Is mocking important?

[borrofburi]

TOO LONG DIDN'T READ VERSION: read the bolded bits.

I've believed (and said) for a long time that the best (possibly the only) way to get someone "deconvert" from religion/creationism is by tricking them into critically evaluating the evidence themselves. You can critique their evidence all you want, but they just won't get it. They have to do it themselves (otherwise they won't understand, not really), but that's quite difficult since by definition they believe it, so why go through the effort of critiquing it when you already believe/know it to be true?

A common theme you'll find among "deconverts" like myself is that we set out to "prove those motherfuckers [atheists] wrong". For me it was a similar concept: I set out to find or assemble arguments that would, at least, hold ground against staunch non-believers (win over the audience). I knew they had to be good, no bullshitting. So every argument I encountered or created I viciously attacked, pretending I was a rabid coldhearted logical atheist... And every argument without fail fell to my dramaturgical critical atheist self. It was my own criticisms of religious arguments that annihilated the intellectual foundation for my own religious beliefs.

Dusty Smith (youtube: CultOfDusty) had a similar experience, where atheists bastards mocked him, so he set out to "prove those motherfuckers wrong" with good sound arguments (else he be made a fool again), and as a result found, as did I, that religious arguments are insubstantial. See this video:




I've always been anti-mocking... I tend to find it to be alienating (as in "holy crap that guy is an asshole, I don't want to be associated with that jerk in any way at all"), and thus counterproductive. But I've always thought that you had to somehow convince or trick people into critically evaluating their own arguments, and I've always wondered if there is a good way to do this.

So... perhaps mocking people is one method to convince people to prove us wrong with good arguments (lest they just be mocked again)... Which all leads me to this question: does mocking have a purpose? Certainly it can be alienating... But it seems it may be a valuable tool to inspire that necessary approach of "I'm going to prove all you motherfuckers wrong with really strong arguments!"

 

[lrkun]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

---

 

[borrofburi]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

Well that's just ridiculous. I can honestly say that's the dumbest thing I've heard all day...

 

[lrkun]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

Well that's just ridiculous. I can honestly say that's the dumbest thing I've heard all day...

The highlighted portion is an example of an appeal to ridicule because it makes fun of my argument by calling it dumb and ridiculous. :facepalm:

Look, you're one of the demi gods in this forum, you should know better.

 

[borrofburi]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

Well that's just ridiculous.I can honestly say that's the dumbest thing I've heard all day...

The highlighted portion is an example of an appeal to ridicule because it makes fun of my argument by calling it dumb and ridiculous. :facepalm:

Look, you're one of the demi gods in this forum, you should know better.

I think your irony meter broke...


But all joking aside... I don't know that mocking someone can be a logical fallacy unless it's being used as a logical argument. I also don't know how a logically fallacy necessitates dishonesty; I can honestly mock you and honestly find your views ridiculous, so how is that "not being honest"?

 

[lrkun]

I think your irony meter broke...


But all joking aside... I don't know that mocking someone can be a logical fallacy unless it's being used as a logical argument. I also don't know how a logically fallacy necessitates dishonesty; I can honestly mock you and honestly find your views ridiculous, so how is that "not being honest"?

Honestly mocking a person does not remove the fact that doing so is a logical fallacy, which is the only point I'm making. A fallacy is a misconception based on a false reasoning. So, if you win by making fun of another, then you won based on a misconception (false or something not true).

Honesty is the quality of being frank or dependable. So, if you win based on something not frank or dependable like a misconception, then it only means that the means done is dishonest.

Anyway, like I said, if it converts believers to non-believers, use it. I doubt they are familiar with logical fallacies, but it's not something to cheer for.

---

Alternatively, honestly mocking a person is the same as honestly using a misconception. It only means honestly being dishonest.

 

[borrofburi]

Honestly mocking a person does not remove the fact that doing so is a logical fallacy, which is the only point I'm making. A fallacy is a misconception based on a false reasoning. So, if you win by making fun of another, then you won based on a misconception (false or something not true).

You don't "win" because of the mocking... You've already won because their arguments are so insubstantial. The only question is how do you get them to realize that Kent Hovind's "Ice Canopy" idea would violate pretty much every discipline in science and ultimately require that everyday things fail to work (which they don't) and on that fundamental level disagrees with reality? How do you get a flat earther to realize that the satellites couldn't possibly work in a universe with a flat earth, or that, quite frankly, some people have travelled the whole way round, which can't possibly make sense (via Occam's Razor) with a flat earth, and that as a result the idea of a "flat earth" fundamentally disagrees with reality?

