I absolutely agree with you entirely and trying to explain these same views to others eem to fall on deaf ears. Thanks you for not being blind> I truly respect your views! "The Law is reason free from passion" -Aristotle
Have you considered maybe putting on some clothes before appearing on YouTube? Just a thought. It's just hard to take a guy sitting there naked on the screen too terribly seriously. The days of Diogenes are long past.
Well technically I'm not actually naked. I have pants on, so I'm just shirtless. I don't really wear shirts inside for the most part. I had been doing my videos like that, not really thinking anything of it because you can't see below my shoulders. Then it kind of became my trademark. If you notice my channel is titled "the shirtless atheist". I suppose I might consider it if that sentiment was more common. But it's about my ideas rather than my attire.
@sonnygll You deserve it. Wherever schools have courses like "Law and the Individual," or similar subject, this is something that really should be covered, as these kids will all be voters, (and jurors), one day.
Great vid. - I've lost the source, but I think it was New Scientist. It basically said that there are almost ZERO instances of governmental policies being predicated by scientific trial period and the outcome determining the efficacy of the policy.
Examples were increased random drug tests in prisons INCREASING heroine usage, because weed stayed in the urine longer than Heroine, so less likely to get caught if swapped weed for H! Many other similar counter intuitive examples.
Great video, I was planning on doing a similar video about why I'm against the death penalty. Ireland has recently reduced the drink driving limit from 80mg to 50 and their justification is utter BS
As a determinist I don't believe in punishment for punishments sake, but for deterrence. I'm not sure how I feel about sex offender lists, but if I were to support them it would be because of their deterrent effect. It seems to me the likelihood that you will be permanently branded a "sex offender" would deter some from committing such a crime.
@sonnygll-I doubt they weigh the consequences beforehand.
Do you believe that in all cases, or just regarding some consequences of certain crimes, because I can assure you there have been times in my life where I would have robbed a bank if it weren't for the consequences.
I think that only involves certain crimes. Just things that are normally done without any thought. Robberies take planning, so deterrence is definitely useful there. There are some people who think they won't get caught, so there is really no deterring them. So it really depends.
There's certainly some truth in what you say, but the setting up of emotionality as being at odds with rationality is a paradigm that has been much undercut by recent neuroscience. See, for example, "Descartes Error" by Damasio, or "How We Decide" by Lehrer. I recognize that you did balance out what you were saying somewhat at the end, but I think the problem is perhaps more a matter of how effed-up our societal emotionality has become more than emotionality per se. We need more (cont'd)
@markdzima (cont'd) ...placed on the proper emotions, I think. True courage is needed, to take the risks that liberty for the public entails. We need to publicly praise the compassion and good will that allows us to see the reasonable virtue of rehabilitation over the blind desire to punish and take revenge. Logic alone doesn't oppose fascism, but also the emotional repugnance that fascism should evoke in emotionally healthy people. That kind of emotionality is essential, in my opinion.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, and that's the main thing going on in the examples given.
I have read "How We Decide".
The point isn't that emotionality is somehow always at odds with rationality, in fact ethics are mostly logic applied to emotion, and emotion can be a criteria.
What I am talking about is emotionality being used to side step rationality.
"Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy". I think there is much abuse of the term logical fallacy on YouTube. A logical fallacy is only something that prevents a syllogism from reaching an absolutely certain correct outcome. Real life issues are not logical syllogisms; the dismissal of appeal to emotion as a mere logical fallacy when dealing with issues of law is harmful. When conservatives "tie the hands" of judges with mandatory sentencing, compassion is removed from courts.
You're describing only formal fallacies. What people are implying is that because of their strong emotion, they are right, which is not nescisarily true, and that's what I am saying here. I can cite other problems with mandatory sentences, basically it's side stepping a branch of government. But as I stated emotion can be appropriate, but frequently it's used to distract people while something nefarious is going on.
@sonnygll "You're describing only formal fallacies" But in informal logic it isn't enough to cite a famous fallacy to establish that good reasoning has been violated (a prevalent YouTube practice). The article "Informal Logic" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states there're many instances "in which arguments have the form of traditional fallacies, but cannot be rejected as fallacious." "Appeal to emotion", "ad hominem", "slippery slope", etc. can be reasonable in the real world.
Slippery slope can be reasonable, it depends. Ad hom (not insults) can't. Appeal to emotion can be valid in emotional criteria. I think the concept you are talking about, is that just because someone's logic is flawed on certain things, does not mean the entire argument is flawed, or that everything they say can be dismissed out of hand.
But "X is very upsetting, therefore anything I do in the name of stopping it is beyond question" IS a fallacy, which is what I was talking about.
@sonnygll An example of ad hominem goodness from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The argument that we should not listen to the metaphysical arguments of someone who has accosted us, on the grounds that he is psychotically disturbed and doesn't know what he is taking about, is an instance of ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Assuming these premises are true, this is eminently reasonable practical advice." In a courtroom setting: rejecting some witnesses as unreliable is wise.
I wouldn't consider that an ad hominem. If he's crazy, then he's crazy. An ad hominem really has to be unrelated to the argument. I guess I could see classifying it as ad hom that is valid. I just think the truth and validity excludes it from the category.
