Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Can't rememeber name of this fallacy

lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:25:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

It could just be an appeal to emotion, which is commonly accepted as a logical fallacy.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:27:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:25:06 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

It could just be an appeal to emotion, which is commonly accepted as a logical fallacy.

That is what I was thinking as well, but when I asked one of my professors (I need it for an essay where we evaluate speeches) he said that that was not it. My professor is in the same boat as me, he cannot remember what fallacy it is but knows it is one.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:27:52 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:25:06 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

It could just be an appeal to emotion, which is commonly accepted as a logical fallacy.

That is what I was thinking as well, but when I asked one of my professors (I need it for an essay where we evaluate speeches) he said that that was not it. My professor is in the same boat as me, he cannot remember what fallacy it is but knows it is one.

Hmm, ok. I'll look around and see if I can find it.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:33:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:27:52 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:25:06 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

It could just be an appeal to emotion, which is commonly accepted as a logical fallacy.

That is what I was thinking as well, but when I asked one of my professors (I need it for an essay where we evaluate speeches) he said that that was not it. My professor is in the same boat as me, he cannot remember what fallacy it is but knows it is one.

Hmm, ok. I'll look around and see if I can find it.

Thank you
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

Without knowing the resolution or argument that the statement would ostensibly be supporting, it's tough to know in what specific way that statement gets it wrong.

Is it perhaps Ignoratio elenchi?

That would be the sort of argument where (to use WIkipedia's example), in a debate about what the law IS, someone tries to argue what it SHOULD be, a sort of "missing of the point".

Or maybe red herring?
Where someone uses an irrelevant diversion.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:44:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

Without knowing the resolution or argument that the statement would ostensibly be supporting, it's tough to know in what specific way that statement gets it wrong.

It was used in a persuasive speech to try and convince people that the Supreme Court ruling was wrong.

Is it perhaps Ignoratio elenchi?

That would be the sort of argument where (to use WIkipedia's example), in a debate about what the law IS, someone tries to argue what it SHOULD be, a sort of "missing of the point".

No, it is the topic. The topic is not what I have to analyze, it is the parts.

Or maybe red herring?
Where someone uses an irrelevant diversion.

Is it? It might be, but that does not seem right to me.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:52:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:

Could it be the glittering generality fallacy?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:55:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:44:42 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:22:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I saw a debate before where someone was called out for using this fallacy, but now I cannot remember what it is.

What it is is using unrelated points in a way that is relevant in order to persuade people.

An example is, "Our prayers go out to the Supreme Court that they might change their ruling". Using the prayer part would be irrelevant, but can appeal to the religious to try and change their mind.

What is this fallacy called again?

Without knowing the resolution or argument that the statement would ostensibly be supporting, it's tough to know in what specific way that statement gets it wrong.

It was used in a persuasive speech to try and convince people that the Supreme Court ruling was wrong.

Okay. So: In a debate where the question was: "Was X wrong to Y"

The refutation offered is "God should change X's mind"

That argument is irrelevant to the motion at hand--it just doesn't address the motion at hand whatsoever. It isn't even, properly speaking, an argument of any kind--it's just a statement of what the debater thinks God should do. It is so far off the mark that it is, to use Pauli's phrase, "Not even wrong".

Is it perhaps Ignoratio elenchi?

No, it is the topic. The topic is not what I have to analyze, it is the parts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this response. I kind of think that it's probably this. The argument offered is that God should change X's mind (where X is the supreme court). The actual resolution, however, is that X is wrong. Whether god does or does not change their mind is irrelevant to whether the decision was right or wrong.

Or maybe red herring?
Where someone uses an irrelevant diversion.

Is it? It might be, but that does not seem right to me.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 7:59:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:52:33 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:

Could it be the glittering generality fallacy?

I don't think we both get the notification from that--I think only I got it, just as a heads up. Could be wrong, though.

Anyway, I don't think it's this one, as it's my understanding that the glittering generality fallacy is one of empty, useless, or misused words, where you use something that sounds like a specific point, but is actually a vague notion. By being vague, it can be applied any which way you want. It's a problem of meaning, not relevance. When you call someone a fascist just because you disagree with them, all that is imparted by the use of the term "fascist" (given that it's being used outside of its actual definition) is "I disagree with them", which is already known.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 8:04:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 7:59:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:52:33 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:

Could it be the glittering generality fallacy?

