Topics
Creationism vs. Evolution
Organized Religion
Human Life
What's New?
Hate Mail
Links
About Me
Last Updated December 6, 2003
The Home link will now take you to the blog. This site is no longer being updated. | "Verticalhiker" Charleton ("Vertical Hiker") is a philosophy major with delusions of grandeur, the kind that you'd just like to kick square in the nuts because he'd probably say something like, "Well, how do you know that this world is even real; how do you know it's not just something like The Matrix?" He E-mailed me with a correction for my essay on logical fallacies in creationism vs. evolution debates, but he blew it out of proportion by quite a few orders of magnitude. He then claimed that he had lots of examples of me using fallacious reasoning. When I told him to list those examples, he adamantly refused! When I told him it was bad debating policy to make claims without being willing to provide evidence to back them up, he complained that he didn't have time. He forgot one of the most basic rules of debate: if you're going to make a claim, be ready to have evidence to back it up. I'd like to establish that I have nothing against philosophy majors in general, just ones like this, who like to exaggerate their own intelligence. Philosophy is a fun diversion lots of times, adn philosophy classes always get the best discussions going, but I don't see why anyone would devote their life to such a hopeless pursuit.
Dear friend,I appreciate your site. It was very interesting. I'm a philosophy major and to be honest, your site was perhaps, amusing and quite entertaining. Perhaps? Can't you decide? My friends and I were laughing because the very same arguments you were trying to teach everybody not to use when arguing (logical fallacies and all), you were using yourself while you were stating your examples. I see nothing but nitpicking from you. You focus on a few sentences and blow everything up beyond all reality. For example, in the strawman argument you've created: "To deny the truth of Creationism is to deny the Word of God Himself. If you don't accept God, you will be condemned to Hell to suffer for eternity," you say: Yes, that is an example of how not to argue, specifically the appeal to fear. I explained why it was fallacious in the first paragraph. "No logic. No argument. No reason. No intelligence. Just bigotry and self-righteousness." Precisely. There is no logic, real argumentation or reason behind the statement. It's just religious bigotry; that is simple observation. I'm still waiting for the part where I went wrong. Now, do you notice your own fallacies at all or are you not really learned in the art of language and argumentation? Just wondering because your strawman premise says, "To deny the TRUTH of creationism... What fallacy? Of course that's easy to tear down. How about "To deny Creationism is to deny the Word of God (or add "Himself"). That would be a little harder to argue. And by the way, if you know anything about logic and argumentation, that is a logical phrase, which means it is an argument. In logic, when you say, IF,... then,... you've created an argument, but you probably didn't know that. I can now see that the purpose of this E-mail was nothing more than to nitpick a few sentences from my site armed with small tidbits of trivia that you probably just learned last week in Philosophy 101. I certainly can't see any other purpose for it. You just wanted to impress your friends by anonymously E-mailing someone who wrote an essay on logical fallacies and nitpick it to make yourself feel big. Why else would you include that extraneous bit about "If you say 'if,' you make an argument, but you probably didn't know that"? You just wanted to flex some of your new muscle. That was your mistake. Another fallacy just in this one argument (out of the many you've created on this site, which by the way, I would be embarrassed to show this to any intelligent person, professor, or whomever knows enough about argumentation.), is that fact that you said, "it's no argument, no intelligence, ... Oh, how scathing. You'd be embarrassed to show it to a professor because he'd laugh at you for thinking it was wrong. You completely ignored the preceding paragraph, instead preferring to nitpick. "...just bigotry and self-righteousness." Bigotry is when you say something and your not open to another view even if the facts should appear opposite. Bigotry is being hateful toward a certain viewpoint SIMPLY BECAUSE it disagrees with yours. Facts have nothing to do with bigotry. I don't have to be open to every single viewpoint in the world to avoid being a bigot. Am I a psychic bigot because I think that Miss Cleo is full of shit? I was open to her claims. I had to be in order to critically evaluate them. After concluding that they were total bullshit, I am no longer required to be open to them. Also, you said this person is self-righteous, which maybe in our lingo today it means "one thinks he/she is better than another, or display's more "good" than somebody else; (I'm just assuming that's what you mean, although it may be different. However, let's just say you meant that.) Now, what