The problem isn't "winning" in any objective sense. The problem is getting them to recognize that the idea they believe is simply false. It turns out that making the above points I just did (that it is in conflict with reality) doesn't do it. Patiently explaining that the earth can not be "flat" in any normal sense of the word will often times not convince them in the slightest. Yet they are wrong... How do you get them to realize that?

Mocking isn't an "argument". It's goal isn't to "prove" that the other person is wrong. It's to inspire the other person to pwn you with a kick-ass argument... There's no "win" or "lose" in this concept, and it's not meant to be an argument, nor is it meant to "win" an argument, and it is most definitely not meant to be a logical argument, or even "reasoning"... so how can it, in anyway, be a "logical fallacy"? What's the "misconception"?

Honesty is the quality of being frank or dependable. So, if you win based on something not frank or dependable like a misconception, then it only means that the means done is dishonest.

I fundamentally disagree. Being honest is the act of not lying. Lying is the act of intentionally saying something that isn't true. It has nothing to do with being dependable, other than dependably saying what one believes to be true.

 

[lrkun]

You don't "win" because of the mocking... You've already won because their arguments are so insubstantial. The only question is how do you get them to realize that Kent Hovind's "Ice Canopy" idea would violate pretty much every discipline in science and ultimately require that everyday things fail to work (which they don't) and on that fundamental level disagrees with reality? How do you get a flat earther to realize that the satellites couldn't possibly work in a universe with a flat earth, or that, quite frankly, some people have travelled the whole way round, which can't possibly make sense (via Occam's Razor) with a flat earth, and that as a result the idea of a "flat earth" fundamentally disagrees with reality?

The problem isn't "winning" in any objective sense. The problem is getting them to recognize that the idea they believe is simply false. It turns out that making the above points I just did (that it is in conflict with reality) doesn't do it. Patiently explaining that the earth can not be "flat" in any normal sense of the word will often times not convince them in the slightest. Yet they are wrong... How do you get them to realize that?

Mocking isn't an "argument". It's goal isn't to "prove" that the other person is wrong. It's to inspire the other person to pwn you with a kick-ass argument... There's no "win" or "lose" in this concept, and it's not meant to be an argument, nor is it meant to "win" an argument, and it is most definitely not meant to be a logical argument, or even "reasoning"... so how can it, in anyway, be a "logical fallacy"? What's the "misconception"?

Wrong. My point refers to the mocking. If you mock a person, then you employ a logical fallacy called the appeal on ridicule. If in addition to the mocking, you add evidence, then the mocking serves as a one-two combo to discredit the person first and to finish his argument with something with basis. It's an effective rhetoric.

Here, the person should have been direct and forgone the use of mocking because he already had something that will destroy the wrong argument.

I fundamentally disagree. Being honest is the act of not lying. Lying is the act of intentionally saying something that isn't true. It has nothing to do with being dependable, other than dependably saying what one believes to be true.

Honestly mocking, if you follow the arrangement of words, does not erase the mocking. The important part there is the mocking itself because doing so is dishonest. so, it's honestly employing an appeal to ridicule.

On that note, if you honestly mock me, then it only shows your intention to make fun of me in a frank way.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

---

Strictly, not true. Appeal to ridicule as a logical fallacy involves presenting your opponent's argument in a form that appears ridiculous, and generally involves misrepresenting their argument, which is precisely why it's fallacious.

Ridiculing an argument that is itself ridiculous is not fallacious. Mocking a person certainly is fallacious, but not because of the ridicule aspect, but because it constitutes a different fallacy, namely the ad hominem.

If I win an argument, it's not the ridicule that wins, but the destruction of the opponent's argument. If I do that by demonstrating that the argument actually is ridiculous, no fallacy has been committed, however much ridicule I pour on the argument.

Edit: To clarify, here are two examples of appeal to ridicule.

1. If quantum mechanics is correct, that would mean that one thing can be in two places at once, which is clearly ridiculous!

This is a fallacy because it argues that the concept being dealt with is ridiculous, when in fact it's true.

2. If evolution is true, why don't we see a crocoduck?

This is a fallacy because it misrepresents what is actually predicted by evolution, and is thus a strawman.

Counter-example:

God exists, and the evidence is that zero degrees is freezing point and 100 degrees is boiling point!

