Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let's Learn about Logical Fallacies!

YYW
Posts: 43,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are certain terms that people use to describe argumentative occurrences that I think need to be corrected. While it is the case that there are some who understand what logical fallacies are, there are others who are really quite ignorant. So, to overcome that ignorance, I'm creating this thread.

As I see terms misused, I'm going to correct them here. There are all kinds of logical fallacies that I could talk about, but I'm going to give priority to the ones that are most commonly misused as I see them. However, in that I don't see everything, if there's something that people think needs to be clarified, I'm happy to do that.

To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying. For example, take Thomas Sowell's attack on Noam Chomsky:

Sowell: Chomsky is only a linguist, and therefore we shouldn't take what he says about Vietnam seriously because he doesn't have the qualifications to opine intelligently on something that is outside the realm of his educational credentials.

This is an abusive ad hominem statement. Whether Chomsky's arguments about Vietnam have merit or not has nothing to do with his being a linguist, just as his being a linguist has nothing to do with his ability to intelligently opine on something that is not related to linguistics.

Another example could be found in certain individual's objection to Bush's intervention in Iraq:

Individual who objects to Bush's intervention in Iraq: Bush only wanted to intervene in Iraq for oil, and therefore invading Iraq was immoral.

In this way, the ignorant speaker has committed a circumstantial ad hominem attack by attacking something cynically and irrelevantly by morally judging intentions. While there are some cases that a person's intentions may be legitimately questioned, where intentions are projected based on individual's invalid assessments based on prejudices against those against whom they argue, a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is committed.

"slippery slope"

Slippery slope arguments, also referred to as "camel's nose" arguments argue against a position based on the idea that acceptance of X will lead to Y and/or Z, which would be bad. While chains of causal/conditional reasoning are not always suspect, what characterizes a slippery slope argument is its presupposition that X leads to Y and/or Z 'of necessity' and that Y and Z are invariably bad. This kind of argument attempts to manipulate an audience by playing on their fears, and not refuting X's argumentative legitimacy or warrant.

An example of a slippery slope fallacy exists in this common objection to homosexuality:

"If we accept homosexuality today, tomorrow we will be accepting pedophilia, beastiality and incest. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral."

This argument attempts to argue against one thing because of some other bad things that one thing is presupposed to lead to. In that it attempts to persuade an audience against homosexuality because of an audience's disdain for pedophilia, beastiality and incest, it commits the slippery slope fallacy.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 1:01:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Poisoning the well:

In poisoning the well, some sort of ad hominem evidence is presented before a person begins their argument. This "evidence" is presented in such a way that whatever the person says will be disregarded.

For example:

Bob: We cannot trust anything Bill says. He has been declared insane.
Bill: I am not insane. In fact, that declaration of insanity was by Dr. Blah blah, who is not trustworthy.
Bob: What did I tell you? He's insane!
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 1:17:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Strawman

Misrepresenting an argument, then refuting it.

Example:

Person 1: There should be some restrictions in place when purchasing a firearm
Person 2: But then no one would be able to hunt, protect their house, or shoot for fun.

Person 2 misrepresented the argument taking as an argument for the ban of all guns.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
YYW
Posts: 43,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 1:29:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 1:01:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Poisoning the well:

In poisoning the well, some sort of ad hominem evidence is presented before a person begins their argument. This "evidence" is presented in such a way that whatever the person says will be disregarded.

For example:

Bob: We cannot trust anything Bill says. He has been declared insane.
Bill: I am not insane. In fact, that declaration of insanity was by Dr. Blah blah, who is not trustworthy.
Bob: What did I tell you? He's insane!

That's a kind of adhom attack, which I've already talked about.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:45:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fallacy of Equivocation
This occurs when the words can ahve multiple leanings, or mean something else ina different context.

1. Nothing is better than having a cat
2. Having a dog is better than nothing
C. Having a dog is better than having a cat

Circular Reasoning
Where the conclusion is assumed, lor restated in the premise

1. We know that the Bible is true because a miracle was witnessed by 500 people.
2. We know a miracle was witnessed by 500 people because the Bible says so.

