Am I the only one being called "Extremist"?

Started by R.E.H.W.R., September 06, 2012, 04:30:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Am I the only one being called "Extremist" for my libertarian views?

A "friend" just told me that he wouldn't look at my sources becuase I'm an "Extremist"

Is this common?
"The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."
Lao Tzu

Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on September 06, 2012, 04:30:07 AM
Am I the only one being called "Extremist" for my libertarian views?

A "friend" just told me that he wouldn't look at my sources becuase I'm an "Extremist"

Is this common?

I've been called extremist, but not usually with such negative connotation (or it usually comes with an asterisk like "extreme, but makes a good point"). The only time someone outright refused to look at my sources was when they claimed bias rather than extremism. That in and of itself is an ad hominem fallacy, the way it's usually used. It's like claiming that someone is lying about having an affair simply because they'd be in trouble if they admitted it. Most often, people use it as an intellectually lazy excuse to disregard evidence that contradicts their argument.

To be sure, bias can hurt a source's accuracy, but that's a motive rather than direct evidence. To establish bias, you need to establish a history of logical errors in a predictable pattern. And as I said before, that would just give you motive. You'd still have to establish a logical error within the sourceregarding the subject itself.

In essence, even if the bias claim wasn't irrelevant, you'dd still have to do the standard work of locating the llogical/factual error within the source first.

All the time.  It's one of their favorite buzzwords.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...

I've been called extremist, insane, idealistic, stupid, naive, unrealistic, and all kinds of stupid words because I don't support their glorious government.

It comes with the territory.

I've been called everything D has, plus "American" (I'm from NZ, fyi).

I have it worse than you R.E.H.W.R. as not only will they not check my sources, they won't even bother to entertain the libertarian ideas that I have. They will either brush it off with "it will never happen," or the slippery slope fallacy, or my (un)favourite: blatant misrepresentation of what libertarianism entails, like "We had an unregulated market back in ancient times, and nobody wants to go back to living like that"  >:(

They're just Zombie Terms. It's so people don't actually have to think about what you're saying.

Quote from: Virgil0211 on September 06, 2012, 06:03:24 AM
I've been called extremist, but not usually with such negative connotation (or it usually comes with an asterisk like "extreme, but makes a good point"). The only time someone outright refused to look at my sources was when they claimed bias rather than extremism. That in and of itself is an ad hominem fallacy, the way it's usually used. It's like claiming that someone is lying about having an affair simply because they'd be in trouble if they admitted it. Most often, people use it as an intellectually lazy excuse to disregard evidence that contradicts their argument.

To be sure, bias can hurt a source's accuracy, but that's a motive rather than direct evidence. To establish bias, you need to establish a history of logical errors in a predictable pattern. And as I said before, that would just give you motive. You'd still have to establish a logical error within the sourceregarding the subject itself.

In essence, even if the bias claim wasn't irrelevant, you'dd still have to do the standard work of locating the llogical/factual error within the source first.

The source I provided was from the CATO institute about how Bill Clinton wasn't as great as people say he is.
He also lacks any argument past, "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Deregulating guns- "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Legalizing drugs- "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Healthcare- "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Every single argument comes down to "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."

That's gotta be a fallacy right?
"The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."
Lao Tzu

Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on September 06, 2012, 01:40:05 PM
The source I provided was from the CATO institute about how Bill Clinton wasn't as great as people say he is.
He also lacks any argument past, "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Deregulating guns- "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Legalizing drugs- "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Healthcare- "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."
Every single argument comes down to "Americans are dumb, greedy, and heartless."

That's gotta be a fallacy right?

It's a close cousin of the Ad Hominem, but not quite because it's attacking someone other than the person actually making the argument.  Does this one have a name?  It's sort of the inverse of Argumentum Ad Populum (which is one of the main ones for imposing socialized medicine).