Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

who says or what is said?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 2:49:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can't stand it when people quote other people in general.

If you hear somebody say something you think is cool, repeat it. If you are having a conversation with somebody, they are less likely to even listen if you start off with "As blah blah blah once said,".

That isn't to say that you should never say that someone else said something.. Sometimes it is context appropriate, or just funnier to attribute the quote to a person. As an example, If you are an American talking to fellow Americans(especially on some patriotic holiday that involves drinking and blowing sh!t up), saying that "Ben Franklin once said that "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"", is totally appropriate. Attributing the quote to a respected founding father of our country makes the already comical statement a degree funnier. Especially if the receiver never heard it before.

I'm all for the stealing of awesome quotes, ideas stand on their own, I say.

Nothing is more frustrating than debating with somebody who just chirps quotes at you the whole time. Sometimes it is appropriate(like if you were to quote a reputed psychologist on the subject of psychology or something), but most of the time it is just annoying.

Nothing is more annoying than people who only quote scripture, and will do it to EVERYTHING you say. Often times, the scripture is completely irrelevant.

It's like poking one of those toys that cycles between 15 different cute and annoying catch phrases.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 2:55:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!


I wouldn't dispute that the content of someone's words should be weighed on their merits but I do think the source of those words should be considered as well. A source that is known to be biased or lacks suitable credentials should not carry the same weight as one who is fair and knowledgeable. This is not to say the former couldn't provide a fair or knowledgeable point of view but that you should be more scrutinous in analyzing them.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:04:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!

No, it does not. To assign something credit or discredit because of "who" said it rather then "what" was said is a classical fallacy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:12:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A good example of this fallacy is when people dismiss everything Charles Manson says, even though most of what he's saying is on point and even carries philosophical value.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:29:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 3:04:50 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!

No, it does not. To assign something credit or discredit because of "who" said it rather then "what" was said is a classical fallacy.

And yet, entire faiths are brushed away on the sole basis of "who" espoused it :) and conversely entire faiths are sustained on the sole basis of "who" espoused it....

I guess, faith is concerned more with the who part rather than the what part......or to put it more correctly, the what is analyzed only after the who is confirmed...
don't know if that came out right!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 3:29:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/19/2011 3:04:50 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!

No, it does not. To assign something credit or discredit because of "who" said it rather then "what" was said is a classical fallacy.

And yet, entire faiths are brushed away on the sole basis of "who" espoused it :) and conversely entire faiths are sustained on the sole basis of "who" espoused it....

Since when? Care to give examples? Because none of the prominent Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens) have ever done that. The Atheists skip the association fallacy and strictly attack the doctrines to refute faith, not by pointing put "bad people who are Christian." It's the Christians who commit this fallacy by pointing out that the founding fathers were Christian (which they weren't, they were Deists anyways) to support the validity of Christianity.

I guess, faith is concerned more with the who part rather than the what part......or to put it more correctly, the what is analyzed only after the who is confirmed...

Not sure what you mean by that. Obviously religions are concerned with their religious figures (the who), but they also focus on the what (the doctrines).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:51:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 3:46:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/19/2011 3:29:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/19/2011 3:04:50 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!

No, it does not. To assign something credit or discredit because of "who" said it rather then "what" was said is a classical fallacy.

And yet, entire faiths are brushed away on the sole basis of "who" espoused it :) and conversely entire faiths are sustained on the sole basis of "who" espoused it....

Since when? Care to give examples? Because none of the prominent Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens) have ever done that. The Atheists skip the association fallacy and strictly attack the doctrines to refute faith, not by pointing put "bad people who are Christian." It's the Christians who commit this fallacy by pointing out that the founding fathers were Christian (which they weren't, they were Deists anyways) to support the validity of Christianity.

Like when Penn and Teller attack the Dahi Lama, not for his words, but for other things that he has done.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 3:46:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/19/2011 3:29:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/19/2011 3:04:50 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!

No, it does not. To assign something credit or discredit because of "who" said it rather then "what" was said is a classical fallacy.

And yet, entire faiths are brushed away on the sole basis of "who" espoused it :) and conversely entire faiths are sustained on the sole basis of "who" espoused it....

Since when? Care to give examples? Because none of the prominent Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens) have ever done that. The Atheists skip the association fallacy and strictly attack the doctrines to refute faith, not by pointing put "bad people who are Christian." It's the Christians who commit this fallacy by pointing out that the founding fathers were Christian (which they weren't, they were Deists anyways) to support the validity of Christianity.
That's what I meant. People of one faith discrediting other faiths. Atheists are a breed apart. They discredit all faiths :) (obviously based on the "what")

I guess, faith is concerned more with the who part rather than the what part......or to put it more correctly, the what is analyzed only after the who is confirmed...

Not sure what you mean by that. Obviously religions are concerned with their religious figures (the who), but they also focus on the what (the doctrines).
I find it a common theme among various faiths that the one espousing the faith tends to be looked upon as "the perfect human being". Rarely do members of a faith harbor doubts as to the moral character of their religious figure.
Did that come out clearly?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 4:29:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 2:29:35 PM, Indophile wrote:
Does it matter who said a certain thing, as long as what's been said has merit?

Suppose a person says doing such a thing is good. Should we immediately discard it if we come to know that that person is a criminal? Does a person's personal conduct, beliefs, sexual orientations, or what have you, be allowed to color our judgement at all?

I believe not. One should dispassionately look at what's being argued instead of concentrating on who's doing the arguing. I'm not saying that one should not maintain a certain cautious approach or use one's own sound judgement.

But I find that most of the times, the words get lost and the entire discussion hinges upon one specific incident in that person's past that has nothing to do with what he/she's saying!

Isn't this the same principle behind open source . . . ?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.