Thanks! That's a high complement. I'm in the process of developing a new Critical Thinking course and textbook -- didn't really like the one we had to use for this class -- which will have associated videos in my own RU-vid channel
Many people also have the tendency to split things into black or white. For example, if someone is against abortion and you are for women's rights, you may see the other person as evil and dump on to them all these other evil qualities. A similar thing happens In pretty much every political discussion I have. Many people's counterarguments are of the form "you are wrong because you share ideas with this political party and they are for something else". It's caused by our avoidance of nuance.
Yes, you're right -- the tendency towards lumping all of these kinds of issues together, rather than making good distinctions, leads people to make ad hominem attacks
A good question. I don't see it that way. One could just as well say that "pro-choice" is a euphemism or weasel word. The general stance and program isn't to honor or promote/protect just any sort of choice, after all. A common criticism gets made of "pro-life" along similar lines. I suppose one could object that rather than "pro-abortion," one ought to specify "pro-legalization-of-abortion" or "pro-maintaining-abortion-legal" -- and there's a legitimacy to that.
Really good!! I wish I had those classes in Uni!! Where's these classes Parts-Whole and Authority-Experts mentioned on that video? They are not on 1-2-3!!
I often wonder in the 'five ways' if the design or creation came first. The creator would have sat back and thought about designing before creating, just like a blue print. Isn't fallacy of ad hominem, the same as fallacy of composition? They're both dealing with comparing qualities of someone/something to the conclusion.
Loving all these vids, so excuse the bunch of comments/questions, wondering if refering to 'for-abortion' in itself is a strawman for the position of pro-choice?