Argument ad nauseum
Repeating the argument over, and over, and over, until the opposing party gets sick enough of addressing it that they quit (and the other party declares the argument won).
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:32:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm especially struck by the argumentum ad Hitlerum (or playing the Nazi Card)

An informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:54:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To take a continuum, draw a line on it, and say 'This is an objective differentiation between two discrete categories' is fallacious, and is one of the most common fallacies that tends to go unquestioned, probably second to the equivocation fallacy in that respect.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:03:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:32:55 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm especially struck by the argumentum ad Hitlerum (or playing the Nazi Card)

An informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

That is actually called Godwin's Law
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:03:32 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:32:55 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm especially struck by the argumentum ad Hitlerum (or playing the Nazi Card)

An informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

That is actually called Godwin's Law

Not to be nitpicky, but Godwin's law is an application of the argumentum ad Hitlerum to the internet, proper. The argumentum ad Hitlerum existed prior to Godwin's formulation.

Irrespective, both formulations produce chuckles- under the right circumstances.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:12:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:09:43 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:03:32 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:32:55 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm especially struck by the argumentum ad Hitlerum (or playing the Nazi Card)

An informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

That is actually called Godwin's Law

Not to be nitpicky, but Godwin's law is an application of the argumentum ad Hitlerum to the internet, proper. The argumentum ad Hitlerum existed prior to Godwin's formulation.

Irrespective, both formulations produce chuckles- under the right circumstances.

Wow, never learned that. In debate teams and philosophy we only ever learned about Godwin's Law, not argumentum as Hitlerum
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sure, we could learn about that sh*t, or we could just go to a website with all of the major ones described in detail.

www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 7:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey this looks fun. I bet I could find examples right here on this website.

At 3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying.

Like "So, you are vile, your interests are prurient and your sexual inclinations are disgusting because you are sexually aroused by animals." instead of addressing any arguments relating to bestiality.

http://www.debate.org... #315

"If we accept homosexuality today, tomorrow we will be accepting pedophilia, beastiality and incest. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral."

This argument attempts to argue against one thing because of some other bad things that one thing is presupposed to lead to. In that it attempts to persuade an audience against homosexuality because of an audience's disdain for pedophilia, beastiality and incest, it commits the slippery slope fallacy.

How about appealing to an audience's disdain for homosexuality?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
YYW
Posts: 43,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 7:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 7:57:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Hey this looks fun. I bet I could find examples right here on this website.

At 3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying.

Like "So, you are vile, your interests are prurient and your sexual inclinations are disgusting because you are sexually aroused by animals." instead of addressing any arguments relating to bestiality.

http://www.debate.org... #315

That's not an ad hominem attack. Nice try, though.

"If we accept homosexuality today, tomorrow we will be accepting pedophilia, beastiality and incest. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral."

This argument attempts to argue against one thing because of some other bad things that one thing is presupposed to lead to. In that it attempts to persuade an audience against homosexuality because of an audience's disdain for pedophilia, beastiality and incest, it commits the slippery slope fallacy.

How about appealing to an audience's disdain for homosexuality?

Not a slippery slope.

By all means keep trying, though.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 8:03:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 7:59:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 7:57:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Hey this looks fun. I bet I could find examples right here on this website.

At 3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying.

Like "So, you are vile, your interests are prurient and your sexual inclinations are disgusting because you are sexually aroused by animals." instead of addressing any arguments relating to bestiality.

http://www.debate.org... #315

That's not an ad hominem attack. Nice try, though.

rofl, with your hypocrisy; that anyone should respect you more than me is the best proof of prejudice that could exist.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 8:17:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
False Dichotomy
AKA false dilemma. These frequently pop up in evolution and God debates.

"If you don't believe in God you believe the universe came from nothing"
Ray Comfort

"The only possible causes are abstract objects, like numbers or a timeless, immaterial, enormously powerful intelligent mind"
William Lane Craig

"Evolution is false, therefore, Biblical Creationism"
Many YEC's, such as Kent Hovind in his debate with Michael Shermer
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 7:59:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 7:57:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Hey this looks fun. I bet I could find examples right here on this website.

At 3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying.

Like "So, you are vile, your interests are prurient and your sexual inclinations are disgusting because you are sexually aroused by animals." instead of addressing any arguments relating to bestiality.

http://www.debate.org... #315

That's not an ad hominem attack. Nice try, though.

How is it not an ad hominem attack? You say he/she's vile with prurient interests and that his/her sexual inclinations are disgusting. What you said is a textbook ad hominem attack. I'm don't agree with bestiality, but no amount of people disagreeing with something makes it wrong. Bestiality is only relatively bad.


"If we accept homosexuality today, tomorrow we will be accepting pedophilia, beastiality and incest. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral."

This argument attempts to argue against one thing because of some other bad things that one thing is presupposed to lead to. In that it attempts to persuade an audience against homosexuality because of an audience's disdain for pedophilia, beastiality and incest, it commits the slippery slope fallacy.

