Politics

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:27 PM

Why Calling Someone A Shill Betrays The Weakness Of Your Position, And Your Inability To Defend It.

http://badskeptic.com/?p=750

"...

Not only is the shill argument empty and sad, it’s one of the most common mistakes made by people in any argument. It’s a logical fallacy, known as an ad hominem. (Against the person.) The crier o’ shill is attacking the person making a statement in an attempt to render that target’s argument invalid, rather than demonstrating any falsehood in the argument through attacking the argument itself.

Of course you would say there’s no scientific proof that GMOs are dangerous! You’re getting paid by Monsanto!

Not only is the crier o’ shill refusing to address any argument their target makes with a statement like this, they are usually doing so, as I said before, on the evidence that the target opposes them, leaving no room whatsoever for the crier o’ shill to be wrong.

This is what it means to be “unfalsifiable”. Being unfalsifiable doesn’t mean the crier o’ shill’s argument can’t be false. It means their accusation is automatically meaningless, because there’s no way for anyone in the situation to show that they definitely are not a shill, as crier declares. The crier o’ shill might as well just put their fingers in their ears and go, “LA LA LA LA LA!!!”

The only thing the crier o’ shill proves is that they don’t give a flying fuck about having an actual discussion, about hearing any viewpoint but their own, or about any reality outside of the one they’re already convinced exists. Saying, “I’m right, and that’s that! Neener!” is good enough for them.

..."


--------------------------------------------------


Please support your claims. Baseless personal attacks do not help your cause, whatever it might be.

27 replies, 7196 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Calling Someone A Shill Betrays The Weakness Of Your Position, And Your Inability To Defend It. (Original post)
realhuckleb May 2014 OP
reticle May 2014 #1
realhuckleb May 2014 #6
Cliqueclaque May 2014 #2
realhuckleb May 2014 #7
Cliqueclaque May 2014 #9
realhuckleb May 2014 #12
Cliqueclaque May 2014 #20
realhuckleb May 2014 #23
Matthew May 2014 #3
Trainman95630 May 2014 #4
realhuckleb May 2014 #13
yellow_flag_of_hate May 2014 #5
realhuckleb May 2014 #24
Arthur Dayne May 2014 #8
Slayer May 2014 #11
realhuckleb May 2014 #15
WhoProfits May 2014 #10
realhuckleb May 2014 #14
sabrina May 2014 #16
realhuckleb May 2014 #17
sabrina May 2014 #19
realhuckleb May 2014 #21
sabrina May 2014 #25
realhuckleb May 2014 #26
SummBoddie May 2014 #18
realhuckleb May 2014 #22
Liberal seminarian May 2014 #27

Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:38 PM

1. It's rare...

... that I have the pleasure of reading something that's a load of bollocks of the magnitude of this load of bollocks. Congrats. It reminds me of nothing so much as a Republican politician accusing his opponent of doing what he is in fact doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reticle (Reply #1)

Wed May 21, 2014, 10:06 PM

6. LOL!

Awwww! I'm sorry that evidence matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:38 PM

2. Someone needs a hug



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliqueclaque (Reply #2)

Wed May 21, 2014, 10:06 PM

7. Someone needs to find a way to discuss matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Reply #7)

Wed May 21, 2014, 10:12 PM

9. I discuss lots of things

Unlike some other people on the board who seem to have a more singular focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliqueclaque (Reply #9)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:27 PM

12. I wasn't actually referring to you.

Of course, if you're going to push that mantra, when I've just posted an OP that covers how to discuss matters and how not to discuss matter, well, you're claim seems to be wanting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Reply #12)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:42 PM

20. Then you should probably have answered the post of the person you were referring to

I've already told you I'm not competent to evaluate your claims or those of the people who disagree with you, all I see is dueling links that don't convince me of anything either way.

I am however skeptical of anyone who tells me something is "perfectly safe", it ain't what you don't know that hurts you often, it's what you know that isn't so.

You might recall that after 9/11 the public was told the the air over the WTC site was safe, turns out that was a deliberate lie on the part of the authorities. People have good reason to be skeptical of government and business interests that often have very little interest in the health and safety of the general public.

I'm not even all that concerned about direct effects on humans from GMO, I'm more inclined to doubt that all possible environmental risks from genetic modification have been identified and proven negligible.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliqueclaque (Reply #20)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:01 AM

23. I don't buy that.

I think you're smarter than that. I think you can see the difference between 2000 peer-reviewed studies and 2 or 3 studies published in crap journals and then pulled after criticism showed them to be wanting.

