What makes a bad argument bad?

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@St.Roymond

You’re actually citing Lying Lisle?

What makes a bad argument bad? is the question of this discussion. An ad hominem attack always makes an argument bad.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@cewoldt

@St.Roymond

You’re actually citing Lying Lisle?

What makes a bad argument bad? is the question of this discussion. An ad hominem attack always makes an argument bad.

It’s not entirely useless. It may indicate a conflict of interest, or a track record of telling demonstrable falsehoods, or an unqualified “fake expert.” As such it can be a helpful heuristic if your time is limited and you’re trying to decide whether to examine the argument in more detail or to give it a miss. But it’s a lazy form of argumentation. Good arguments consider the substance of what is being said rather than who is saying it.

[Randy]

@cewoldt

All good, or almost all good. But a good argument doesn’t cherry pick the data, and that addresses the issue of this thread, good and bad arguments. Hayhoe notes the transition of China to wind and solar from coal. They are closing coal mines and even flooding some with water and floating solar panels on the water. And they are closing coal generating plants.

I went on line, and there were dozens of articles heralding what China is doing in developing wind and solar. Good for them, but . . . There were also articles about the resurgence in building many coal fired electrical generating plants. Xi promises that this does not mean they are backing down on their net zero by 2050 commitment. Please forgive my skepticism.

Good point. I am glad you looked back. Thank you for watching Hayhoe’s video. I suspect that, as both came out some time ago (2015 and 2018), she was not aware of this walking back of China’s commitment. I think she made it in good faith, but agree that I don’t trust Xi or authoritarian governments. In my experience, Africans in general do not trust China, especially with its habit of seizing property after first appearing helpful. It’s not all bad, and can be a catalyst for good; but I don’t trust the approach (nor does Sri Lanka, I think, after China seized their port for non payment, which may have been one of the causes for decreased purchasing of fertilizer, as they had few funds).

For me, I agree that we can’t let our hobbyhorses take precedence over the poor’s needs now. That is extremely myopic. Niger is worsening in situation, with extremely tenuous agricultural situation only made worse by terrorist organizations. Our church has finished a fund drive to supply petroleum -derived fertilizer to Africa–clearly, it’s needed in most areas.

In fact, we need to help the poor even more, so as to avoid misuse by authoritarian regimes. Our family has been working to support World Vision and others in response to the disruption in Africa, in particular (my grandpa used to work with both WV and International Aid, which you may have been familiar with).

On the other hand, if climate change is real, and the poor are at even worse risk down the road, it’s my obligation to look at how best to change my effect, especially when I can afford to. That may only occur with what I can do, myself. I should practice what I preach.

I appreciate what you wrote. I agree we need to focus on the substance, presuming good intent of everyone. There are a number of good causes, some of which can appear to conflict. I agree that it will take patience and understanding to do the best we can, to help in the best of our ability. I do not think anyone has evil intent. I can learn from you (and have learned, already).

Thanks. Blessing.

[St.Roymond]

@cewoldt

@St.Roymond

You’re actually citing Lying Lisle?

What makes a bad argument bad? is the question of this discussion. An ad hominem attack always makes an argument bad.

“Lying Lisle” isn’t an ad hominem, it;s an objective label to serve as a warning to others. The label accurately reflects his record.
It’s not meant as a form of argumentation, it’s meant to call into question anyone who thinks he doesn’t consistently lie.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

“Lying Lisle” isn’t an ad hominem, it;s an objective label to serve as a warning to others

Who has the right to make such a judgement.

Richard

[Apistos]

@St.Roymond

@cewoldt

@St.Roymond

You’re actually citing Lying Lisle?

What makes a bad argument bad? is the question of this discussion. An ad hominem attack always makes an argument bad.

“Lying Lisle” isn’t an ad hominem, it;s an objective label to serve as a warning to others. The label accurately reflects his record.
It’s not meant as a form of argumentation, it’s meant to call into question anyone who thinks he doesn’t consistently lie.

Yeah but such Christianity lies for The TRUTH!

But don’t worry, it doesn’t actually distract from men (and it’s always, only, ever men! …) of good will, critiquing at the level of the ground of being and the hypostatic union in the face of unchangeable eternal infinity.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

“Lying Lisle” isn’t an ad hominem, it;s an objective label to serve as a warning to others

Who has the right to make such a judgement.

Everyone.

Everyone also has the right to make judgements regarding hypocrisy.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

Everyone also has the right to make judgements regarding hypocrisy.

And who defines hypocrisy? An Atheist? The Pope? God? Orthodoxy? (whatever that is) Consensus?

Or just anyone who rejects YEC or certain faiths

Richard
Edit

Judgementalism is wrong
(which is a paradoxical statement in itself)

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

Thank you. I didn’t look at the dates, so Hayhoe gets a thumbs up for speaking in good faith.

As I recall at the time, the move to “organic fertilizer only” in Sri Lanka was touted as a move to farm organically for the benefit of the planet. That was likely a diversion tactic to draw the focus from the real problem of lack of funds for foreign currency exchange, as later reported.

Yes, international relief agencies can help alleviate the very real problems.