Of course when one points out a fallacy, one should be able to explain why it's not true, or doesn't make sense.
@sonnygll You're a juror in a capital punishment murder case. The defendant is black. The only evidence for the prosecution are three witnesses who are brothers to each other. During deliberation, Juror A points out that all three of these witnesses are Klansmen and liars (known to have spread vicious and outrageous lies against black people) and therefore the testimony is unreliable. The jury foreman objects that this is an ad hominem fallacy and turns to you for support. You say?
I would say it's not an ad hom, because the statements are both true, and directly in regard to the validity of their testimony. Just because the reason something is invalid is insulting, does not invalidate the reasoning.
But I could also see arguing that the fallacy is irrelevant for the same reason as above.
So I think a circumstance that makes you think an ad hom is valid, makes me think it's not an ad hom, but we both agree it logically follows.
But just to be clear, I do agree that is a very prevalent practice on youtube. People find a fallacy, and then dismiss the rest of the argument out of hand, or even the entirety of everything that person says. I have even called people out for that.
@sonnygll And what I am saying is that I think it is more a matter of unhealthy emotions being used to side-step rationality, and that what is needed is an emphasis on healthy emotions rather than framing the issue in a reason vs. emotionality dichotomy. A sociopath can be extremely logical, but he is can still be a sociopath despite all of the logic.
I absolutely agree with you entirely and trying to explain these same views to others eem to fall on deaf ears. Thanks you for not being blind> I truly respect your views! "The Law is reason free from passion" -Aristotle
Ktina0420 4 months ago
@Ktina0420
I like that Aristotle quote. That's a very good way to put it.
sonnygll 4 months ago
Have you considered maybe putting on some clothes before appearing on YouTube? Just a thought. It's just hard to take a guy sitting there naked on the screen too terribly seriously. The days of Diogenes are long past.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@sbergman27
Well technically I'm not actually naked. I have pants on, so I'm just shirtless. I don't really wear shirts inside for the most part. I had been doing my videos like that, not really thinking anything of it because you can't see below my shoulders. Then it kind of became my trademark. If you notice my channel is titled "the shirtless atheist". I suppose I might consider it if that sentiment was more common. But it's about my ideas rather than my attire.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll Oh. Well, then you should pan the camera down for the occasional crotch-shot so that we can see that you are not really naked. :-)
I had not actually looked at your channel page. I got a YouTube recommendation re: this video based upon my interest in Astrobrant2's videos.
Please do keep posting, despite any possible future variations in your wardrobe allowance. ;-)
sbergman27 4 months ago
I saw this from Cabbie's channel.
Hey, this needs to be packaged as a lesson plan and put into high school Social Studies curricula.
Astrobrant2 4 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Thank you, that is high praise indeed.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll You deserve it. Wherever schools have courses like "Law and the Individual," or similar subject, this is something that really should be covered, as these kids will all be voters, (and jurors), one day.
Excellent work. Subbed.
(I'm a retired teacher, for what it's worth.)
Astrobrant2 4 months ago
@Astrobrant2
That's worth a lot. It sounds very good coming from a retired teacher.
sonnygll 4 months ago
An excellent analysis
belfastfreethinker 4 months ago
Wizards third rule, "Passion rules reason, for better or worse." exactly the point your making here.
wolfwing1 4 months ago
@wolfwing1
Yes indeed, you definitely understood my meaning here.
sonnygll 4 months ago
Awesome vid, dude! Good analysis!
Reminds me of the south park chick who keeps whining; ''Won't anyone think of the children!?!'' LOL
metalskinstudios 4 months ago
Great vid. - I've lost the source, but I think it was New Scientist. It basically said that there are almost ZERO instances of governmental policies being predicated by scientific trial period and the outcome determining the efficacy of the policy.
Examples were increased random drug tests in prisons INCREASING heroine usage, because weed stayed in the urine longer than Heroine, so less likely to get caught if swapped weed for H! Many other similar counter intuitive examples.
calmreason 4 months ago
Great video, I was planning on doing a similar video about why I'm against the death penalty. Ireland has recently reduced the drink driving limit from 80mg to 50 and their justification is utter BS
belfasttelegraph. co. uk/ news/ local-national/ northern-ireland/alcohol-drinkdriving- limit- to- be- cut- 16055041. html
The comments pretty much sum it up.
One minor disagreement is that pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children, which isn't a crime unless someone actually acts on it.
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames
Yes, I agree with you. Not all of them act on it.
sonnygll 4 months ago
"Children are the gateway to fascism"
Thats why atheists have summer camps to brainwash kids with their religious doctrine.
BigBangNeverHappend 4 months ago
As a determinist I don't believe in punishment for punishments sake, but for deterrence. I'm not sure how I feel about sex offender lists, but if I were to support them it would be because of their deterrent effect. It seems to me the likelihood that you will be permanently branded a "sex offender" would deter some from committing such a crime.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I'm not sure if it's much of a deterrent for most of those people. I doubt they weigh the consequences beforehand.
I'm also a determinist.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-I doubt they weigh the consequences beforehand.
