[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by hyfe

Well, I'd say the difference between dismissing an argument and refusing to accept it until further information becomes available is academic. It entails the same; not accepting the proposition.

No, one of them continues itself in a search for further knowledge, the other does not.

Sure, but you're still guilty of stupidifying your argumentation. Add a few qualifiers, such as 'most likely' into your whole CEO analogy (ie; he is most likely sprouting bollocks, trying to pump his own stock) it suddenly looks a lot less stupid, and is much closer to the logic people would actually use... and 'most likely' is certainly good enough for me on most issues.

He is not most likely sprouting bollocks. He is either sprouting bollocks or he is not. Whether he is or is not depends on the facts of the matter, which you should investigate before acting upon. To be honest there are far less correlated ad hominems put forward than the one I stated, "what would he know, he's just a swiss clerk" or "you would say that, what with being in the stonemasons" are both sillier versions.

Refuting arguments is all nice and splendid, but it takes a lot of bloody effort, and the supply of idiots to make stupid statements is basically unlimited (and they all seem to be employed as PR-people for some reason)... and while simply dismissing stupid arguments isn't going to convince others, it's working great for me =)

It doesn't really take that much effort. Logic is quite quick really. Sometimes the search for facts is extensive but usually you'll find when it is someone will have gone to the effort and published a nice book on it for you to read. It's not a stupid argument until you prove it's wrong is analogous to he's not guilty until you prove he did it.


You really seem to be saying I can muddle through without being rational sometimes. While this is doubtlessly true, it's not exactly helpful as if everyone had this attitude we'd probably still be sitting in trees hurling faeces at each other.