Home
http://www.smilecity.co.nz/community/ForumPost.aspx?topicid=184403&page=1
Stuff like this absolutely infuriates me.
"Actually markslove - my opinion is that a child (yes I said child) under the age of 21 should have absolutely no say in governance of our country at all.
Up until then, they have not fully formed their frontal lobe - the area of the brain that controls logical thought.
(Actually, research tells us it's more like 25, but tradition says 21 is the age of adulthood)".
This is a horrible misuse of the science at hand. Even if it weren't, one need only take a look at DB himself to assess the fallacious nature of his claim. Many a time have I cornered DB with objective logic which he has failed to refute, let alone acknowledge. And here he stands, with a much more limited understanding of our system of governance than I, telling me that I should have no right to vote because I am not so much a rational being as he is!
I wholly accept his claim that most under 21 year olds are incapable of reasoning. However, this is a very arbitrary statement, as most people of all ages are incapable of reasoning; at least not in any sophisticated manner. Sure, people like DB can work out if they pick the bucket with more peanuts they'll get more peanuts. This type of cognitive function is commonplace amongst all medically usual individuals, but it stops there. Oh you bet it stops there.
Society today, and no doubt yesterday, has absolutely no concept of reasoning. They literally do not understand what reasoning is. Even more foreign to them is the idea of logic. Does this sound like an audacious claim? It is, but I have no doubt that it is true of somewhere between 70 to 90% of the population. Rarely, outside the realms of those who actually take an interest in intellectual topics, do I find someone with an ability to reason; that is, take in facts and information, ideas and logical associations, and follow them to their logical ends, therein spitting out some kind of conclusion. I don't care if I don't agree with their conclusion; so long as they have gone through a rational process of a sensible kind to come to said conclusion, it doesn't bother me. But I find that no one can do this! People take vague brush strokes over large areas of thought and then use those vague brush strokes to justify very specific opinions. Sometimes the justifications are so poorly connected that it seems to me that they have decided upon their opinion before going through the justification process. They choose a pre-packaged opinion, and then artificially choose some pre-packaged justifications that will make it sound reasonable to their fellow morons. Let me take an example from DB's post:
"My opinion is that a child under the age of 21 should have absolutely no say in governance at all"
This is DB's opinion. How did he come to this conclusion? He attempts to tell us (this is DB's attempt at reasoning).
"Up until then, they have not fully formed their frontal lobe"
If we take DB's word for granted, and accept that he fully believes this in the most absolute form (regardless of what the real science may suggest on a more complex level), then at this point, DB seems to be reasoning. He is making an argument roughly as follows: "In order to vote, one must know what is best for governance in our country. In order to know what is best for governance in our country, one must have fully developed logical reasoning. In order to have fully developed logical reasoning, one must be at least 21 years old. Therefore, only 21 year olds and over should vote"
Beautiful and straightforward argument. Questionable? Sure. But reasoned? No doubt. However, this is not DB's argument at all. In actual fact, he had merely chosen a pre-packaged argument - "Frontal Lobe not fully developed", without any consideration of this logical process. How do I know that? He gives it away with his next statement:
"Actually, research tells us it's more like 25, but tradition says 21 is the age of adulthood"
DB has realised, it seems, that in his first formulation of the argument, he would have to follow it through to its logical ends, and thus no one should vote until 25. This should be his opinion, had he chosen the path of rationality. Instead, DB takes an armchair approach to logic, and decides he doesn't like that conclusion. He doesn't want people to not be able to vote until 25. Perhaps he has a reason for this? An individual with an understanding of logic or reasoning would simply have to reject the initial argument (though they would need a reason to do this - and I have one, but this is not about me...much) but DB, misunderstanding the process of reasoning, believes he can still justify his argument by putting two pre-packaged justifications together. The second pre-packaged argument he chooses is the most logically bankrupt of all: 'tradition'. So, says DB, frontal lobes are not developed until 25, so 18 year old shoulds not be allowed to vote, BUT 21 year olds should be because tradition says that is the age of adulthood!
Argumentum ad antiquitatem, dickhead.
If DB was a truly rational being, who actually understood reasoning or logic, he would know that it does not follow that simply because we have always done something, it is therefore correct, or wise. He doesn't, however. He thinks debating, like most people do, is just an arena where people state their opinions over and over again with different words, and whoever comes up with the most pre-packaged arguments like "Oh it's tradition" or "national security" or "OH! OH! Ummm.... socialist!" wins the debate. I really do believe that most people think that this is what debating is. I really do not believe they understand reasoning. I do not believe they understand logic, and if they do understand it, they might be like a few acquaintances of mine, who accept the existence of these things, but do not believe that they actually apply in the real world; that "reasoning" is just something that academics do in ivory towers.
