RE: Rising crime in the UK
January 11, 2025 at 11:56 am
(This post was last modified: January 11, 2025 at 1:32 pm by Sheldon.)
(January 11, 2025 at 11:44 am)Jamie Smithie Wrote:Well without wishing to seem condescending, you can easily Google any word for it's definition. Your senses, like everyone else's, can be easily deceived, alone they are not a reliable or objective standard.(January 11, 2025 at 11:41 am)Sheldon Wrote: I know this leapt out as third part hearsay, almost as alarming as the hyperbole of the "everyone knows" assertion. So for clarity, since he seems to think these are compelling claims, claiming to know what "everyone" thinks is risible hyperbole, and of course, the number of people who believe something (alone), tells us nothing about the validity of that belief. In the absence of any objective evidence, as this claim was offered, it represents a bare appeal to numbers, which of course is how an argumentum ad populum fallacy is defined. making the claim irrational, by definition.
I don't understand all your complicated words, all I know is that when my eyes tell me something, I should believe it.
Quote:I didn't go to your fancy university, all I know is my farm, my cows, my horses, and the difference between shit and shinola.
I have never been to university, nor is it necessary in order to have a reasonable command of language and grammar. With a little effort, anyone can learn to critically examine ideas and arguments. You could do worse than learning what common logical fallacies are, and how to avoid using them, and spot them in the arguments of others, and learn what this implies.
So for example, you have no objective evidence that crime is rising in the UK, none. Two posters have offered citations for objective evidence to demonstrate the opposite is true. What does this suggest to you? Your claim to know what everyone knows, is risible hyperbole, and of course was again offered without the pretence of evidence to support it, and without any evidence it is a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, thus it is an irrational claim by definition.
Do you think therefore it is a reliable way to reason, or a poor weak way to reason? It's the latter obviously.


