't know how to describe the most sickening ideology since racist supremacy (like in form of Aryan Supremism by Hitler or KKK). It is something akin to Survival of the Fittest kind of morality. There is an elitist believe that the poor and the oppressed, or they refer them as "parasites" especially from Third World, are draining the earth's precious resources. Some of these sick elitists I heard condone calls to stop charity aids to these people who do not have the capability to support themselves and are getting their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, water) without deserving it.

This calls came from the upper-class and shitheads who thinks "we do not have to give our hard-earned money to scums of the earth". Basically it is also another form of racism as they non-chalantly dismissed their civilisation and culture as primitive because they fall short of supremist civilisations; take Caucasian, Chinese and Japanese as example.

This kind of ideology also oppresses many people whom they feel weak; mental patients who seeks medical help and counselling, criminals who commit crime out of their oppressed and troubled past and people who commit suicide. They will go scoffing at these "feeble minded morons who do not deserved to be humans because they're immature and dumb" without realising these simple factors;

- the elitist came from a secured background where he/she doesn't experience the hardships of the person they scoffed. Or hypocrites.

- elitist and the scoffed person came from the same troubled background and when the elitist succeeds in life, the elitist dismisses his/her unlucky counterparts as being lazy.

You can notice these "elitists" debating here when they're experts at ad hominem assaults in non-religious debates, defending their views at the ridicule of others and being straightly smug with them purposely flaunting their 'Holier than Thou' attitudes.

Zadok001

I don't disagree with you, per se, but isn't this paragraph a rather perfect example of hipocracy? The elite use ad hominems, so you insult them for doing so?

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Zadok001 ]</p>

99Percent

Corgan Sow, can you be more especific? What group of "elitists" are you referring to?

Corgan Sow

Insult? I do not think so. Take this example:

A: The majority of the corruption problems in Papua New Guinea can be traced back to Malaysian logging companies and the use of a portion of their vast profits from illegal operations to bribe politicians. The local landowners get pitiful returns from these ventures and there has been no serious attempt at establishing downstream processing or re-forestation programs. It is straight in, get the logs out, see you and oh dear that's a mess we left but so what. That great self proclaimed spokesman for the third world Dr M is happily to let Malaysian companies carry out acts that would make Victorian colonists blush.

B: HAHAHAHAHA ... That funny, if not pathetic.
Malaysia has better forests and reforestations plans than Papua New Guinea where it could produce quality woods for internal and for imports. And I heard somewhere that its reforestation plans are one of the best in the world. Also, Malaysia have enough medical facilities to deal with disease which you can contract in a forest. I love to see if Papua New Guinea has such facilities.

Overall, it doesn't need to go some rat and disease infested country like Papua New Guinea for wood.

So, it is not right to disagree with B's ad hominem assault?

As for 99 percent, I do not think there is specfic group of people, but that example again will give you a clear view.

theyeti

I'm not sure why I feel compelled to reply, but I thought I'd point out that an ad hominem is not synonymous with using abusive language or name-calling. Rather, it's a specific kind of logical fallacy whereby an argument is dismissed by attacking the character of the person who made them. Consider the following examples:

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution clearly fails as science. This is because Darwin was a racist and can't be trusted.

2. Your ID "theory" fails to be science. All you have is a pathetic and worthless exercise in question-begging and definitional ambiguity that any idiot could see is totally vaccuous.

As I understand it, the first would be an ad hominem whereas the second would not. This is because only the first attacks an argument by attacking a person's character, while the second is simply rude. So name-calling isn't necessarily an ad hominem, and ad hominems don't necessarily employ name-calling.

theyeti

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Theyeti, while your second example, above, isn't ad hominem, it is an example of another type of fallacy: 'poisoning the well' (or what Ayn Rand called the 'argument by intimidation').

Keit.

Seraphim

Man, you guys are really densed ... and I'm not talking in term of Mass either ...

Read this :

"You can notice these "elitists" debating here when they're experts at ad hominem assaults in non-religious debates, defending their views at the ridicule of others and being straightly smug with them purposely flaunting their 'Holier than Thou' attitudes. "

and go here :

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001583&p=3" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001583&p=3</a>

I believe Corgan Sow is talking about ME and my attitude toward him. I think he was upset that I didn't hold his hands in Malaysian Politic thread. The reason why he couldn't do in a straightforward way is he is afraid I make a short work of him if he did ...

Corgan Sow, you are free to say whatever you want, I won't step on you on this thread ... happy?

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Seraphim ]</p>

theyeti

Actually, poisoning the well is a type of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem" target="_blank">ad hominem</a> whereby you suggest that someone favors a position only because that person benefits from it (e.g, financially). So it's an attempt to discredit an argument by saying that the person advocating it has selfish motives. Here is an example, courtesey of our good friend <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1144" target="_blank">Jonathan Wells</a>:

Of course if it weren't for the ID movement, Wells would be flipping burgers somewhere, so this is also a classic case of blatant hypocrisy.

The second example I had above doesn't really contain a fallacy, I think, except maybe unsupported assertion. Dickheadedness on the other hand isn't really a logical fallacy, just annoying.

theyeti