you are doing is judging motives. This person never said or displayed anything about him/herself and you judged their motive and intent. It is just a mere statement repeated and paraphrased in the Bible, "If you don't accept God, then you are condemned to hell for eternity." Yes, I attack the motives after explaining why the argument is wrong. This person never said "personally" you're going to hell and you deserve it or never judged you saying you were going to hell. All he/she said was a phrase that comes through the bible over and over again (just like the basic John 3:16 that everybody knows, "For God so loved the world, that whoever believes in me[trust's in, clings to, rely's upon = in the greek that's what it really says], shall NOT PERISH, but have everlasting life.). Believing that I am going to Hell because of my atheist beliefs REQUIRES that I deserve to go there, because the Christian God is purported to be perfectly just. However, that's just your red herring. The statement is bigoted because it dismisses all other ideas simply because they disagree with the Bible. Believing in creationism REQUIRES religious bigotry. If you take the Bible literally, then you MUST, by extension, believe that non-Christians are evil, otherwise you're a hypocrite. I'm assuming that my phantom individual is consistent with his beliefs, and most creationists are. Here you are judging motives, as well as applying the "ad Hominem" (attacking the person's charactor), and you teaching people how not to argue. You obviously don't know what an ad hominem is. Perhaps you should read the essay again without the intent of looking for things to nitpick. You engage in an ad hominem when you say that a person's argument is wrong because of their character (i.e. "His argument is wrong because he's a convicted felon"). I am not saying that. I explain, in detail, why the argument is wrong in the first paragraph of the section. Everything after that is just insulting the person. I conclude that, because their argument is wrong for reasons which I outlined, that the person is a self-righteous bigot. There's much more where that came from. Your fallacious arguments are everywhere on your pages. If you chose this giant nitpick as your first attack, I'm not exactly afraid of the other bullshit you probably have in store. Learn what an ad hominem is, then learn why nitpicking is considered fallacious in arguing. Here's a hint: it has to do with focusing on trivial aspects of an argument. My friend, you have a great deal to learn about argumentation. You probably won't put this up on your web page for people to see because if one really researches what I said and really analyzes your arguments, they will see how fallious your arguments really are; thus making you look really bad. I know you'll probably say, "oh, there's too much to put on my page, that's why." Overall, people need to think for themselves and by putting this on your webpage, you would look bad. I dare you. This will most certainly go in my next batch of Hate Mail on the next update. It's just too entertaining to pass up. You picked a few sentences to nitpick to death and then DARED me to add you to a section specially reserved for morons, as though your position were invincible! Tell me, where did I go wrong in my EXPLANATION as to why the appeal to fear was fallacious? Where did I go wrong in my recommendations for how to counter the attack?
Obviously you never answered the questions, and said over and over that I was "nitpicking at a couple arguments" (BY THE WAY THAT'S WHY I SAID, "OUT OF THE MANY THAT YOU MADE"). That's because it's precisely what you did. You took a few sentences out of a section and then nitpicked them. You can say "out of the many that you made" all you want, but you only ADDRESSED those few lines, and then said "There's a lot more where that came from," but never bothered to back that up. The FACT that you had some problems with your argumentation style and you couldn't even admit it, shows that you are very immature, and by the way trying to use your tiny education (which you obviously don't have in philosophy or logic) only in your own major (which was physics or something)to make yourself look highly esteemed with great power over other thinkers. My argumentation style is my own. If you think I come off as an asshole, fine. But, the fact remains that I get the job done. I successfully demonstrate why my opponents' arguments are wrong. If I decide to mock them afterward, so be it. As for my "tiny" education, I'd challenge YOU to go through a physics curriculum. You're acting as if philosophy majors are the only people who can think critically, even though critical thinking is at the heart of any science major. So, yes, I do know how to think critically. I use my education to critically evaluate claims, and it perfectly facilitates that end. I don't need to take philosophy classes, or even logic classes (even though I have), because science teaches you those things. I think already that Kant, Berkeley, Hume and many others have already cornered the market on this. I really think you need to take a couple classes in philosophy and