Do you believe that in all cases, or just regarding some consequences of certain crimes, because I can assure you there have been times in my life where I would have robbed a bank if it weren't for the consequences.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I think that only involves certain crimes. Just things that are normally done without any thought. Robberies take planning, so deterrence is definitely useful there. There are some people who think they won't get caught, so there is really no deterring them. So it really depends.
sonnygll 4 months ago
There's certainly some truth in what you say, but the setting up of emotionality as being at odds with rationality is a paradigm that has been much undercut by recent neuroscience. See, for example, "Descartes Error" by Damasio, or "How We Decide" by Lehrer. I recognize that you did balance out what you were saying somewhat at the end, but I think the problem is perhaps more a matter of how effed-up our societal emotionality has become more than emotionality per se. We need more (cont'd)
markdzima 4 months ago
@markdzima (cont'd) ...placed on the proper emotions, I think. True courage is needed, to take the risks that liberty for the public entails. We need to publicly praise the compassion and good will that allows us to see the reasonable virtue of rehabilitation over the blind desire to punish and take revenge. Logic alone doesn't oppose fascism, but also the emotional repugnance that fascism should evoke in emotionally healthy people. That kind of emotionality is essential, in my opinion.
markdzima 4 months ago
@markdzima
Yea, I stated roughly the same thing at the end of the video. I think you misunderstand me.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@markdzima
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, and that's the main thing going on in the examples given.
I have read "How We Decide".
The point isn't that emotionality is somehow always at odds with rationality, in fact ethics are mostly logic applied to emotion, and emotion can be a criteria.
What I am talking about is emotionality being used to side step rationality.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
"Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy". I think there is much abuse of the term logical fallacy on YouTube. A logical fallacy is only something that prevents a syllogism from reaching an absolutely certain correct outcome. Real life issues are not logical syllogisms; the dismissal of appeal to emotion as a mere logical fallacy when dealing with issues of law is harmful. When conservatives "tie the hands" of judges with mandatory sentencing, compassion is removed from courts.
markdzima 4 months ago
@markdzima
You're describing only formal fallacies. What people are implying is that because of their strong emotion, they are right, which is not nescisarily true, and that's what I am saying here. I can cite other problems with mandatory sentences, basically it's side stepping a branch of government. But as I stated emotion can be appropriate, but frequently it's used to distract people while something nefarious is going on.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll "You're describing only formal fallacies" But in informal logic it isn't enough to cite a famous fallacy to establish that good reasoning has been violated (a prevalent YouTube practice). The article "Informal Logic" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states there're many instances "in which arguments have the form of traditional fallacies, but cannot be rejected as fallacious." "Appeal to emotion", "ad hominem", "slippery slope", etc. can be reasonable in the real world.
markdzima 4 months ago
@markdzima
Slippery slope can be reasonable, it depends. Ad hom (not insults) can't. Appeal to emotion can be valid in emotional criteria. I think the concept you are talking about, is that just because someone's logic is flawed on certain things, does not mean the entire argument is flawed, or that everything they say can be dismissed out of hand.
But "X is very upsetting, therefore anything I do in the name of stopping it is beyond question" IS a fallacy, which is what I was talking about.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll An example of ad hominem goodness from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The argument that we should not listen to the metaphysical arguments of someone who has accosted us, on the grounds that he is psychotically disturbed and doesn't know what he is taking about, is an instance of ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Assuming these premises are true, this is eminently reasonable practical advice." In a courtroom setting: rejecting some witnesses as unreliable is wise.
markdzima 4 months ago
@markdzima
I wouldn't consider that an ad hominem. If he's crazy, then he's crazy. An ad hominem really has to be unrelated to the argument. I guess I could see classifying it as ad hom that is valid. I just think the truth and validity excludes it from the category.
Of course when one points out a fallacy, one should be able to explain why it's not true, or doesn't make sense.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll You're a juror in a capital punishment murder case. The defendant is black. The only evidence for the prosecution are three witnesses who are brothers to each other. During deliberation, Juror A points out that all three of these witnesses are Klansmen and liars (known to have spread vicious and outrageous lies against black people) and therefore the testimony is unreliable. The jury foreman objects that this is an ad hominem fallacy and turns to you for support. You say?
markdzima 4 months ago
@markdzima
I would say it's not an ad hom, because the statements are both true, and directly in regard to the validity of their testimony. Just because the reason something is invalid is insulting, does not invalidate the reasoning.
But I could also see arguing that the fallacy is irrelevant for the same reason as above.
So I think a circumstance that makes you think an ad hom is valid, makes me think it's not an ad hom, but we both agree it logically follows.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@markdzima (part2)
But just to be clear, I do agree that is a very prevalent practice on youtube. People find a fallacy, and then dismiss the rest of the argument out of hand, or even the entirety of everything that person says. I have even called people out for that.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll And what I am saying is that I think it is more a matter of unhealthy emotions being used to side-step rationality, and that what is needed is an emphasis on healthy emotions rather than framing the issue in a reason vs. emotionality dichotomy. A sociopath can be extremely logical, but he is can still be a sociopath despite all of the logic.
markdzima 4 months ago