Am I envious Marxist? I: Envia Accusation

I, I’m on the critical capitalism. For now, I am accused by being critical, because I am supposed to be envy or Marxist. These are only attacks, they would not be a general interest. However, it is a common tactic that evaluates the criticism of the capitalism of envy or marxism. I will start with the allegation of envy.

Envia allegations rarely presented as a developed argument, rejecting criticism of capitalism by attacking the motif of critics. Logic is because their criticism is incorrect because they envy those who are gaining capitalism. Of course, this reasoning has fallen and envy can be called envy or negative complaint. This false argument has the following form:

1. Premise: P is a critical claim for the person about x.

2. Premise: P envy is accused (related to x).

Conclusion: So claim C is false.

That is, whether a person envy, it does not affect the truth of the claims. Even if a person drives with envy, it does not follow their claims that are false. This “reasoning” is an error in the following example:

Sam: “When tyrants crush people and do genocide, they play badly.”

Sally: “Why are you envious of the tyrants. So you are wrong. They play just and morally.”

Any other absurd example involves mathematics:

Cool Joe: “2 + 2 = 7”

Mathematician Mary: “That’s wrong; 2 + 2 = 4”.

Cool Joe: “You care about my being. And they are rich. And rich. So you’re wrong. 2 + 2 = 7”.

Cool Cathy: “Oh, Joe, you are in fact, and Maria is wrong. Work from your envy and maybe you get a man one day.”

Although Maria Joe was envious, it has not followed the wrong 2 + 2 = 4 when he claims. The example wants to be meaningless, because his nonsense shows that this logic has fallen. If this logic was good, it would be easy “not” to do “, be the basic of math or criticism of capitalism.

That being the case, the accusation of anyone envy does not revoke any claims. Since this is false, it could be asked why someone would use this tactic. It is an option that is the best person in the falling attack; They do not have good rejection. While the second option is Logically the faults, they can be a very strong conviction tool. A argument has nothing to do with a practical issue with the truth or logic quality; It’s about convincing Whether the target audience is true or not to accept the claim. Ad hominem style attacks are effectively psychologically, so this tactic can be the winner. In many cases, the audience want to discard criticism, so they are happy that they accept “reason” for that.

The envy of a person might ask if they can be important for their claims. As shown above, if you are irrelevant to the evidence of claims, it could be an important factor to evaluate the BIAS. But even if a person is twisted, it doesn’t follow their claim that it should be false. Envy and credibility I will turn to the next attempt.