This argument is clearly ridiculous, so stating that it's ridiculous, along with an explanation of why it's ridiculous and why it doesn't constitute evidence for a deity is thus committing no fallacy.

For me, ridicule is a useful tool, but only in context. It should be noted that I am pretty much never trying to change the mind of the person I am debating with, because that's a complete waste of time. They are, in fact, largely irrelevant. My target is the onlookers, and I want those to be under no illusion about the utter contempt I have for some of the ideas presented by the credulous and the dim-of-wit. Ridicule is the best route to that.

 

[lrkun]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

---

Strictly, not true. Appeal to ridicule as a logical fallacy involves presenting your opponent's argument in a form that appears ridiculous, and generally involves misrepresenting their argument, which is precisely why it's fallacious.

Ridiculing an argument that is itself ridiculous is not fallacious. Mocking a person certainly is fallacious, but not because of the ridicule aspect, but because it constitutes a different fallacy, namely the ad hominem.

If I win an argument, it's not the ridicule that wins, but the destruction of the opponent's argument. If I do that by demonstrating that the argument actually is ridiculous, no fallacy has been committed, however much ridicule I pour on the argument.

I disagree with the highlighted portion purely based on how you constructed it. It's better written that if you demonstrated that the argument is wrong, then no fallacy has been committed.

If you demonstrate that an argument is ridiculous, then it doesn't mean that the argument is wrong. It might be ridiculous, but it can also be correct.

---

Anyway, if you mean reduction to absurdity, then I take back all of my comments because if that's the case, it's a valid logical argument. (is this what you mean?)

---
On the topic, the question is whether mocking is important. It's different from showing that the argument of the other party is wrong or absurd.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'll accept that. If I show the argument to be wrong, then it doesn't matter how much ridicule is employed, it still doesn't constitute a fallacy.

Edit: Oh, and no, I hadn't made any reference to reductio ad absurdum, because that's not what we were discussing. It is indeed a valid logical construct (and in fact a good deal of scientific progress has been made by this method), but it isn't really germane to the point here, although reductio ad absurdum and reductio ad ridiculum are often confused.

 

[lrkun]

I'll accept that. If I show the argument to be wrong, then it doesn't matter how much ridicule is employed, it still doesn't constitute a fallacy.

Correct. It's valid if that's the case.

Edit: Oh, and no, I hadn't made any reference to reductio ad absurdum, because that's not what we were discussing. It is indeed a valid logical construct (and in fact a good deal of scientific progress has been made by this method), but it isn't really germane to the point here, although reductio ad absurdum and reductio ad ridiculum are often confused.

If not, then I disagree. reductio ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy.

 

[borrofburi]

so how can it, in anyway, be a "logical fallacy"? What's the "misconception"?

Wrong. My point refers to the mocking. If you mock a person, then you employ a logical fallacy called the appeal on ridicule. If in addition to the mocking, you add evidence, then the mocking serves as a one-two combo to discredit the person first and to finish his argument with something with basis. It's an effective rhetoric.

Here, the person should have been direct and forgone the use of mocking because he already had something that will destroy the wrong argument.

I'm not certain how a couple of questions can simply be declared wrong... But anyway, you are simply incorrect in your statement that mocking is always a logical fallacy. For instance, if I call you an asshat, there is no ad hominem. It only becomes an "ad hominem" if I insert a causal link: you are wrong because you're an asshat. Otherwise I'm just calling you an asshat. Things can only be logical fallacies if they are used as logical arguments. But in all my communications with you, I've been very careful to note that it's not being used as an argument, let alone a logical argument.

Moreover, I think you missed the point: destroying the wrong argument is, often times, not sufficient. The person who employed the wrong argument will often times keep believing the wrong thing, and (eventually) use the wrong argument again (possibly because one forgets that it was destroyed).

I fundamentally disagree. Being honest is the act of not lying. Lying is the act of intentionally saying something that isn't true. It has nothing to do with being dependable, other than dependably saying what one believes to be true.

Honestly mocking, if you follow the arrangement of words, does not erase the mocking. The important part there is the mocking itself because doing so is dishonest. so, it's honestly employing an appeal to ridicule.

Why is mocking dishonest? Dishonest is defined as lying, and lying is defined as intentionally communicating something that is false... So please, show me how precisely "mocking" someone is necessarily (and always) an intentional communication of something that is not true.

 

[Deleted member 619]

If not, then I disagree. reductio ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy.

No, I am saying that reductio ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy, but that reductio ad absurdum is not. We're on the same page here.

