Thumb Up Thumb Down Attach media

most favorited (27) - page 2

navigate to the topic list
  • false dilemma

    this is an argument that presents two options as the only possibilities, when in reality there may be more options available. for example, "you either support the war or you're unpatriotic."

  • fallacy

    fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or arguments that are based on incorrect or flawed logic. there are many different types of fallacies, and they can occur in written or oral arguments. it is important to be aware of fallacies in order to critically evaluate arguments and make informed decisions, and to avoid using fallacies in your own arguments.

  • slippery slope

    the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument suggests that a small initial action or event will inevitably lead to a chain of other events, culminating in a significant, negative consequence. this type of argument suggests that if the initial action is allowed to happen, it will set off a chain reaction that cannot be stopped, ultimately leading to an undesirable outcome.

    for example, consider the following argument:

    "if we allow students to use their phones in class, it will lead to students being constantly distracted and unable to pay attention. this will result in lower grades and a decrease in overall academic performance. therefore, we should not allow students to use their phones in class."

    in this argument, the initial action of allowing students to use their phones in class is presented as the first step in a chain of events that will ultimately lead to negative consequences. however, this argument does not take into account the possibility that students might be able to use their phones responsibly or that other measures could be put in place to prevent distractions.

    one key problem with the slippery slope fallacy is that it often relies on exaggerated or unrealistic assumptions about the consequences of an action. it is important to carefully evaluate the evidence and consider alternative explanations when confronted with this type of argument.

    in critical thinking, it is important to be aware of the slippery slope fallacy and to carefully consider the evidence and logic behind an argument, rather than simply accepting it because it seems to follow a logical sequence of events. it is also important to consider alternative explanations and to be open to the possibility that the initial action or event may not necessarily lead to the negative consequences that are being predicted.

  • ad hominem

    ad hominem is a type of argument where someone attacks or criticizes the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. this is often done in an attempt to undermine the person's credibility or character, rather than focusing on the merits of their argument.

    here are some examples of ad hominem:

    "you can't trust what he says about politics because he's a convicted criminal."
    "she can't be right about the environment because she works for a big oil company."
    "he's just saying that because he's trying to be popular."
    in each of these examples, the person making the argument is attacked or criticized, rather than the argument itself being discussed. this can be a logical fallacy because it doesn't address the substance of the argument and can be used to distract from a discussion of the issue at hand.

  • john stuart mill

    john stuart mill, a 19th century philosopher and political economist, is best known for his work on the concept of liberty, particularly freedom of speech. in his essay on liberty, mill argues that individuals should be free to express their ideas and opinions without fear of censorship or punishment, as long as their speech does not harm others.

    according to mill, the primary reason for protecting freedom of speech is that it allows for the exchange of ideas and the free flow of information. this, in turn, allows people to form their own opinions and make informed decisions. without the ability to freely express and explore different viewpoints, individuals would be unable to challenge and question the status quo, leading to a stagnant and intellectually stagnant society.

    mill also believed that freedom of speech serves as a safeguard against the abuse of power. when people are able to openly criticize and express their opinions about those in positions of power, it helps to hold those individuals accountable and prevent them from becoming tyrannical.

    however, mill recognized that there are limits to freedom of speech. he argued that the harm principle should be applied to speech, meaning that speech should not be restricted unless it causes harm to others. for example, speech that incites violence or causes direct harm to an individual's reputation should be restricted.

    overall, mill's belief in the importance of freedom of speech has had a significant impact on modern ideas about individual liberty and the role of government in regulating speech. his ideas continue to be debated and discussed by philosophers and policymakers today.

  • racism

    racism is the belief that certain races are superior to others, and that the superior races are entitled to dominate and oppress the inferior ones. racism is often based on the idea that certain physical characteristics, such as skin color or facial features, determine a person's worth and capabilities. racism can manifest itself in many ways, including discrimination, prejudice, violence, and oppression. it is a pervasive problem that has been present throughout history and continues to affect people around the world today.

    while the actions and behaviors associated with racism can be harmful and destructive, they do not necessarily indicate a mental health condition. racism is a complex social and cultural issue that is rooted in historical and systemic inequalities and power imbalances. it is important to address and combat racism through education, awareness, and social and political action.

