think you can separate the idea from the man is foolhardy.

But the idea was never his in the first place, he just worded other men's though
ts in a very accessible way.
I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we have to accept everything he sa
ys or nothing of it.
Heck I'm a guy that's fairly positive about marriage (though not by American law
) and I found a lot of gems in his thoughts.
There are many who are saying, "Hey, that's ad hominem - who cares about the man
, it's just the ideas that matter!"
I believe this statement is true except for moral arguments. For moral arguments
, which are arguments that make the case for the best way to live one's life, or
the right or wrong course of actions, hypocrisy can be used to discredit ideas.
And here's why.
As Norset said, it comes down to epistemological reasons:
Quote:
The ONLY truths we have are mathematical truths.
Remember that scientifically we can only disprove, not prove.
Then way down the "purity hirearchy", far away from 1+1=2, comes advice on how t
o live your life in relation to other people. Here the messenger and the message
can not be separated. The advice in the manosphere falls into this category.
Maybe xkcd can illustrate:
http://xkcd.com/435/
100% spot on good job. Mathematical proofs can be proved without any doubt. In f
act there is a large debate in the philosophical community for the last 250 year
s if mathematics are true by definition (i.e. math is a function of logic, makin
g math a tautology), or true because of formal rules (i.e. math is a function of
language, making math nothing more than a game with rules), or true because of
the why our brains are wired (i.e. math is a reflection of the mind).
Regardless in all cases no one disputes the validity of math. It does not matter
if you are a rapist, 1+1=2.
Then, when it comes to questions that involve empirical research, or as we like
to call, "science," we are always left in doubt if our results are complete or n
ot because there is always more empirical data to discover.
Finally, when it comes to questions involving "How should I live my life best?"
or "What should be permissible in a civilized society?" then we no longer have a
ny standards to go by other than our intuition. Ethics cannot be proven logicall
y or mathematically, nor can they be disproved scientifically. For questions of
morality all we can do is look at the example of the man.
Thus it is men like Jesus or Socrates who are held as exemplars of morality, and
live on in our social consciousness for thousands of years, because these men w
ere not hypocrites. They practiced what they preached and lived their code even
as it brought about their death. The truth of their statements could be seen thr
ough the power of their lives, and men understand that great moral prophets are
not sophists who are only there to bullshit for their own gain.
Mark Minter is a sophist. Not only did he contradict what he wrote, but he used
what little online fame he could get to cash out on any pussy he could find. He
was a highly entertaining writer (His "Marriage is for Pussies" rant is still on
e of my favorite pieces of manosphere writing) but his heart was not in it; he w
as just telling us what we wanted to hear so we would elevate him to some positi
on of fame.
And now, because everyone knows Mark was a hypocrite in it for himself and not f
or others, we know that everything he wrote is suspect and probably contains fal
sehoods designed to deliberately mislead and manipulate his readers for own own
gain.
Thus ad-hominem is not a fallacy when applied to moral arguments; indeed ad-homi
nem is perhaps the only thing that invalidates any moral teachings due to their
unfalsifiable and unprovable epistemological nature.
This is why people look at Catholicism with skepticism when you've got priests p
reaching abstinence and yet they are molesting little boys.
This is why people looked at Al Gore's global warming alarmism as bullshit when
his mansion consumed more energy than 20 normal houses combined.
This is why men look at women with suspicion when they claim they want nice guys
, yet they spend their youth's chasing bad boy alphas.
You cannot separate a moral teaching from the person who makes the teaching, bec
ause the person is the only standard by which we can judge a teaching by.
Columnist at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Twitter.