In Praise of Personal Attacks...

[betolimoun]

I was wondering if this would be a valid argument: Stef supports the state he claims to be evil by paying his taxes therefore Stef is not credible and logical consistent.... (?)

[jeffiek]

I'm surprised. You've missed the distinction between an ad hominem attack and a legitimate question of credibility.

The former says the claim is false *because* of the speakers character. The latter says the speaker is not credible, although it the claim be true. The former is a logical error, the latter is simply a tool to help filter the immense amount of claims.

[MrFreeCookie]

wow stef, I knew you liked to ramble but this is ridiculous. Next time I think 1 or 2 examples should suffice.

[statoilx]

Thank you so much for all your videos!

[cutselfnotable1]

I'm a new follower, and I believe that you are my hero.

[vspqbd]

If anything else, I notice statists have zero qualms about using ad hominems against us. "You're too naive", "You've never had a job, go live in the real world." etc, I suppose at the very least this would even out the odds.

4:55 - Actually, it could very well be the person was 1000 pounds before, and is now down to 400 pounds.

As for the doctor, it could also be he has an allergic reaction to it that you don't have.

The homeless guy might be telling what not to do so you don't end up like him.

[djerkwad]

Stef Maul for Sith Lord!

[NemaselsNeo]

In otherwords, it's about bringing hypocrisy to the light of our awareness...

Amen man! That's been my rallying cry ever since I was little! Admittedly, I saw it everywhere & was eventually bullied into keeping my mouth shut (developing my own hypocrisies through this very behavior), but to this day I continue to gratefully engage in people willing to look honestly at me as well as themselves.

Thanks Stefan, it's good to hear that pointing out hypocrisy is actually sane & common sense! :-)

[AzureFlameElk]

In the medicine example: A destructive treatment (such as chemotherapy) is painful and may or may not help the individual. just because the doctor decided not take the therapy does not mean the treatment is flawed.

In the homeless money advice example: The guy is not necessarily homeless because of his own downfalls or even because of a financial blunder. Could be drugs.

We can only use this system if we look for MORE evidence. Assuming is always flawed and this system does not lead to truth.

[odenskrigare]

also you have to consider cases like a junkie saying "quitting heroin is a great idea" and then not doing it

obviously this is extreme but there are less severe cases which are very common

[odenskrigare]

/argumenta ad hominem/ are, were, and always will be retarded

if someone is offering you advice which seems dubious based on appearances, you should seek further evidence rather than dismissing it immediately

[onecoolcat43]

If I put one of your examples (slightly modified) into play I can prove a point.

1. Some accountants are homeless

2. Some accountants are good at finance

3. Therefore some homless are good at finance.

While you accept that there is a chance that this is true, you argue that you will disregard the validity of the statement and deny this reasoning based on the probability. Therfore you really aren't you using ad hominem because your not attempting to debase the argument. Now Im confused.

[onecoolcat43]

While I do enjoy this video and it is interesting, I must pose a question. When you try to state that the ad hominem argument can be valid, You use probability as your foundation for the argument. Yes, I will agree that it is probable that a homeless person is terrible at finance. Logic, however, does not deal in probability (as far as I know.) Really, when you do this you are no longer questioning the validity of the argument at all.

[AzureFlameElk]

@onecoolcat43

Inductive logic does deal with probability, but this method of 'ad hominem examination' will not lead you to a strong conclusion. The information one gathers from accessing another individual's character is entirely circumstantial if not outright false.

I agree with Stephan that we must utilize assumption in order to function in society, but we must also realize that any and every assumption we make might be completely false.

[Brassmouth]

Could someone point me to that Marx podcast? I can't seem to find it...

[stefbot]

You can do a search on my website /search :)

[chris3443]

I've been looking for a crazy-eyed homeless accountant for ages now.

[barrywilliamsmb]

Thanks Stef - I love the way you explain concepts and your use of multiple examples is a great way to drive the point home. I will definitely become a financial supporter.

I'm also intrigued with the criticism of this video. Do all your videos generate such wrath?

[stefbot]

Thanks for your offer of a donation/subscription... :) Yes, it could be said that my vids are a little antagonistic to some...

[Rybot9000]

Dude, I just watched your Free-will series and you did nothing but posture yourself as morally superior to determinists. Furthermore, you ban people who do not agree with your morals. It smacks of an aspiring cult-leader, plagued by confirmation bias and an intense superiority complex. By your usage of ad hominem, this is a completely ligitimate reason to reject your views and, as if you have done yourself, to make my criticisms public.

[stefbot]

Hahaha, oh seriously -- are you going to accuse ME of ad hominem attacks, after a rant like that? Thank you, you truly made my day! :)  Also, you might want to try spelling it 'legitimate.'

[overdark666]

Attacks on spelling and grammar over the internet, particularly through YouTube and MMO vessels, was once a tactful and clever way to cover up bullshit.

