The Motive Fallacy - Jamie Whyte's Crimes Against Logic

Whyte claims that in discussion of policy or propositions that discussion of one's motives are irrelevant. I think that people are interested in the motives of those who make arguments when they suspect that the arguments being advanced are not the real reasons for their support of a position.

Bush's motives for the Iraq war are suspect when the publicly touted justifications turn out to be false.

Whyte himself engages in speculations about motives when discussing those whose beliefs or arguments he disagrees with. Sauce for the goose...

Whyte's incosistency shows that he doesn't subscribe to the arguments he makes in his own book.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• motive
• fallacy
• motivation
• lies
• flasehoods
• agenda
• iraq
• war
• bush
• oil
• revenge
• hate
• fox
• hunting
• towel
• head
• ad
• homonym
• attack
• inconsistency
• jamie
• whyte
• proudfootz
• crimes
• against
• logic

[heyitsbren]

Dispute Whyte using reason, or do not dispute him at all. If you COULD beat the man with his own stick, perhaps you would, but you don't.

[proudfootz]

@heyitsbren

Since Whyte doesn't use reason, there's not a very high standard required to dispute his illogic.

The fellow makes frequent use of all the 'crimes against logic' he cites in his book.

Maybe it's a parody?

[natedaug1]

I am about to commit the motive fallacy so everyone hold your horses, but I think it is true regardless, which is by the way the point of the motive fallacy. It is either true or false regardless of motive. Anyways, I think that proudfootz, just doesn't like the examples Whyte is using, because of his own political ideological perspective. It has nothing really to with the book but everything to do with the examples.

[proudfootz]

@natedaug1

Whyte can't seem to make up his mind whether he agrees that the 'motive fallacy' is really a fallacy or not.

It seems to depend on whose ox is being gored.

[proudfootz]

@natedaug1

In your opinion my understanding is wrong.

While you certainly do have a right to your opinion, it does not constitute an argument.

There's no reason for me (or anyone else for that matter) to believe my understanding is 'wrong' since you don't put forward any argument at all.

[natedaug1]

@proudfootz Alright I should have not used the motive fallacy, but your understanding of the different fallacies is just frankly wrong, regardless of your "motive" for doing it.

[proudfootz]

@natedaug1

LOL! Good use of the 'motive fallacy' in an attempt to minimize the impact of my argument.

Another 'crime against logic' from a Jamie Whyte fan.

[natedaug1]

@flanatron I know flanatron. It is like good god, this guy is totally missing the point of the book. Here comes the motive fallacy but I think it is true, I think he just does not like the examples because of his own political ideological perspective, which is completely blinding him. Talk about partisanship, which ironically was also a major Bush had, being very partisan, is also proudfootz problem.

[proudfootz]

flan -

Whyte himself makes use of the alleged motives of various people to 'explain away' the arguments he claims people make.

Perhaps you should read his book?

[proudfootz]

flan -

There is no logical connection between your poor sense of smell and Whyte's use of logical fallacies to make his 'points'.

So in fact there is no truth in your statement.