Is this a fallacy/How do you argue it?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Person A has a list of things they accomplished before person B. So they say that Person B is automatically worthless and must admit defeat because person A accomplished all these things before Person B. Person B can not defend themselves and stop the bullying because what A says is factually true. However A says this is justification to attack B and call them worthless. Person B trys desperately to try to find things they can prove or worth it or more valuable than the things A has listed. If they can not the constant harassment and short comings of person B will be pointed out and constantly paraded by person A because Person A is a more valuable a person since they accomplished more.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[fiveworlds]

A-B=0

Person A is attention-seeking. Person A feels that it is necessary for person B to have a specific viewpoint of them and really cares about what person B thinks of them. Person A acts like child clinging onto the parent person B hoping they'll put up with them.

Edited September 21, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Ophiolite]

Person A has a list of things they accomplished before person B. So they say that Person B is automatically worthless and must admit defeat because person A accomplished all these things before Person B. Person B can not defend themselves and stop the bullying because what A says is factually true. However A says this is justification to attack B and call them worthless. Person B trys desperately to try to find things they can prove or worth it or more valuable than the things A has listed. If they can not the constant harassment and short comings of person B will be pointed out and constantly paraded by person A because Person A is a more valuable a person since they accomplished more.

It is illogical to claim that person B is worthless because they have accomplished less, or later. Therefore persons A's claims in this regard can be ignored.

 

As described, the bullying can be stopped by ignoring it.

 

B should respond to A thus "If I valued your opinion I would be offended."

 

Person B should simply accept person A is a dickhead and get on with their life.

 

(Edit: If Persons A and B are married, then it is probably time for a divorce.)

Edited September 22, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Phi for All]

If a person's "worth" is being used to devalue an argument they're making, it's an ad hominem fallacy. A good argument doesn't rely on its source.

 

It's also a fallacy to assume someone's argument is better because of who they are. If Person A is saying his arguments should have more weight because of all the things he's accomplished, this is Appeal to Authority, and it's equally fallacious logic.

 

In this situation though, it seems like what we're arguing about is the "worth" of a person, rather than the value of their arguments based on their "worth". If experience is the sole determining factor, isn't that automatically going to make younger people worth less than older people?

[pears]

It sounds like a flawed premise. Given that a person's worth is based on their experience, then person A (with a lot of experience) is worth more than person B (with little) is a valid argument. (I.e. the logic is sound) However if the premise is wrong to start with then the conclusion is unconvincing.

Edited September 22, 2014 by pears

[Marshalscienceguy]

It sounds like a flawed premise. Given that a person's worth is based on their experience, then person A (with a lot of experience) is worth more than person B (with little) is a valid argument. (I.e. the logic is sound) However if the premise is wrong to start with then the conclusion is unconvincing.

Your saying its a flawed premise with logical reasoning?

 

If a person's "worth" is being used to devalue an argument they're making, it's an ad hominem fallacy. A good argument doesn't rely on its source.

 

It's also a fallacy to assume someone's argument is better because of who they are. If Person A is saying his arguments should have more weight because of all the things he's accomplished, this is Appeal to Authority, and it's equally fallacious logic.

 

In this situation though, it seems like what we're arguing about is the "worth" of a person, rather than the value of their arguments based on their "worth". If experience is the sole determining factor, isn't that automatically going to make younger people worth less than older people?

Yes basically. which = I am older or bigger/smarter/more accomplished and so that gives me the right to belittle, demean, pick on you. You cant argue this because you are worth less than me and so that gives me authority over you and right to do whatever I wish to you and you must sit and suffer.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[pears]

 

Your saying its a flawed premise with logical reasoning?

 

 

Yes. A faulty conclusion has been reached because of a faulty premise. Logic itself contains no truths, it's just a mathematical relationship between premises and conclusions.

 

One could start with a sound premise, and use flawed logic to reach an incorrect conclusion. That would be a fallactious argument. You could examine the logic to see what the fallacy was.

 

Or, one could start with some flawed premises. E.g. All actors are men. Sandra Bullock is an actor. Therefore Sandra Bullock is a man. There is no flaw in logic here but the conclusion is clearly wrong because the premises are flawed. This is like your case. Worth is a direct measure of experience. Person A has more experience than Person B. Therefore Person A has more worth. The logic itself is sound but the argument fails based on the weakness of the premises.

 

To attack this argument you must attack the premise, and show why it is illogical or flawed. Essentially it's just an opinion. What is worth? Why must it be measured in this way? Is a newborn baby worthless? Ask any proud new parents and they'll give you a firm no. Does arrogance have any bearing on worth? It sounds like whoever is making this argument has arrogance in bucketloads. The definition of woth in the premises is just a made-up definition. You might just as well define worth as experience minus arrogance, in which case they may have little, or none, or a negative amount. Challenge the assertion that worth is solely based on experience.

 

Good luck and don't let anyone tell you they're better than you.

 

[Phi for All]

 

Yes basically. which = I am older or bigger/smarter/more accomplished and so that gives me the right to belittle, demean, pick on you. You cant argue this because you are worth less than me and so that gives me authority over you and right to do whatever I wish to you and you must sit and suffer.

 

Why does an older, bigger, smarter, more accomplished individual feel the need to belittle, demean, and pick on someone they feel is inferior? Perhaps your solution lies more with ethics than logic.

 

I could argue that if this person feels the need to prop up their own self-esteem by belittling others, they aren't smarter or more accomplished. They've failed to mature in a very basic human way. They're just older and bigger, which doesn't make them better. In this context, it just makes them bullies.

[Greg H.]

Punch person A on the end of their nose while declaiming "I refute it thus!".

 

Extra points if you manage to not get arrested for assault.

[Strange]

Is a newborn baby worthless?

 

Quite. The premise completely ignores potential.

 

It also ignores the nature of the things that have been achieved. If person A's "achievements" are theft, rape, genocide and getting full marks in Psychopathy 101 then it makes A sound pretty worthless.

 

If person B's only achievement is a combined cure for cancer and solution to world peace then they might be the better person.

[Asterisk Propernoun]

I have several retorts:

 

1. This is more bullying than it is formal debate, so I wouldn't even bother with it.

 

2. Just because a person hasn't done something doesn't mean they won't. I had a D average in my algebra classes last year, but I worked hard over the Summer and now my current overall grade in geometry is a 101.7 (it's over 100 because the teacher offers test bonuses).

 

3. If gold is more valuable than silver, then silver is worthless. See the fallacy?

[TheDivineFool]

Let's be realistic here.

 

B sounds like the average Joe and A is the over-accomplishing genius. Personally, I do feel small in front of people who're experts in their own fields.

 

Perhaps if you rephrase you might feel better. Why not say ''A is better than B'' instead of ''B is worthless''? Does that help?

 

Another relevant point to note is that if A has accomplished more than B it doesn't mean A didn't deserve it. Usually high achievers make sacrifices which low achievers don't. So, in that sense B is guilty of time ill-spent. I think that does make him worth less than A.