  • politics of the united states

    there are three branches - executive (president), legislative (senate and house), and judicial (supreme court).

    the house has 435 districts, and you vote for one representative for your district. each state gets the number of districts based on its population compared to the country as a whole - some states only have one, and california has the most - around 50. representatives get 2-year terms.

    the senate every state gets exactly 2 senators, for 100 total. population doesn't matter. senators get 6-year terms, and each state's senators are elected in different years.

    when you vote for the presidency, each state has "electoral votes" equal to the total number of representatives and senators that state has. whoever gets the most votes in your state wins all of the state's electoral votes, and whoever gets the most electoral votes becomes the president. the president gets a 4-year term, and the maximum is two terms.

    laws are passed as follows: the house has to pass it, then it goes to the senate. if the senate passes it, it goes to the president. if the senate doesn't pass it, it goes back to the house for changes, until there is something both houses pass.

    the senate has an unusual rule called the filibuster, where one or more senators who want to block a bill being discussed can just keep talking and talking and not stop to allow a vote on the bill - it takes 60% of the senate to vote to stop a filibuster. so if you have 41% of the senate opposed to a bill, you can effectively block it - this gives the minority party a lot more power than it would normally have.

    once the president gets a bill that has been approved by the house and senate, he can sign it, and it becomes law, or he can veto it, which means that it goes back to the house and senate and it fails unless they both pass it by a 2/3 vote (called "overriding a veto").

    even if the house, senate, and president agree to pass a law, the supreme court can strike the law down if the law violates the constitution.

  • catharsis

    catharsis (meaning "purification" or "cleansing" or "clarification") is the purification and purgation of emotions through dramatic art, or it may be any extreme emotional state that results in renewal and restoration. in its literal medical sense, it refers to the evacuation of the catamenia—the menstrual fluid or other reproductive material from the patient. but as a metaphor it was originally used by aristotle in the poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of a spectator to the effect of catharsis on the body.

    in psychology, the term is associated with freudian psychoanalysis and specifically relates to the expression of buried trauma, bringing it into consciousness and thereby releasing it permanently. however, there is considerable debate as to its therapeutic usefulness. social catharsis may be regarded as the collective expression of extreme emotion, when groups gather together, such as in large crowds at sporting events.

    catharsis in platonism

    in platonism, catharsis is part of the soul's progressive ascent to knowledge. it is a means to go beyond the senses and embrace the pure world of the intelligible. specifically for the neoplatonists plotinus and porphyry, catharsis is the elimination of passions. this leads to a clear distinction in the virtues. in the second tractate of the first ennead, plotinus lays out the difference between the civic virtues and the cathartic virtues and explains that the civic, or political, virtues are inferior. they are a principle of order and beauty and concern material existence. although they maintain a trace of the absolute good, they do not lead to the unification of the soul with the divinity. as porphyry makes clear, their function is to moderate individual passions and allow for peaceful coexistence with others. the purificatory, or cathartic, virtues are a condition for assimilation to the divinity. they separate the soul from the sensible, from everything that is not its true self, enabling it to contemplate the mind.

  • users' favorite quotes

  • love

    rabbi abraham twerski talks about the difference between selfish love and true love, which must be a love of giving and not of receiving.

    transcript:

    "'young man. why are you eating that fish?' the young mans says, 'because i love fish.' he says, 'oh. you love the fish. that's why you took it out of the water and killed it and boiled it.' he says, 'don't tell me you love the fish. you love yourself, and because the fish tastes good to you; therefore, you took it out of the water and killed it and boiled it.'

    "so much of what is love is fish love. young couple falls in love. young man and young woman fall in love. what does that mean? that means that he saw in this woman someone who he felt could provide him with all of his physical and emotional needs, and she felt in this man somebody she feels that she can write, that was love, but each one is looking out for their own needs. it's not love for the other. the other person becomes a vehicle for my gratification.

    "too much of what is called love is fish love. an external love is not on what i'm going to get but i'm going to give. we had an ethicist rabbi dessler, who said, 'people make a serious mistake in thinking that you give to those whom you love, and the real answer is you love those to whom you give.'

    his point is if i give something to you, i've invested myself in you. since self-love is a given, everybody loves themselves, now that part of me has become in you, there's part of me in you that i love. true love is a love of giving, not a love of receiving.'

  • users' confessions

    after awhile you could get used to anything.

  • bodrum

    when you reach the top of the hill, you will see bodrum.
    don't assume that you will leave as you came.
    others before you were the same too.
    as they departed, they all left their souls behind.

« / 2