@philosophyminis: Let's say you make your point clearly, carefully, and politely. But rather than address your argument, the other person says, 'You would think that because you are a man.' Or they say something like, 'Well, you would say that because you are young, or you are a teacher, or you are a mother.’ Or whatever. In 1941, C.S. Lewis gave a name for this trick, and he called it a Bulverism. And it starts with a story: Imagine a young boy called Ezekiel Bulver watching his parents debate some geometry. His dad makes a point, and the mum says, 'Well, you would say that because you are a man,' and in that moment, Ezekiel realises that he doesn't have to argue somebody's point. He only has to assume that they are wrong, and to explain why they are so silly. It's a kind of ad hominem and genetic fallacy rolled into one. I'm sure we've all seen Bulverisms everywhere. Every comment section, every political row, every classroom debate. It's whenever somebody stops debating the facts, and when people start diagnosing why the other person believes something based upon their class, their age, their gender, their whatever. Lewis points out that explaining why somebody may or may not believe something tells you nothing about whether it is true or false, right or wrong. Arguing in good faith is when you tackle the content of what somebody is saying. If somebody attacks your character, they haven't won the debate. They haven't even had a debate in the first place.
Jonny Thomson
Region: GB
Tuesday 23 June 2026 13:19:26 GMT
Music
Download
Comments
Joe Joe :
well you would think that because you're content creator
2026-06-23 13:27:44
3708
Hoshi no Ko Chobin :
"You support this idea because you're not part of the group that would experience the negative consequences of it being enacted" is absolutely a valid criticism.
2026-07-22 05:08:00
127
homosexualzulu :
It’s not attacking their character, it’s when you’re trying to explain someone’s biases to them…
2026-06-23 18:38:32
56
antonio_mazarekic :
even more prominent today at both political extremes…
2026-06-23 13:25:12
369
You :
“You would think that because you’re not part of the group facing the negative consequences of the idea being implemented “……you have a point, but I don’t think it’s solely about judging someone’s character. This is completely valid
2026-07-22 01:23:38
70
riri :
Lady Philosophy made an excellent response to this.
2026-07-22 12:30:01
43
Vaguely malnourished :
The context in which someone makes an argument is just as important as the content of the argument itself.
2026-07-22 04:50:15
59
A :
I think trying to get to the root of why someone thinks a certain way can help dismantle an opinion by providing perspective 🧐
2026-06-23 13:25:51
61
Pehnny :
But criticizing the subject is important. There is no universel subject so a subjective truth fits a specific subjective experience. Of course, an argument must follow the ad hominem or it's pointless.
2026-06-23 14:53:21
39
h :
this assumes that there is actually a right/wrong, true/false answer to the question. In a lot of political issues, the position one takes is dependent on one's subjective values, self-interests and priorities. So saying "yes of course, you believe that because you are x, I on the other hand believe this because I am y" can be a lot more illuminating than utilizing this true/false, right/wrong perspective as a universal thing
2026-06-23 15:14:23
39
🇬🇭Greenscapes 3D :
Ronaldo fans
2026-06-24 16:38:16
46
zaar :
yes but sometimes you genuinely wouldn’t understand something because you don’t have the particular life experiences to understand it.
2026-07-05 23:26:33
34
derek_940 :
It could sometimes be valid tho. If someone’s making a claim that can’t really be verified or rejected and if they have some clear motivation to take their stance, then, from your perspective at least, it should reduce the probability that their claim is actually true
2026-06-24 00:04:34
14
Little_Twig9 :
Ethos (who is speaking), pathos (how I feel about the information) and logos (the actual veracity of the information), sadly logos is the less likely to convince someone of your point when ethos and pathos doesn't align
2026-06-23 17:21:13
48
dialecticsoomf :
Our social positions shape our lived experiences and if someone has not personally experienced something (e.g. racism) then they simply do not have the same knowledge as someone who has experienced it first hand
2026-07-22 05:29:04
31
Tómas Vilhelm :
Debates are useless anyways
2026-07-03 12:28:45
10
rider2020nj :
There are times when that is a valid statement however. Such as when dealing with a fanatic. In general it's a dismissal based on assumption. It's not a valid argument and should not be used as such. It's just a dismissal to debate.
2026-07-20 15:46:43
7
WuodAs!ko’s Fl!p :
most people use this against me.
2026-06-23 14:51:23
10
Minaal :
Ur my fav account on tiktok🤞🏽
2026-06-25 20:18:44
9
wastoids :
I was hoping for a solution at the end but nope
2026-06-24 12:37:43
19
hajj_nazir :
Messi fans
2026-07-06 01:11:04
7
Bananaforscale :
"Logical fallacies" like this one are mistakes. When you try to argue with perfect logic quickly you realize that doesn't lead to anything. No proof becomes definite. People argue specific way because they have reasons like being a type of person even if they're unaware.
2026-06-23 13:33:29
12
Fae :
How does this intersect though with genuine situating of the self? There are opinions that will come from a given position of privilege. Though I'm thinking that oft these are anecdotes being brought up to counter data so maybe it's trying to address the cause of the fallacy instead of keeping the person on target ..
2026-06-25 12:24:59
5
Yorai1212 :
so what do we say back when someone says something like that?
2026-07-22 17:34:20
0
To see more videos from user @philosophyminis, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.