1601

Maybe it’s the fact that you claimed someone was “old as fuck” without defining what you meant by that, what your own age is, or how that’s even remotely relevant to this thread.

1602

It’s pretty obvious to me.

Maybe you guys are just getting senile.

1603

I must be getting senile. I don’t really get how Andy’s age matters. There are young liberals and old liberals, young objectivists and old objectivists, etc.

1604

I don’t know about LK, but I was rather surprised. The QT3 demographics are so yuppie that I unconsciously assumed an iron law relating age to writing ability.

1605

LK, I’m still waiting for a definition of how old you think “old as fuck” is, and how old you are, while we’re at it.

1606

Old as fuck means in their 40’s. I’m 30, and old. Someone in their early 20’s would be young.

No, that’s not it. He’s arguing that because a prediction based on age can’t always be right it’s never right or useful. I explained how it was relevant in my follow-up to my original casual mention of this item: essentially, the Andy Bates show isn’t as funny when it’s someone who didn’t just turn 19, read half of Atlas Shrugged and then extrapolate from there. For me, this is useful information in terms of how to address you, and as you can see other people found it useful and/or relevant as well. You don’t, of course, but that’s because you think you have a wedge issue. Thanks to your fellow AARPers, that may just be the case.

1607

I didn’t say it “matters”, whatever heavy portent that carries. I said it came as a surprise to me that these were the fallacies of someone in middle age. That’s it. Some people agree, and then you have the “age means nothing/you can never predict something based on age because it’s sometimes wrong” counterpoint, which I was inclined to dismiss out of hand except I’m surprised at how quickly it picked up steam.

I guess that’s the internet for you, difficult to predict what will catch fire.

1608

Seriously, how is making judgments about people based on their age any better than making judgments based on race? The only difference is people’s ages change, but you are still not in control of what it is at any given time. Like with race, I’m sure there are some statistical conclusions you can draw from the information, but applying that to individuals is at best insulting.

1609

I am old enough to remember the good old days. When this thread was funny.

1610

I’m not sure I can bridge the gap between what I said and what you are trying to build here, but I’ll give it a shot. When a young person says something obviously wrong or untrue, I respond to it differently than when someone as old or older than me says it. Sometimes the benefit of the doubt is tilted in the other direction, and you cut elders or peers more slack. And sometimes age is not a factor in how you consider what someone says.

Like with race, I’m sure there are some statistical conclusions you can draw from the information, but applying that to individuals is at best insulting.

It wasn’t meant to be flattering in this instance, so congratulations on being right on one thing.

Citation please.

1611

Ok, so you have established lots of people have an age bias of some sort, that really doesn’t address the problem. In your particular instance, you seem to be assuming by the time someone reaches X point in their life they have learned lesson Y, otherwise they are worthy of (more) scorn. Even if we are to take the gigantic leap that there are these particular lessons which lead one to the correct conclusion, people lead really different lives. Different experiences lead to different conclusions and there is a huge variety of possible experience one might have had.

But that is beside the point of why I brought up the race analogy, that being that it is extremely unfair to judge people on aspects completely outside their control. If you wanted to criticize someone by saying ‘you should know better, you have been journalist for 30 years!’ that is fair enough (whether in that particular instance it makes sense or not). But simply citing age alone is like saying ‘you should know better, you wear glasses!’

1612

That might be because I don’t acknowledge there is a problem. Also, I revised my statement to reflect that my own age bias (and likely that of many others) is a shifting lens that sometimes favors either end or no one. Not crucial, but there it is.

In your particular instance, you seem to be assuming by the time someone reaches X point in their life they have learned lesson Y, otherwise they are worthy of (more) scorn. Even if we are to take the gigantic leap that there are these particular lessons which lead one to the correct conclusion, people lead really different lives. Different experiences lead to different conclusions and there is a huge variety of possible experience one might have had.

Different experiences also lead to similar conclusions, sometimes. Experiences can be just as far out of the control of those who live them. By your reckoning, therefore, I don’t see why experience is suddenly an acceptable factor by which to make inferences about an argument. What you’re actually demonstrating is that there are any criteria outside of the specific argument being advanced can be portrayed as a fallacious ad hominem with enough effort.

When you do that, you ignore that ad hominem statements are not inherently fallacious, and in many cases analyzing bias and an argument’s source is almost as important as the argument itself.

Of course, that is making a mountain out of a molehill, but there you go.

But that is beside the point of why I brought up the race analogy, that being that it is extremely unfair to judge people on aspects completely outside their control. If you wanted to criticize someone by saying ‘you should know better, you have been journalist for 30 years!’ that is fair enough (whether in that particular instance it makes sense or not). But simply citing age alone is like saying ‘you should know better, you wear glasses!’

I know exactly why you brought up the race factor, so there’s no need to dissemble around that. I didn’t cite age alone for anything, so you can shelve that right alongside it. My disagreements with Andy are legion and well-documented, as are the moments when his broken compass accidentally pointed north and there was a collective sigh of relief that not another thread would be spent sorting out whatever bullshit he was tossing at the wall. So, you see, I’m not lumping him into a preconceived model as Pogo alleges, but rather adding a detail to a model that already exists and is well sourced throughout the forum. There’s a big difference between a key variable and just an additional variable. It’s a variable you may not find useful at all, but I’m ok with that.

1613

The ‘detail’ is irrelevant. Totally. Just like me being African American is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

1614

“Totally” irrelevant is certainly untrue in absolute terms, and untrue in practical terms relative to the variable in question and the context of the discussion. When evaluating the words of someone who is being willfully, repeatedly, provably dishonest, you can choose to be charitable (albeit patronizing) and assume they are doing so out of ignorance or uncharitable and see them as malevolent or spiteful. I would argue that age is a useful variable (out of many) in determining which is more appropriate once you’ve determined independent of ad hominem factors that someone is dishonest.

The tabula rasa is an obsolete and impractical concept for a reason. If that’s how you wish to approach every argument, that’s your deal but it seems a highly artificial and contrived angle with few benefits other than a superficially clear conscience.

1615

And I would argue that you are grasping at straws, LK. I have NO IDEA how old Jason McCullough is. Nor do I care. His grasp of politics and expression of his opinion is very valuable to me. He might be 25 or 55, it’s not important. And the stupidity of what Donald Trump is doing has nothing to do with his age. If he was 25 and saying the shit he’s saying, it’s still as stupid as if he were 65.

One of the things I like about P&R is how facts dictate (most of the time at least) the discussion. Robert Sharp for example doesn’t try to hammer his opinion home to people just because he’s a professor. If the facts are true, then the age of the person doesn’t matter. And if they are wrong, the age still doesn’t matter.

1616

There are significant differences between an appeal to authority, a fallacious ad hominem, and analyzing the bias of someone who is expressing an opinion using a variety of variables once you’ve determined where you stand relative to their views. You are treating them as if they are all identical, and then combining that with folksy wisdom that sounds good but means nothing in practical terms.

1617

You’re so much more full of shit right now than you even realize.

1618

The distinctions LK’s talking about have meaning but it’s basically discourteous and distracting for people’s age (especially older age) to be brought into discussion. It’s too personal.

On Lorini’s point, which I expect everybody here basically accepts, there’s a famous Johnson line…

1619

1620