In short, DB's appeal to logic is batshit bizarre.
Stuff like this absolutely infuriates me.
"Actually markslove - my opinion is that a child (yes I said child) under the age of 21 should have absolutely no say in governance of our country at all.
Up until then, they have not fully formed their frontal lobe - the area of the brain that controls logical thought.
(Actually, research tells us it's more like 25, but tradition says 21 is the age of adulthood)".
This is a horrible misuse of the science at hand. Even if it weren't, one need only take a look at DB himself to assess the fallacious nature of his claim. Many a time have I cornered DB with objective logic which he has failed to refute, let alone acknowledge. And here he stands, with a much more limited understanding of our system of governance than I, telling me that I should have no right to vote because I am not so much a rational being as he is!
I wholly accept his claim that most under 21 year olds are incapable of reasoning. However, this is a very arbitrary statement, as most people of all ages are incapable of reasoning; at least not in any sophisticated manner. Sure, people like DB can work out if they pick the bucket with more peanuts they'll get more peanuts. This type of cognitive function is commonplace amongst all medically usual individuals, but it stops there. Oh you bet it stops there.
Society today, and no doubt yesterday, has absolutely no concept of reasoning. They literally do not understand what reasoning is. Even more foreign to them is the idea of logic. Does this sound like an audacious claim? It is, but I have no doubt that it is true of somewhere between 70 to 90% of the population. Rarely, outside the realms of those who actually take an interest in intellectual topics, do I find someone with an ability to reason; that is, take in facts and information, ideas and logical associations, and follow them to their logical ends, therein spitting out some kind of conclusion. I don't care if I don't agree with their conclusion; so long as they have gone through a rational process of a sensible kind to come to said conclusion, it doesn't bother me. But I find that no one can do this! People take vague brush strokes over large areas of thought and then use those vague brush strokes to justify very specific opinions. Sometimes the justifications are so poorly connected that it seems to me that they have decided upon their opinion before going through the justification process. They choose a pre-packaged opinion, and then artificially choose some pre-packaged justifications that will make it sound reasonable to their fellow morons. Let me take an example from DB's post:
"My opinion is that a child under the age of 21 should have absolutely no say in governance at all"
This is DB's opinion. How did he come to this conclusion? He attempts to tell us (this is DB's attempt at reasoning).
"Up until then, they have not fully formed their frontal lobe"
If we take DB's word for granted, and accept that he fully believes this in the most absolute form (regardless of what the real science may suggest on a more complex level), then at this point, DB seems to be reasoning. He is making an argument roughly as follows: "In order to vote, one must know what is best for governance in our country. In order to know what is best for governance in our country, one must have fully developed logical reasoning. In order to have fully developed logical reasoning, one must be at least 21 years old. Therefore, only 21 year olds and over should vote"
Beautiful and straightforward argument. Questionable? Sure. But reasoned? No doubt. However, this is not DB's argument at all. In actual fact, he had merely chosen a pre-packaged argument - "Frontal Lobe not fully developed", without any consideration of this logical process. How do I know that? He gives it away with his next statement:
"Actually, research tells us it's more like 25, but tradition says 21 is the age of adulthood"
DB has realised, it seems, that in his first formulation of the argument, he would have to follow it through to its logical ends, and thus no one should vote until 25. This should be his opinion, had he chosen the path of rationality. Instead, DB takes an armchair approach to logic, and decides he doesn't like that conclusion. He doesn't want people to not be able to vote until 25. Perhaps he has a reason for this? An individual with an understanding of logic or reasoning would simply have to reject the initial argument (though they would need a reason to do this - and I have one, but this is not about me...much) but DB, misunderstanding the process of reasoning, believes he can still justify his argument by putting two pre-packaged justifications together. The second pre-packaged argument he chooses is the most logically bankrupt of all: 'tradition'. So, says DB, frontal lobes are not developed until 25, so 18 year old shoulds not be allowed to vote, BUT 21 year olds should be because tradition says that is the age of adulthood!
Argumentum ad antiquitatem, dickhead.
If DB was a truly rational being, who actually understood reasoning or logic, he would know that it does not follow that simply because we have always done something, it is therefore correct, or wise. He doesn't, however. He thinks debating, like most people do, is just an arena where people state their opinions over and over again with different words, and whoever comes up with the most pre-packaged arguments like "Oh it's tradition" or "national security" or "OH! OH! Ummm.... socialist!" wins the debate. I really do believe that most people think that this is what debating is. I really do not believe they understand reasoning. I do not believe they understand logic, and if they do understand it, they might be like a few acquaintances of mine, who accept the existence of these things, but do not believe that they actually apply in the real world; that "reasoning" is just something that academics do in ivory towers.
In short, DB's appeal to logic is batshit bizarre.