logic (like metaphysics, logic I and II, language, philosphy of science, philosphy of the mind, knowledge, etc., (which I've taken, with more than enough required philosphy classes to graduate with two b.A.'s in philosophy; again you being wrong about me only taking a girly 101 philosophy class). You can claim everything you want, but the fact is that you've provided no information about yourself. I judge you based on the arguments you've made, and they are nitpicks that some arrogant prick of a first-year philosophy student would make. You never bothered explaining why I was wrong about my explanation as to why the appeal to fear was fallacious, and you never bothered providing better examples of the other fallacies that you claim to exist on my site, instead preferring to make nebulous references to their existence that you expect me to take on your good word. At least we could have an intelligent conversation this way. We could have had an intelligent conversation if you hadn't sent me a clearly belligerent and insulting E-mail. It's one thing to just E-mail me and be an asshole about it; it's quite another to do so and then complain that I am somehow the one who isn't facilitating an intelligent conversation. That blame falls squarely upon YOUR shoulders, you asinine little prick. Seriously, if you don't think your arguments have major flaws in them, then either you're really stupid (not in a harsh way), literally stupid, that you really think there's nothing wrong with your arguments (blind), or you are prideful, and can't admit your own weakenesses (foolish). "Really stupid," but "not in a harsh way"? Do you expect anyone to buy this backpedaling bullshit? If you're going to insult me, do so while not sitting atop your high horse. Again, if you were listening, I took a few examples out of the many you had; I only could pick so much apart in an email. "...blow everything up beyond all reality." Now, what kind of statement is that? I didn't blow anything up (whatever you mean by that); I simply stated your fallious arguments, which is what you hypocritely teach to others. You took a meaningless poke at creationists and turned it into paragraphs of nitpicking, long-winded philosophical bullshit. You could have simply said, "This section could be construed as an ad hominem, because the other sections include a full refutation of the argument after giving the example, while this one does not. You should rewrite it." Instead, you chose to write an provocative E-mail that, by all appearances, was just meant to goad a reaction out of me. I can now see that the purpose of this E-mail was nothing more than to nitpick a few sentences from my site armed with small tidbits of trivia that you probably just learned last week in Philosophy 101. I certainly can't see any other purpose for it. You just wanted to impress your friends by anonymously E-mailing someone who wrote an essay on logical fallacies and nitpick it to make yourself feel big. Why else would you include that extraneous bit about "If you say 'if,' you make an argument, but you probably didn't know that"? You just wanted to flex some of your new muscle. That was your mistake. THIS IS completely funny. Like I was that immature and bored. Only you could think of something like that. What am I left to think, when you include meaningless little tidbits of information like that stupid "if" line? Your whole E-mail stank of a freshman philosophy major craving to make himself look cool. When you send me a rude E-mail, don't be surprised when I flame you back, ESPECIALLY after you DARED me to put this exchange on my Hate Mail page. Actually, my friends and I were just looking on "Yahoo!" for "fallacious argumentation" to print out as a basic handout for lecturing in our philosophy class. Your website came up. We had to see if all the fallacies were there we were looking for, and then when you gave examples, we couldn't print them out because your arguments were self-refuting; it's like you contradicted yourself in your exampled arguments, like you only knew the definitions, but you really didn't know how to apply them. So, we couldn't use them. The teacher would knock us off a few points for bad analogies and examples. And if we noticed them, then surely our teacher would notice them. Your website, however does list the correct fallacies and in this you did well; it's just your examples were not good at all. that's all. Stop making nebulous references to other examples. If they exist, show that they do, otherwise shut up about them. Bigotry is being hateful toward a certain viewpoint SIMPLY BECAUSE it disagrees with yours. Facts have nothing to do with bigotry. I don't have to be open to You have a different definition than me. However, it is reasonable that this definition does fit, but I think that your word, "hate" is a bit too strong for the definition. My definition fits more today with what people usually mean when they hear "Bigot." Your definition is only a view that you have had in bad experiences, maybe, I don't know. Anyway, in the websters, it says: bigotry \Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.I think that fits mine.