Also, you might want to remember that simple anecdotes of past wrongdoing do not prove current wrongdoing, especially when we're talking about a technology that has been studied ad nauseum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:44 PM

3. What's amusing is when one throws that accusation around on low-traffic sites. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:47 PM

4. I agree with your post

 

but on the jury I voted to allow the comment to stay. I think it's good to see who can present an argument and who has to resort to ad hominems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trainman95630 (Reply #4)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:30 PM

13. I can respect that.

It's just tiresome.

I'm old, and I remember being on a board called Intellectual Capital back in the late '90s into the early 2000s. The board was filled with posters across the political spectrum, but discussion was respectful, in depth, and educational for all. Such tactics were shown the door by everyone as crap. It would be great to find such a community again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:50 PM

5. Except Chris Mattews

Tingle legs is the mother-of-all shills. No one else, just him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellow_flag_of_hate (Reply #5)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:23 AM

24. Cable talking heads?

Yeah, I dropped them 22 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 10:09 PM

8. Jury results:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed May 21, 2014, 10:00 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why Calling Someone A Shill Betrays The Weakness Of Your Position, And Your Inability To Defend It.
http://www.discussionist.com/101521053

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is uncivil, off-topic, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Fishing..... with GMO bait, most probably.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of Discussionist members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 21, 2014, 10:06 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't know why this should be hidden. If you disagree, respond with evidence.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OMG with this stupid alert. THIS. IS. NOT. DU. STOP. WITH. THE. SILLY. ALERTS.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an argument against ad hominem attacks. Did this really get alerted because of the content? It sounds like someone is taking issue with something else written on another thread. When did "probably fishing" become a valid reason to pull a post?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Most probably? Try again when you know something.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


I was #2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arthur Dayne (Reply #8)

Wed May 21, 2014, 10:19 PM

11. I was #5.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arthur Dayne (Reply #8)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:31 PM

15. Now that is funny!

How dare anyone talk about methods of discussion, especially those are only attempting to kill discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 10:17 PM

10. If it walks like a duck ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhoProfits (Reply #10)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:30 PM

14. Cliches are not evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:33 PM

16. I agree that people use ad homs mainly because they are unable to support their

positions or are too lazy to do so.

Re Monsanto, GMOs are harmful and I'm willing to back it up without any ad homs. But that is another topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina (Reply #16)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:35 PM

17. Why not back it up?

Please do so. PM me with the information if you don't want to post it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Reply #17)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:41 PM

19. I stated why. This thread is not about Monsanto. Which is why I said it is 'another topic'.

The thread is about how to discuss issues without hurling insults at people you don't agree with. You did mention Monsanto so I assumed there is or was a discussion about GMOs somewhere else.

I agreed with you about the main point you were making in the OP. If there is a thread on GMOs I would rather post in that thread. Changing the subject derails the thread from its original topic. That is all I meant.

I have no problem discussing it on the public forum, just in an appropriate thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina (Reply #19)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:58 PM

21. Well, then, cool.

But you could go to another thread and give me crap.

Just saying. (I hate it when people say, "Just saying." So, sorry.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Reply #21)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:30 AM

25. I may take you up on that offer, and YOU may regret it! Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina (Reply #25)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:32 AM

26. I doubt it.

But I am willing to be proven wrong.

No, really. I used to believe that GMOs were horrific.

I was proven wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:39 PM

18. This

A similar tactic is to claim that the opposition is stupid, evil, crazy, or some combination of all three. "Shill" to m could conceivably fall under the "evil" claim.

Why, no one would ever support your position unless they were paid to do so. You just let yourself be bought by the filthy lucre, you evil, evil person.

I see this time and time again on discussion boards, mostly lefty, but also significant number of right-leaning ones. (At least, that's my personal experience, YMMV.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SummBoddie (Reply #18)

Wed May 21, 2014, 11:59 PM

22. It's a non-partisan tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realhuckleb (Original post)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:49 AM

27. When one side of an argument/discussion

devolves into name-calling, then that side has lost the argument. Resorting to the "shill" argument is a bit like Godwin's law regarding the invoking of "Hitler" and/or the "Nazis". Frankly, there should be a similar law for the "shill" accusation, although I'd have no idea what to call it.

And the problem is, even if someone IS a shill, and I have no doubt that they do, indeed, exist, just not on the levels that are often claimed, (kind of along the lines of the old adage that "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you"); there's no real way to prove it one way or the other. So it's best to stick with the facts and merits of your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politics