[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by hyfe

Sure, it may be a logical fallacy in a neutral, fact-driven, all statements taking without context-world where every statement is built up from agreed-upon facts, but that doesn't fit very well with the reality. In reality, sources do matter, because it's a very, very easy way of discerning credibility. With the amount of information and stuff happening you're always forced to take things at facevalue, one way or another, and as such, a person praising a company being their CEO is valid information that will affect their credibility.

Or you can suspend definite judgement until further information becomes available.

Along the same logic if a raging retard continuesly shows himself incapable of understanding reason, shows himself to be misinformed and naive on a variety of subjects you do know, you're probably going to be pretty fast at dismissing anything he says on subjects you don't know also. It may not be logically valid, but it's bloody usefull and saves time.

I think you missed the point. Dismissing an argument is not the same as refuting it. What you should ask for is proof when someone makes a positive assertion. If he says invest, ask for proof. If his proof is valid invest. If someone says saddam hussein is an alien, ask for proof.

According to wikipedia (hoho) you have 'misunderstood' both Hume and Moore, and missed the 'deep' consequences that the is-ought problem poses.
Frankly, I think the is-ought problem only serves to highlight how boring and meaningless philisophical meandering becomes.

Actually if you read my very last sentence in that thread, specifically the last clause, it's obvious I didn't and I just didn't want to meander into a very silly debate over morality. The fact that morality is a human construct doesn't actually mean anything. What else would you (not specifically you) expect it to be constructed by? The three bears?