"Don't use anything from/about 1984, makes it seem like your education is the one book you remember reading in high school". You say I'm using ad hominem arguments? Look at you. George Orwell's 1984 is an amazing book and sadly it seems to be prophetic.
"If you can't distinguish between true and false beliefs, in regards to truth and falsity, your views are random
Since there's more ways to go wrong (have false beliefs) than go right (have true beliefs), if your beliefs are random,
your beliefs are false.
Your beliefs are random, so your beliefs are false"
English is not your first language is it? What do you mean when you say my views and beliefs are random? Because I'm not siding with any specific ideology?
What exactly makes my authorities garbage? Using youtube makes the claims invalid? Explain to me why that's so. I'm refuting claims that are being made by a youtube video. Larry Elder is an expert. Which experts are you citing?
An ad hominem is discrediting an argument by attacking the person. I'm not attacking any of Orwell's arguments (we're not discussing any), so I'm not using an ad hominem. (This is another example of your inability to recognize or evaluate arguments)
1984 is a book for high schoolers, by relying on it, you appear to have nothing more than a high school understanding of politics.
A high school understanding of politics is a limited understanding of politics
A limited understanding is an ignorant understanding
So, relying on Orwellian categories you evidence your ignorance of politics
Also, issues and positions/arguments are complex and nuanced, Orwell's categories are simple, so when you call an entire line of thinking "newspeak," you're over simplifying the complexity and nuances of an issue or position. That is, using Orwellian categories dumbs down discussions.
So when you rely on Orwellian categories, you show your ignorance and you dumb down the conversation.
1. Clear thinking appears muddled to those that do not think clearly. (Students with poor thinking claim textbooks talk in circles or don't make sense)
2. Logical thinking is clear and precise
3. My arguments are logical
4. By claiming English is not my first language, you're claiming my arguments are muddled
Therefore, you do not think clearly, since you think clear thinking is muddled
1. Reason and evidence distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs (more reason/evidence for a claim, more likely it is true)
2. Arguments are the use of reason and weighing of evidence, so arguments distinguish between true and false beliefs
3. You can't identify, evaluate, or construct good arguments
So, you can't distinguish between true and false beliefs.
This argument is not due to your disagreeing with my ideology, but your failure to make good arguments (I pointed out your fallacies), your inability to identify or understand arguments (you think clear/logical thinking is muddled), and your inability to evaluate arguments (you claim the video is full of fallacies, but can't name one, you misidentify ad hominem)
Since you can't construct, identify, or evaluate arguments, and arguments are the method to distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs, you cannot distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs.
Therefore,
If a belief of yours is true, it's by randomness, not your ability to weigh evidence or use reason (which you can't)
If a belief of yours is false, it's by randomness, not your ability to weigh evidence or use reason (which you can't)
Since there are more false explanations for a phenomena than true explanations, and your beliefs about what is true/false are random, your beliefs are false.
Youtube is not authority because there are no standards of veracity, people can post whatever.
You ask whom I'm citing, but I'm not making arguments from authority, so I don't need to cite any authorities.
This is another example of your inability to recognize or evaluate arguments.
Gipper's right, there's no getting through to you.
You're like a schizophrenic, despite showing their claims false/crazy and their reasoning faulty, they still firmly believe in dumb shit and think in dumb ways.
To criticize these conclusions you need to (1) show my conclusions do not logically follow from premises or (2) my premises are false.
Replying with 5 youtube videos doesn't do either.
Expand Quote
If you can't distinguish between true and false beliefs, in regards to truth and falsity, your views are random
Since there's more ways to go wrong (have false beliefs) than go right (have true beliefs), if your beliefs are random,
your beliefs are false.
The odds of rolling 2-6 on a six-sided die are greater than the odds of rolling 1, therefore if you roll the die, you will roll 2-6.
Good job.
It's more that 2-6 is the true belief while the other 35 combinations are false beliefs, but whatever is rolled, CigBeer claims it's a 2-6.