How about appealing to an audience's disdain for homosexuality?

Not a slippery slope.

By all means keep trying, though.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
YYW
Posts: 43,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:05:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:02:30 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 3/3/2014 7:59:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 7:57:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Hey this looks fun. I bet I could find examples right here on this website.

At 3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying.

Like "So, you are vile, your interests are prurient and your sexual inclinations are disgusting because you are sexually aroused by animals." instead of addressing any arguments relating to bestiality.

http://www.debate.org... #315

That's not an ad hominem attack. Nice try, though.

How is it not an ad hominem attack? You say he/she's vile with prurient interests and that his/her sexual inclinations are disgusting. What you said is a textbook ad hominem attack. I'm don't agree with bestiality, but no amount of people disagreeing with something makes it wrong. Bestiality is only relatively bad.

It would only be an ad hominem attack if I was using the fact that he's a deviant as an effort to discredit his arguments -which I have never done. Not all moral judgments are ad hominem attacks. This is a common misconception that entirely too many (who have no idea what logical fallacies are) misunderstand.

"If we accept homosexuality today, tomorrow we will be accepting pedophilia, beastiality and incest. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral."

This argument attempts to argue against one thing because of some other bad things that one thing is presupposed to lead to. In that it attempts to persuade an audience against homosexuality because of an audience's disdain for pedophilia, beastiality and incest, it commits the slippery slope fallacy.

How about appealing to an audience's disdain for homosexuality?

Not a slippery slope.

By all means keep trying, though.
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:07:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Circular Reasoning

It works because it works, therefore it works

When someone proves an argument using itself
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:12:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Argumentum ad Ignorantium


An appeal to ignorance in a debate. E.g.

"There is no evidence for God I've seen, therefore, God doesn't exist."

Or more commonly used:

"There is no evidence against God, therefore, He exists"
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:05:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:02:30 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 3/3/2014 7:59:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 7:57:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Hey this looks fun. I bet I could find examples right here on this website.

At 3/3/2014 12:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
To begin:

"ad hominem"

An ad hominem argument exists where one speaker attacks another speaker's credibility/character/moral fitness/integrity rather than what the speaker who is being attacked is actually saying.

Like "So, you are vile, your interests are prurient and your sexual inclinations are disgusting because you are sexually aroused by animals." instead of addressing any arguments relating to bestiality.

http://www.debate.org... #315

That's not an ad hominem attack. Nice try, though.

How is it not an ad hominem attack? You say he/she's vile with prurient interests and that his/her sexual inclinations are disgusting. What you said is a textbook ad hominem attack. I'm don't agree with bestiality, but no amount of people disagreeing with something makes it wrong. Bestiality is only relatively bad.

It would only be an ad hominem attack if I was using the fact that he's a deviant as an effort to discredit his arguments -which I have never done. Not all moral judgments are ad hominem attacks. This is a common misconception that entirely too many (who have no idea what logical fallacies are) misunderstand.


I'm aware, but it seems like you are trying to discredit his arguments. One doesn't need to say "and this is why your argument doesn't matter" to imply an attempt to discredit. If you had addressed his argument afterwards(which I'm assuming you didn't), then I wouldn't infer any attempt to discredit. If you did address his arguments, then I'm wrong and lazy for not following the link.

Person 1: We should do A because B, C, and D.
Person 2: You're misguided and gross.

I'm aware that this isn't a good example of what you and bestiality guy(forgot his username) said, but the principle is the same. Do you see what I mean? It looks like an attempt by person 2 to discredit person 1's argument by attacking person 1 as a person. If that wasn't your intention, then I'll have to take your word for it. It's occasionally hard to tell with text.

"If we accept homosexuality today, tomorrow we will be accepting pedophilia, beastiality and incest. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral."

This argument attempts to argue against one thing because of some other bad things that one thing is presupposed to lead to. In that it attempts to persuade an audience against homosexuality because of an audience's disdain for pedophilia, beastiality and incest, it commits the slippery slope fallacy.

How about appealing to an audience's disdain for homosexuality?

Not a slippery slope.

By all means keep trying, though.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:43:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fallacy of amphiboly

Amphiboly is the product of poor sentence structure. It results when words are incorrectly or loosely grouped in a sentence, giving rise to a meaning not intended by the author.