Not so much these days.

[botuno]

Precise and legitimate critism! Evidence supplied by the dude himself. oh yeah well "stef says"..you can't spell. Time to grow up Molypoo....infinity.

[jeepndesert]

bob barr (l) 2008!

[jmeiskues]

how can somebody so intellectually stimulating be getting so few views?! youtube needs to feature one of your vids man!

[davidngo4415]

interesting stuff stef. i think when people bring up the "don't attack the person, attack the argument" cliche, it really is a reaction to the IRRELEVANCE of the attack, and not that it's personal. If your personal attributes and behavior is relevant to the proposition, then it's fair game. if it's irrelevant, then it's not.

[adorianvlad]

derfy26, I just finished watching stef's video titled "Anarchism, Violence and Self Defense" watch?v=YN-yWT86Ztw April 21, 2007

Anyway, to your question; what I am trying to figure out is to find flaws in stef's line of thoughts, because he seems to base his theories on all of his ideas mostly presented in his videos. So yes, stef is proposing a stateless society where there would be no police whatsoever, because police is using violence and stef is against any form of violence or imprisonment

[Huey55]

If you call for an end to subsides while working in a subsidized place, but you do not want to continue subsidizing even yourself are you still wrong? Isn't that like calling for the privatization of roads but still driving on the public ones? I am thinking along the lines of college professors that want to end tenure and public education and don't make any exceptions for themselves, but feel that it is more effective to work from within the system.

[stefbot]

Sure, but roads are not optional, tenure is. Have a listen to my latest free book, I go into this in more detail if it's on interest... :)

[adorianvlad]

I don't understand the way you see how you can extrapolate your theory to every aspects of life.

Speaking of roads, public roads and dangerous goods, how would be enforced regulations and rules concernig for ex. this case of dangerous goods on public/private roads?

Do you see my point, stef? Even in a society without army, government, police, would be danger for the society that needs to be taking care of. Who would be in charge of it? Can you please clarify this and similar issues, stef? Thx.

[adorianvlad]

in other words, if someone is going to steal a dangerous goods caring truck and smash it into a building before saving himself, what would happen to that person, he/she would just get away with the crime, provided there are no laws; what if that accident would happen unintentionally (negligence is still crime but unintentional), but due to the lack of enforced laws that would prevent that particular truck from being misused by negligence; humans aren't perfect, right?

[lastnymleft]

adorianvlad - The answer to your question regarding dangerous goods trucks lies in the defense of private property rights. May I suggest you read this interview with Ron Paul, regarding his environmental policy. It's not a 30-second soundbite concept, meaning it'll be a difficult sell to the public, but it's actually quite a workable, and sophisticated solution:

grist. org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

[stefbot]

Just have a listen to my first few podcasts... :)

[adorianvlad]

O.K. will do that.

[qtronman]

I disagree with the idea that if one says, for example, that the government shouldn't be involved in the education industry yet he at the same time works in a government-funded school, that one should attack him for that. If you want to teach professionally at a very high level in Canada, you don't have many options but to work in a government-funded school.

[D4Shawn]

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people who are quite brilliant in a given subject, but work in higher education, are simultaneously very statist/socialist. In practice, there does seem to be a conflict of interest between one's job and one's intellect. An example would be someone like YouTuber Thunderf00t who's absolutely brilliant at science, and yet accepts every generic statist belief. I especially see this a lot with professional scientists/science teachers. Brilliant, yet dumb.

[qtronman]

That's true of many people--like medical doctors, for example. They are completely rational within their field, but totally hopeless outside of it.

[D4Shawn]

The philosophy buffs are the same way. It's almost disappointing, because you'd expect them to have something fascinating to say about the real world, but when it comes to that subject, their perspectives are painfully common place.

[Valelacerte]

@qtronman Perhaps you don't feel the same way two years on, but if, for instance, someone said that it was immoral to fund or support oppressive regimes, but then took a job within that regime, I think it would be fair to consider that person a hypocrite that doesn't really live the principles that they profess to have. I complain about my employer, sometimes consider their behaviour unethical and immoral, but continue to support them, hence I am also a hypocrite. It's just about being honest.

[D4Shawn]

Crap! Does this mean I have to abandon writing my new book on "getting chicks"?

[bebop54]

.......Ahahhaaaa

[realworldplayer]

Yeah the world needs moralist who could back up what they claim.

[contrarianbastard]

"...furry and aggressive child"

That was great.

[Klarkster]

"5 big old hoken nipple sized pimples on her face"

Now I actually LOL'd at that, with the emphasis on that last 'L'

nice video Steff.

[LatinYoung20]

hey i hadn't thought about it that way, but i think you are very right. ;)

[neutrinoide]

We can't hear the hair in you ears. So puting a mic near you ear isn't necessary :P