I've been a follower of "The Young Turks" for several years. Cenk is very smart, and on this issue absolutely correct. Dan, arguing that "nobody knows or cares what that person thinks" isn't a particularly logical way to argue against what they're saying. It's like saying that FOX "News" is better or more accurate because it gets higher ratings.
I'm not sure which logical fallacy this type of argument is. . . It's close to argumentum ad hominem, or whatever the opposite of argumentum ad populum is. This type of argument is almost as prevalent in my interactions with conservatives as the "slippery slope/camel's nose" fallacy. Conservatives use such arguments all the time. . .even CALLING them that(!) not realizing that their arguments are textbook definitions of a logical fallacy.
Saying "well who cares what HE says" or "who the hell is HE" does NOT disprove what he's saying. After all, Dan, who the hell am I, and who the hell are you???
Does anyone care what Cenk Uygur thinks? And who the hell is Cenk Uyguy?
ReplyDeleteI've been a follower of "The Young Turks" for several years. Cenk is very smart, and on this issue absolutely correct. Dan, arguing that "nobody knows or cares what that person thinks" isn't a particularly logical way to argue against what they're saying. It's like saying that FOX "News" is better or more accurate because it gets higher ratings.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which logical fallacy this type of argument is. . . It's close to argumentum ad hominem, or whatever the opposite of argumentum ad populum is. This type of argument is almost as prevalent in my interactions with conservatives as the "slippery slope/camel's nose" fallacy. Conservatives use such arguments all the time. . .even CALLING them that(!) not realizing that their arguments are textbook definitions of a logical fallacy.
Saying "well who cares what HE says" or "who the hell is HE" does NOT disprove what he's saying. After all, Dan, who the hell am I, and who the hell are you???