Example:

The ladies of the Walnut Street Mission have discarded clothes. They invite you to come and inspect them.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:53:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:52:15 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:05:05 PM, YYW wrote:
It would only be an ad hominem attack if I was using the fact that he's a deviant as an effort to discredit his arguments -which I have never done. Not all moral judgments are ad hominem attacks. This is a common misconception that entirely too many (who have no idea what logical fallacies are) misunderstand.


I'm aware, but it seems like you are trying to discredit his arguments. One doesn't need to say "and this is why your argument doesn't matter" to imply an attempt to discredit. If you had addressed his argument afterwards(which I'm assuming you didn't), then I wouldn't infer any attempt to discredit. If you did address his arguments, then I'm wrong and lazy for not following the link.

Person 1: We should do A because B, C, and D.
Person 2: You're misguided and gross.

I'm aware that this isn't a good example of what you and bestiality guy(forgot his username) said, but the principle is the same. Do you see what I mean? It looks like an attempt by person 2 to discredit person 1's argument by attacking person 1 as a person. If that wasn't your intention, then I'll have to take your word for it. It's occasionally hard to tell with text.

From the same post:

"There is no room for rational discussion with you, nor do I have any interest."
- YYW http://www.debate.org... #315

He has no interest in rational discussion with me. If these personal attacks aren't his attempt to discredit my arguments, then he has made no attempts.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,962
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 5:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:12:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:09:43 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:03:32 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:32:55 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm especially struck by the argumentum ad Hitlerum (or playing the Nazi Card)

An informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

That is actually called Godwin's Law

Not to be nitpicky, but Godwin's law is an application of the argumentum ad Hitlerum to the internet, proper. The argumentum ad Hitlerum existed prior to Godwin's formulation.

Irrespective, both formulations produce chuckles- under the right circumstances.

Wow, never learned that. In debate teams and philosophy we only ever learned about Godwin's Law, not argumentum as Hitlerum

You know who else didn't know that? Hitler.
Stooge the Worst

#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#UnbanTheCuntMan

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

"SeventhProfessor is actually a surprisingly good poster."
~Devilry

https://docs.google.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 11:56:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh My.....

Part 1
Ma Monkey: I hate to be A Negative Nancy, or the bearer of bad news, but I bring some hope in saying, with the exception of Sswdwm's examples, every other demonstration in this thread(since I've read it) is either incomplete or too broad.

Firstly, there are "logical fallacies", and "irrational techniques of persuasion".
Logical Fallacies pertain to Logical invalidly, and Irrational Techniques of Persuasion pertain to infamous, evasive and/or rhetorical devices.

1. An Actual "ad hominem"
Example 1:
Hitler: 1+1 = 2

Jew: No it doesn't

Hitler: why not?

Jew: Because your Hitler.

Scholium 1
Ma Monkey: That is, the evilness of the person, or the dislike for the person, doesn't have any bearing on whether the conclusion, by that same person, follows from the premises or not.

So, here the argument, that "1 plus 1 does not equal 2", because "it's Hitler's argument", is fallacious because, being Hitler, and or "being evil", is non-sequitur to the premises or conclusion of the argument, at hand.

2. Insulting, or discrediting(a.k.a. abusive)
An "ad hominem" is usually confused, with somebody insulting another person, which of course is a form of marginalization, and perhaps immoral when unwarranted. Nonetheless, it's not a logical fallacy if is not being used, in support of a particular argument.

Example 2:
Hitler: Dam Dirty Jew!
Jew: Bully!!

Scholium 2
Ma Monkey: Pretty straight forward"".

3. A Justified use or attack on credibility:
On the other hand, if the likeliness of a truth pertaining to a premise or claim is dependent upon one's credibility, of the one giving the argument, then the truth, of somebody being evil, and or perhaps dishonest, is a valid support in an inductive argument.

Example 3:
Hitler: I was only joking.
Jew: Really?!?

Hitler: Yes, I like Jokes, I like laughing, and I also like you, even though you're a Jew""..
Just you though".
<(89)

Jew: Oh really, am I that special?

Hitler: Yes""
Perhaps".

Want to get high"?

Jew: Okay, let's do it.

Hitler: Well, I have a treat for you..
My friend...

Jew: what is that?

Hitler: I just happened to have, this laughing gas chamber around the corner.
I figured we can have a few laughs together. For old time sake..
Want to try it out?

Jew: I think I'll take a pass on that.

Hitler: Why?

Jew: Because you're Hitler, that's why!

Hitler: Boooo! you're no fun...
I don't like you anymore..

Jew: Why am I not surprised"

Hitler: For Heaven's sake, what the Hell did you expect?....
Jesus Christ?

