You can read Volokh's report wherein he states proofs for those things as logical fallacies. It's linked to on that Wikipedia page.
As for appeals to authority, that's not what I'm doing. An appeal to authority would be "Volokh is usually right about how to argue, so this is correct." In this case, the man published independently verifiable findings, so I'm appealing to empiricism.
Slippery slope would be A necessarily leads to B, which I did not argue.
Tossing an entire article out pithily is not an argument it's a temper tantrum.
Why don't you just admit that you're trying to argue that social proof is a logical fallacy? Then we can talk about how you must think the Milgram experiment is a fraud and work from there.
Not hardly, sir. Tossing an entire article out pithilyI the way by which people who argue for a living (scientists and philosophers) resolve all their disputes.
If you read said article, you'd realize how your argument is fallacious.
You can read Volokh's report wherein he states proofs for those things as logical fallacies. It's linked to on that Wikipedia page.
From a quick glance, that's not at all the case. Here's a quote:
The slippery slope is a familiar label for many of the most common examples of this phenomenon: When someone says “I oppose partial-birth abortion bans because they might lead to broader abortion restrictions,” or “I oppose gun registration because it might lead to gun prohibition,” the common reaction is “That’s a slippery slope argument.” But whatever one calls these arguments, the important point is that the observer is asking the question “Does it make sense for me to support A, given that it might lead others to support B?,” which breaks down into “How much do I like A?,” “How much do I dislike B?,” and, the focus of this article, “How likely is A to lead others to support B?”[14] And this last question in turn requires us to ask “What are the mechanisms through which A can lead others to support B?”
It is these real-world mechanisms on which I will focus.[15] Slippery slopes, camel’s noses, thin ends of wedges, floodgates, and acorns are metaphors, not analytical tools. My goal is to describe the real-world paths that the metaphors represent—to provide a framework for analyzing and evaluating slippery slope risks by focusing on the concrete means through which A might possibly cause B.
It seems that the article is actually focused on examining real-world mechanisms by which slippage can actually occur; it actually highlights the "boiling frog" (small change tolerance) as such a mechanism.
So, WuB, while it's awesome to cite literature in support of your arguments, perhaps you're the one who needs to read said article?
You can read Volokh's report wherein he states proofs for those things as logical fallacies. It's linked to on that Wikipedia page.
From a quick glance, that's not at all the case.
Yeah, "proof" was a shitty word choice on my part, but I believe that paper is still a valid reference for this argument.
It's a valid reference, but more so for muppet's side than yours, given that it puts small change tolerance forth as a legitimate cause for concern ^_~
Besides, I don't think muppet was putting forth the "boiling frog" as the core of his argument, but rather as an additional issue to worry about.
My fail of today was that no one seemed to care about my fail of yesterday.
I'm quite pleased that my earlier post about discussing rape was considered such sense that nobody felt the need to question it or disagree in any way.
You have a record of presenting well thought out arguments that are oft backed up by facts or very strong reasoning. Im amazed that people listened to me to some extent and I wasn't lynched.
My fail of today was that no one seemed to care about my fail of yesterday.
I'm quite pleased that my earlier post about discussing rape was considered such sense that nobody felt the need to question it or disagree in any way.
Well, it was pretty obviously correct and pointed out a detail that had not been expressly differentiated yet. Not all people who have raped someone think of it as rape, and not all instances of harassment qualify as rape. It's a good point to recognize the difference between people who do it anyway and people who just don't realize they're doing it. But I dunno that there is really anything further to discuss.
How is this bad? They metabolize all the stuff and clean it up; they're bottom-feeders. It's not appetizing, I know, but shrimp live on fish waste and plankton anyway.
More food industry sensationalism, it's today's Yellow Journalism.
I guess I trust fish waste and plankton more than I trust pig feces. The food industry doesn't have a good track record with using waste products to feed food.
I guess I trust fish waste and plankton more than I trust pig feces. The food industry doesn't have a good track record with using waste products to feed food.
There's really nothing to fuck up here, though. Shrimp have evolved to eat shit. It's kind of their deal. It's not an issue of trusting some shit more than other shit; shit is pretty much shit and shrimp are eager to eat it.
My concerns would be about what's in the shit besides the usual things that might be in shit, but you're right, on its face the article is just sensationalistic and there's no evidence presented that there's a problem.
Message from the marine biologist that I live with; Don't eat those filter feeders yo!
Crustaceans in general are gross as fuck, but they sure are tasty.
My concerns would be about what's in the shit besides the usual things that might be in shit, but you're right, on its face the article is just sensationalistic and there's no evidence presented that there's a problem.
That's valid. I mean, there might be pork hormones in the shrimp now, but I think if you eat bacon you shouldn't worry about the shrimp.
It's just not hard to imagine a bunch of industry workers, being paid poorly and not really giving a fuck, who are feeding pig shit to a tank full of shrimp, not really caring what else falls or gets mixed in with the pig shit while they're doing it. Spilled a little floor cleaner in there? No problem. Cigarette butt? Throw it in the pig shit, who cares. Etc.
Message from the marine biologist that I live with; Don't eat those filter feeders yo!
Crustaceans in general are gross as fuck, but they sure are tasty
See I said that, but after the four other scientists in the house, including my girlfriend, we have compromised on lobster.
I'll happily eat boiled lobster but steamed lobster is just gross as fuck. I don't want to see feces when I crack the tail off.
Ugh, someone's been preparing your lobster wrong. Before you steam them, you need to let them sit in freshwater for a while so that they purge their intestines.
It's just not hard to imagine a bunch of industry workers, being paid poorly and not really giving a fuck, who are feeding pig shit to a tank full of shrimp, not really caring what else falls or gets mixed in with the pig shit while they're doing it. Spilled a little floor cleaner in there? No problem. Cigarette butt? Throw it in the pig shit, who cares. Etc.
The same can be said for just about any food product you eat that you don't prepare, though. Luckily, prawns don't really bioaccumulate toxins too easily, so it's not a huge issue here.
Comments
As for appeals to authority, that's not what I'm doing. An appeal to authority would be "Volokh is usually right about how to argue, so this is correct." In this case, the man published independently verifiable findings, so I'm appealing to empiricism.
Tossing an entire article out pithily is not an argument it's a temper tantrum.
Why don't you just admit that you're trying to argue that social proof is a logical fallacy? Then we can talk about how you must think the Milgram experiment is a fraud and work from there.
If you read said article, you'd realize how your argument is fallacious.
So, WuB, while it's awesome to cite literature in support of your arguments, perhaps you're the one who needs to read said article?
Besides, I don't think muppet was putting forth the "boiling frog" as the core of his argument, but rather as an additional issue to worry about.
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/08/big-brother-is-definitely-tracking-your-cell-phone/
Also, you now have your choice of Asian shrimp full of pig shit or eyeless, oil-contaminated shrimp from the gulf.
I guess I'm all done eating shrimp cocktail for the rest of my life. Glad I got to try it while the getting was good.
Oh but don't worry, the FDA will protect you!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/food-sickens-millions-as-industry-paid-inspectors-find-it-safe.html
More food industry sensationalism, it's today's Yellow Journalism.