> ad hom
The reason I listed off the tropes "your observation" is a rehash of, was to highlight how in itself it's simply an ad hominem.
If you needed that spelled out, here you go. I know, calling people religious [fanatics] being just an insult, tailor made for ad hominem? Now that'd be just way too low...
> Nobody needs to push the fact the sky is blue because this is a basic truth.
See also you a few lines later:
>> try in winter when the sky is white?
> Dont be silly. Not in Australia.
So is it a Truth™, or just a shared and durable experience? Because suffice to say, places other than Australia do exist, and so said [lack of an] experience does have limits.
Am I evangelizing the existence of a white sky? Or am I just defending an equally tacit fact, that the sky is not always blue, from being denied and lied about? Does this make me religious all of a sudden? I'd hope not.
> Here we go again, personal attacks.
No, the concept of an oracle, and the argument (sarcastically) laid out involving it, was not meant to be just a personal attack there. An oracle is a genuine philosophical instrument. Re-read it under that lens if you care.
Here's a different version if you remain distracted by the sarcasm within.
Suppose being right and wrong is an actual possibility, and that I'm wrong while you're right.
You try convincing me. Under your own logic, "truth doesn't need evangelizing", and all manners of "pushing" something is magically evangelism. Therefore, we have two options:
- by virtue of you attempting to convince me, I'll be rendered right, and you'll be rendered wrong
- the preposition is contradicted
The latter obviously doesn't compute, while the former invites semantic appraisal. And so doing exactly that, what I'm saying is that no, the act of convincing another person doesn't render the person doing the convincing automatically false, unlike what you're proposing. Your rule of thumb is unsound. Since you understood this as a caricature, I believe you agree?
The other, possibly more charitable way to read what you were proposing is a sort of majority rule, where a majority consensus means truth. I'd expect it to be self-evident that no, that is no logical guarantee either.
You're welcome to put forward an actual observation that isn't just a veiled ad hominem itself, preferably with an actual argument that can be materially replied to. Or you can admit to having been simply parroting a dehumanizing trope, without giving it even two entire seconds of thought.
You're proposing that if something is disputed, then that's for sure wrong. And that if something is being promoted, then that's for sure deficient. Is it really so difficult to see why that's absurd? Seriously?