I don't think we both get the notification from that--I think only I got it, just as a heads up. Could be wrong, though.

Okay, thanks for the info.

Anyway, I don't think it's this one, as it's my understanding that the glittering generality fallacy is one of empty, useless, or misused words, where you use something that sounds like a specific point, but is actually a vague notion. By being vague, it can be applied any which way you want. It's a problem of meaning, not relevance. When you call someone a fascist just because you disagree with them, all that is imparted by the use of the term "fascist" (given that it's being used outside of its actual definition) is "I disagree with them", which is already known.

I thought that it was using words that appeal to people's emotions, like when advertisers use the words "New, fresh, etc.".
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 8:17:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 8:04:16 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:59:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:52:33 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:

Could it be the glittering generality fallacy?

I don't think we both get the notification from that--I think only I got it, just as a heads up. Could be wrong, though.

Okay, thanks for the info.

Anyway, I don't think it's this one, as it's my understanding that the glittering generality fallacy is one of empty, useless, or misused words, where you use something that sounds like a specific point, but is actually a vague notion. By being vague, it can be applied any which way you want. It's a problem of meaning, not relevance. When you call someone a fascist just because you disagree with them, all that is imparted by the use of the term "fascist" (given that it's being used outside of its actual definition) is "I disagree with them", which is already known.

I thought that it was using words that appeal to people's emotions, like when advertisers use the words "New, fresh, etc.".

Yeah, that's the goal of the argument. I was pointing out what it actually does (New doesn't say anything about whether it's GOOD, for example, and is a word that can be used for things that are hardly really "new"--and I've seen "Fresh" on frozen products).

It's basically the use of buzzwords. But I don't think that's what your hypothetical does.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 8:18:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 8:17:01 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/28/2014 8:04:16 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:59:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:52:33 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/28/2014 7:41:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 7/28/2014 7:31:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:

Could it be the glittering generality fallacy?

I don't think we both get the notification from that--I think only I got it, just as a heads up. Could be wrong, though.

Okay, thanks for the info.

Anyway, I don't think it's this one, as it's my understanding that the glittering generality fallacy is one of empty, useless, or misused words, where you use something that sounds like a specific point, but is actually a vague notion. By being vague, it can be applied any which way you want. It's a problem of meaning, not relevance. When you call someone a fascist just because you disagree with them, all that is imparted by the use of the term "fascist" (given that it's being used outside of its actual definition) is "I disagree with them", which is already known.

I thought that it was using words that appeal to people's emotions, like when advertisers use the words "New, fresh, etc.".

Yeah, that's the goal of the argument. I was pointing out what it actually does (New doesn't say anything about whether it's GOOD, for example, and is a word that can be used for things that are hardly really "new"--and I've seen "Fresh" on frozen products).

It's basically the use of buzzwords. But I don't think that's what your hypothetical does.

I guess it isn't exactly the same, but it is similar. So, what fallacy would it be? I need to find out for an essay, I cannot find it in my textbook and I am having a hard time looking through all the falacies online for one.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 2:01:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 8:18:43 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I'd recommend running some of these by your professor, TBH.

Fundamentally, the argument as presented doesn't address the motion whatsoever. So, if we don't think of it as an appeal to emotion, we have to figure out the "missing premises" and consider it an enthymeme. The problem with THAT is, that since we don't know what they actually are, it's tough to pinpoint precisely how it's wrong.

Is this an appeal to power, the argument that if you don't agree with them (and, they argue God) that god will change your mind so you do, therefore you're right? Is it just a relevancy problem, where the argument straight up doesn't relate to the proposition?

It's incoherent in terms of its linkage to the proposition akin to, in a case about the best vehicle on the road, if I tell you that I wish I had a sandwhich.

It's nonresponsive.

If I were writing it, I'd call it ignoratio elenchi, as I think that can be considered broader than the narrower definitions of, say, red herring. It can be used as a catch-all (http://philosophy.lander.edu...). The latin translates to "Ignorance of how to refute".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!