 

[lrkun]

I'm not certain how a couple of questions can simply be declared wrong... But anyway, you are simply incorrect in your statement that mocking is always a logical fallacy. For instance, if I call you an asshat, there is no ad hominem. It only becomes an "ad hominem" if I insert a causal link: you are wrong because you're an asshat. Otherwise I'm just calling you an asshat. Things can only be logical fallacies if they are used as logical arguments. But in all my communications with you, I've been very careful to note that it's not being used as an argument, let alone a logical argument.

Moreover, I think you missed the point: destroying the wrong argument is, often times, not sufficient. The person who employed the wrong argument will often times keep believing the wrong thing, and (eventually) use the wrong argument again (possibly because one forgets that it was destroyed).

The problem here is you don't know how to distinguish between mocking on the one hand and proving that the argument is absurd on the other hand. If I called you an asshat, without qualifying it, then it is dishonest because it is a positive claim - without basis and an insult.

To qualify a person as an asshat, the following elements must be necessary : a b c. And if I show that someone has a b and c, then it's no longer without basis. In addition, it shows I qualified someone as an asshat. If i'm not able to do that, then I'm wrong for saying so.

Why is mocking dishonest? Dishonest is defined as lying, and lying is defined as intentionally communicating something that is false... So please, show me how precisely "mocking" someone is necessarily (and always) an intentional communication of something that is not true.

Mocking is to treat with ridicule. To ridicule is intented to evoke contempt. Contempt is to regard someone as inferior, worthless, scorn. Yes, I know, lots of connecting definitions. The polysyllogism there is for the purpose of connecting the ideas. Anyway, you get the picture. It's not honest.

If I called someone by something to the effect that people will regard someone as inferior, worthless, or be scorned, is that honest?

If not, then I disagree. reductio ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy.

No, I am saying that reductio ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy, but that reductio ad absurdum is not. We're on the same page here.

Ok ^-^

---

Point is, if I mock someone in order to show that he is wrong, I committed a fallacy. But if I show that the person's argument qualifies as something absurd, then I didn't commit a fallacy.

 

[Aught3]

I'm not a fan of mocking people in general, I prefer to engage directly with the arguments. However there are some arguments that are so ridiculous that they deserve ridicule. For me, an reasoned argument is more effective than something laced with mocking insults - even if it is more amusing.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Mocking is to treat with ridicule. To ridicule is intented to evoke contempt. Contempt is to regard someone as inferior, worthless, scorn. Yes, I know, lots of connecting definitions. The polysyllogism there is for the purpose of connecting the ideas. Anyway, you get the picture. It's not honest.

You're assuming that the victim is not actually intellectually inferior to the mocker. Of course, this is subjective, but what if the victim IS inferior? Then would it be dishonest? In my opinion, it wouldn't.

However, if the victim is not as the mocker describes it, the mocker is being dishonest not only to others, but to himself. Mocking is one of the ways we know to get ego boosts, if you don't remember. So what ends up happening is that the mocker is lying to himself to pretty much get an ego boost.

 

[lrkun]

Mocking is to treat with ridicule. To ridicule is intented to evoke contempt. Contempt is to regard someone as inferior, worthless, scorn. Yes, I know, lots of connecting definitions. The polysyllogism there is for the purpose of connecting the ideas. Anyway, you get the picture. It's not honest.

You're assuming that the victim is not actually intellectually inferior to the mocker. Of course, this is subjective, but what if the victim IS inferior? Then would it be dishonest? In my opinion, it wouldn't.

However, if the victim is not as the mocker describes it, the mocker is being dishonest not only to others, but to himself. Mocking is one of the ways we know to get ego boosts, if you don't remember. So what ends up happening is that the mocker is lying to himself to pretty much get an ego boost.

I don't assume a person is inferior, what I said was I needed to qualify that a person is inferior before making a conclusion that he is so, or his argument. It's basic logic. Claim backed by basis. :3

For example, if I call A stupid, and I didn't qualify it to the elements of what constitute as stupid, I only made a claim.

If I call A stupid, and qualified it (to qualify as stupid, a person must be, element a, element s, element d, and so on. Here, A is something that is element A, something that is element S, something that is element D, and so on. So, A is stupid.) , then I demonstrated A is stupid. Or A's argument.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Heheheeh, forgot to read what came before. Sorry there, lrkun

 

[lrkun]

Heheheeh, forgot to read what came before. Sorry there, lrkun

No harm done. :3