Notice the words "obstinate" and "unreasoning." Reasoning is absent from bigotry. If I reason that someone's beliefs are pure bullshit, I'm not a bigot if I don't accept them. Your definition was so ridiculously broad that any rejection of any idea for any reason could be considered bigotry. You even MADE SURE to include the condition that it's bigoted to reject claims which are contradicted by factual evidence, which COMPLETELY contradicts the definition you just gave! It's not an argument from the person directly when he/she states basically what the Bible says. He is saying that the Bible says if you don't believe in God, you will go to hell, etc.; it wasn't Him/Her making the argument or the call, if you know what I'm saying. He was simply being informing, not personally judgemental. If I told you "If you touch the stove, you will get burned," I'm not bigoted or self-righteous or anything. That would be silly. I'm just simply informing you on what's going to happen if you touch the stove. I don't mean anything personally, no judging or anything. That's just what I believe is going to happen to you. And why do you believe that? Because that is what your god is going to do, and since your god is perfectly just, I must deserve it. Must I explain your own, bigoted beliefs to you? You BELIEVE that's what will happen to me. It's a completely unverifiable statement that you CHOOSE to believe. Putting my hand on a stove has objectively measurable, testable results. The latter informs me of a fact, while the former informs me of your unverifiable belief. Your analogy is flawed. Again, terrible misunderstanding. You're not hearing me; you have an argument before you've even listened. I was saying that "HE/SHE was never saying PERSONALLY that you deserve to go to Hell...," yeah sure, I agree that if you don't believe in God, you deserve it, according to the belief in a just God," I have no problems with that. I was just saying that his intentions are nowhere to be defined, only he/she stating what is going to happen if you don't do a certain thing. He's not bigoted, (well he might be personally, but his statements never showed that he's personally bigoted). Come on, can't you see this at all? I'm making this point to show you the statement never reveals his character and yet you are bashing his character and calling him a "bigot." If you want to call somebody a bigot, call the Bible a bigot, or God because isn't God the one that says, Jesus speaking specifically that "I am the way, the truth, the life; nobody comes to the father except through me." I mean if you want to call somebody Bigoted, then point it towards Jesus I guess. If you wholeheartedly accept Jesus' bigoted beliefs without question, you are a bigot. If I can call HIM a bigot because of what he teaches, then I can call anyone who accepts those teachings a bigot, too. Going to Hell IS NOT A FACT. It is a BELIEF. Since God is perfectly just, anything he does must be a just, righteous action. Thus, sending me to Hell for not worshiping him must be a just action, so I must DESERVE to go to Hell. If you embrace the belief that God is perfectly just and that morality comes from his dictate, you EMBRACE A BELIEF SYSTEM WHICH REQUIRES BIGOTRY. You can't just write off your bigotry by saying, "Well, that's simply what my belief system says will happen, so I'm not bigoted," because you ACCEPT that belief system with FULL knowledge of its bigoted requirements. Look, all I'm saying is that intentions or motives are not at all anywhere to be located in your statement. Creationist motives are not difficult to identify. Did you miss the trend of me using creationist arguments as illustrative examples? I've debated with these people. They are precise copies of each other in terms of argumentative style. Yes, exactly, the STATEMENT is bigoted, not the person, but that's exactly who you criticized. Like you know. No, it doesn't REQUIRE religious bigotry. It is possible that I can believe in Creationism and be open to other ideas, and not have "hate" as you say, or prejudice towards others. That's actually quite simple to do. Only if you want to be hypocritical about your beliefs. Anyone who takes a completely inaccurate, mythological account of how the universe was created over observation and fact MUST take the rest of the Bible with it. Why would you put so much faith in such a horrendously inaccurate account of the universe's creation, but not put all that much faith in the stories in the Bible where God makes it clear that racism, religious bigotry and murder in the name of obedience to him are perfectly acceptable? And, for fuck's sake, if you make a bigoted statement that you believe to be true (i.e. "All blacks are inferior to whites"), then you're a bigot. Well, of course, I think non-christians are evil, but I believe Christians are evil too because if you take the Bible literally, it also calls Christians evil, you know, "we've ALL sinned and fallen short of God's standards." You know precisely what I meant. Christians are redeemable and can go to Heaven, but non-Christians are not and will go to Hell. Oh, and I like your line, "otherwise, you're a hypocrite." I hardly can keep my mouth shut about this one. Hypocrite is the wrong word to use in your phrase. It doesn't match the definition, nor the context for which you used. I would say, "otherwise, you're not a very knowledgable Christian" or "otherwise, you're stupid and you don't read the Bible" or something like that, but not hypocrite. Anyway's that's stupid and a small issue. Hypocrisy is a valid description. Believing in creationism requires the acceptance of biblical inerrancy. If you accept the belief that the Bible is infallible, yet fail to follow its teachings, or say that some are wrong, you're a hypocrite. EXACTLY!! Good job. You are totally right and I agree with you. I never said contrary. I said the same thing you said, but I didn't say, "the argument is wrong because of it." Sorry I didn't add that part in. Anyway, I don't take back my statement that you used an Ad Hominem because you avoided the argument and said it was unintelligent "because he is self-righteous