Danoff
Premium
- 34,107
- Mile High City
Great, but what does that have to do with what we're talking about? It's like you want me to give you credit to spout logical fallacies just because you threw a bone to transgender diversity something something. It's a non sequitur.
This is ad hominem. I ignored it the first time, because I do let some of these slide. But what you're doing is claiming that I'm being emotional, and absolutely nothing about me pointing out your use of a motte and bailey fallacy is emotional. It's about as far from it as possible.
This is probably the best formulation of your argument to date. You're posting a video of someone saying that supercolliders over promise based on a lack of understanding of particle physics, you're layering on that there's even MORE confusion about social studies than particle physics (you see how when you state it out that it's laughable right?), and then from that you're claiming that there will be more manipulation in social studies grants than Sabine claims there are for particle physics.
Applying a tiny bit of rigor can sometimes expose a really terrible assumption. In this case, that there is more "freedom" in social studies than particle physics. I think you're assuming that because particle physics is hard science that it's less prone to overstatement. What you didn't take into account was the disconnect between understanding of hard physics and people who control grants. I've basically said as much before, but you jogged past it.
You'll have to understand that when you post this many breaches of logic I'm not going to be taking your word for the conclusions you drew from your unnamed and unelaborated experience.
So far in the last few pages, you've posted motte and bailey, ad hominem, and non sequitur. Let's see how many more you can get.
Last edited:
