The weak arguments shouldn’t be used to defend a position. These arguments may lower the other side’s confidence, but they won’t sway the conclusion, and so asking to reconsider the conclusion by giving such arguments is fallacious. It’s also pretty much useless and maybe even misleading, as getting a better idea of the real state of things requires a much more systematic study than a few hand-picked arguments, which are likely to suffer from selection bias anyway.
You don’t defend the statement that a country is economically prosperous by mentioning one successful company.
The weak arguments shouldn’t be used to defend a position.
The argument is not weak. If you think it is, explain why it is weak, why it won’t sway the conclusion.
You don’t defend the statement that a country is economically prosperous by mentioning one successful company.
This is not a good analogy. Malicious hackers will systematically exploit the most dangerous vulnerabilities in a way that the people of a country can not systematically do business with the most successful company.
Keep in mind, I was refuting the assertion that using NoScript is stupid. As thomblake has already explained, any good reason one might have for using NoScript is evidence for my position.
Are you serious? We should only ever present arguments that are powerful enough to convince everyone and conclude the discussion?
The weak arguments shouldn’t be used to defend a position. These arguments may lower the other side’s confidence, but they won’t sway the conclusion, and so asking to reconsider the conclusion by giving such arguments is fallacious. It’s also pretty much useless and maybe even misleading, as getting a better idea of the real state of things requires a much more systematic study than a few hand-picked arguments, which are likely to suffer from selection bias anyway.
You don’t defend the statement that a country is economically prosperous by mentioning one successful company.
Think of this in the scientific evidence vs. rational evidence setting. The protocol is there to ensure more reliable performance.
The argument is not weak. If you think it is, explain why it is weak, why it won’t sway the conclusion.
This is not a good analogy. Malicious hackers will systematically exploit the most dangerous vulnerabilities in a way that the people of a country can not systematically do business with the most successful company.
Keep in mind, I was refuting the assertion that using NoScript is stupid. As thomblake has already explained, any good reason one might have for using NoScript is evidence for my position.