and bigoted." I believe that's an Ad Hominem, attacking his character, intentions, motives, (no statements though you say you did) and using that to say, this is not an argument, this has no intelligence, etc., He has no intelligence because he made that argument, which is fallacious. I showed why, so it's not an ad hominem. It's just an insult. Granted, I did not explicitly attack the statement (which I actually did for all the other examples, so it's inconsistent on my part, and you'd be right to criticize on those grounds), but I did explain the fallacy in the preceding paragraph. The example serves its purpose. Self-righteous meaning what? Again, you're saying self-righteous and bigot, but you don't even know what his motives are in saying these statements that come from the Bible. JUst because the statment has bigotry (and barely in your definition), doesn't mean the giver of the informatin is bigoted. You can't judge them from these few lines. You CAN'T KNOW his motives. On the contrary, if you want to make a person who gives this argument, then I CAN know his motives because I CREATED THAT PERSON. I could claim that the person was a bed-wetter if I wanted to. However, back on the subject, accepting creationism requires the acceptance of biblical inerrancy, which requires that one be self-righteous. Sounds like you're thinking of someone to me personally from experience, rather than what the statement itself says because the statement itself reveals nothing about motives. He's simply informing you of what would happen. Again, I'm kicking a dead horse and if you reply with an email that tries to defend your position on bigotry, then you haven't heard a word I said and you are a truly foolish person because you don't listen. Your "I'm just informing you of what will happen" bullshit doesn't float. You took a minor inconsistency and turned it into paragraphs of nitpicking, which was clearly just an excuse for you to send me an asinine, insulting E-mail. So, to sum up, you have made the following argument: My attack of the appeal to fear is fallacious because it is an ad hominem in the context of the example and refutation. You are correct, and I will revise that part of the essay when I update the site next (and put this exchange in the Hate Mail gallery for all to see). The REST of your arguments -- the ones dealing with bigotry and hypocrisy -- are flawed for reasons I have shown, and even according to a definition which YOU provided.
uhm, ok. I'm bored. I was wishing for an intelligent conversation where there was understanding and listening, not justifying or defending bad arguments with reoccuring colorful insecure and desperate statments, such as shit, fuck, and bullshit. Style over substance fallacy. You completely ignored what I said in favor of how I said it, using the fact that I was rude as grounds to justify not replying to anything I said directly. Furthermore, as I explained, YOU were the one who made the possibility of an intelligent conversation remote, at best, due to your asinine and insulting initial E-mail. When you E-mail someone in such a manner, don't expect to be diplomatically received. I can deal with your broken-record style of arguing, but your insistence that I'M the one being unreasonable is purely ludicrous. At least if you were real, honesty could provide openness and anti-bigotry into arguments that could be further analyzed, and then either thrown away off your webpage or kept. Instead, you seem like a little kid who's trying to prove himself to to the world, like a little kid to his parents and his parents never listened to him, and you go to even the extremes of doing it, even when you are wrong. That's bad karma. Appeal to motivation combined with glaring hypocrisy. If I'm just some brat trying to prove myself, what does that make YOU, who is trying to prove yourself to ME? The whole purpose in the first email was just to point out "A FEW" errors out of the many, and since you weren't listening, or at least understanding, comprehending what I was saying, I will try to make it plain and clear to you why I didn't focus on other bad arguments you made: There was enough bad argument to go around just in the part I brought up; There wasn't enough TIME to bring up all your other bad arguments; I'm not that bored. Slothful accusation without evidence. You continue to insist that these other examples exist while simultaneously REFUSING a DIRECT CHALLENGE to demonstrate their existence. If you're not prepared to back up a statement, then DON'T MAKE IT. Anyway, your vain attempts and pursuits to justify your definition of bigot, hypocrite, and other terms, as well as defend your fallacious strawman views, without admitting your mistakes, AND... give a hillarious erroneous summarized conclusion, has thoroughly taken a toll on my heart rate. I am tired and bored. I must retire from this fruitless passion and come to my senses; I will turn off the light and say goodnight. Your light will eventually fade out and soon darkness shall pass over you. Find yourself a Starbucks, order for yourself a couple mocha cappucinos, and rethink what will eventually take a toll on your life. You're the author to the ending your book. I see you've resorted to pointless insults in an attempt to recover some shred of dignity. You directly challenged my definitions of bigotry and hypocrisy, and you lost. Grow a pair of balls and admit it. This whole E-mail reeks of a trite, pussified withdrawal punctuated with the occasional "You're insecure" insults and arrogant, useless "advice." Go find a Starbuck's and cram a mocha cappuccino up your ass, for all I care. You've utterly failed to address what I said directly, and you have the gall to criticize MY argumentation skills when YOU make statements that you adamantly REFUSE to back up with examples! Most idiots out there just ignore such challenges; you actually turn them down! You're truly a unique specimen, thinking that you can weasel out of providing evidence for your claims by crying "I don't have time!" Sorry, that shit doesn't float. Nonetheless, like a circus freak-show, you present enormous entertainment value.   |