Jew: Not even for Christmas".

Hitler: What about Easter?
Jew: No!".

Hitler: The first day of Hanukkah??
Jew: No!

Hitler: The second".
Jew: Double no..

Hitler: Okay, Okay, I will do it on the 12th day"..
""Even...
Jew: Sure, I like that day.

Hitler: Yes me too"
It is "your" last day".

Jew: what was that?

Hitler: Oh nothing, just mumbling to myself..

Jew: You know what, just never mind.

Scholium 3
Ma Monkey: Perhaps, Hitler may in fact be telling the truth, about simply wanting to get high and have a laugh. But because of his history, it is justified that we don't trust him, and so cannot "rationally" accept his premises, or conclusions which rely on his credibility "alone"; especially concerning anything in regards to "Jews being in gas chambers".

If on the other hand, he provided proof that the gas chambers merely had laughing gas, then that premise in particular, would no longer be relying on his credibility, but on the fact. And even if that was true, we do not know what other trick he may have up his sleeve.

Recap
1. The actual "ad hominem" logical fallacy.
2. Name-calling, or simply insulting. (abusive)
3. The justified use, and/or attack on the credibility in regards to an argument.

Now because these different approaches share in the "use" or "attack" of one's credibility, the term "ad hominem" in regards to a "logical fallacy" lends itself to confusion. Which is apparent, throughout amateur critical thinking resources, including, and most often Wikipedia. (The references, have a high tendency, to refer back to some "Joe blows" blog, website or opinion..)

The stronger the degree of connotative meaning, positive or negative, the faster, more abused and misused a term or expression becomes. This often progresses until it is used more in a context which is irrelevant, in this case, rational argumentation. Or at least that's what a fool once told me. And if you understand this, it is quite hopeful that you won't get fooled again.

Against The Fool

Ma Monkey: For now..

The Fool: A ding dang dune....
<(8D)
..Even
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 4:24:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So fool, aren't you essentially saying the only way to commit an ad hominem fallacy is to say "your arguments are bad because you _______" ?

So long as someone asserts that their opponents argument is discredited without specifically citing their many insults they're not committing fallacy?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 10:54:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2014 4:24:46 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

ADreamOfLiberty: So fool, aren't you essentially saying the only way to commit an ad hominem fallacy is to say "your arguments are bad because you _______" ?

Ma Monkey: Can you please give a "quote", which you feel alludes to this conclusion, and is not accounted for in the scholium?

ADreamOfLiberty: So long as someone asserts that their opponents argument is discredited without specifically citing their many insults they're not committing fallacy?

Ma Monkey: No, I'm saying, that the necessary condition of an "ad hominem" fallacy is when the personality of a person is used, to reject an argument, which does not depend upon the personality of a person to support its premises and or conclusions.

I gave one example of an actual "ad hominem" fallacy, and two examples which are not ad hominem fallacy, but are normally mistaken for them.

I also explained the difference between logical fallacies and irrational techniques of persuasion.

"Firstly, there are "logical fallacies", and "irrational techniques of persuasion".
Logical Fallacies pertain to Logical invalidly, and Irrational Techniques of Persuasion pertain to infamous, evasive and/or rhetorical devices."

Many of the other examples here, fall under, Irrational Techniques of Persuasion. (ITP, From here in)
And so are not fallacies per se, but are persuasive rhetorical devices nonetheless.
But there is another, that is a third class of erroneous arguments, which are not necessarily false but simply "Weak inductive arguments" like a "slippery slope argument" ..

I will run the complete gauntlet, later. But I have to run now as well.

Against The Fool

The Fool: Ha, can't keep running away.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 43,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 11:27:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is this idea that people have that merely calling another person a name, or insulting them is an adhom logical fallacy. That idea is wrong, because merely calling a person a name or being insulting is not necessarily an adhom attack.

The reason I created this thread is because I get tired of seeing people cry "adhom! adhom!" whenever they're being insulted, or just say (usually in error) that some specific argument they don't like is fallacious as if their doing so means something.

Saying that an argument is logically fallacious is not the same as refuting it. Unless a speaker actually refutes a bad argument, or, at minimum, explains why something is logically fallacious, just citing the logical fallacy isn't enough to accomplish anything meaningful.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 11:29:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2014 10:54:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/6/2014 4:24:46 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Ma Monkey: No, I'm saying, that the necessary condition of an "ad hominem" fallacy is when the personality of a person is used, to reject an argument

I dreamed once that the fool is an odd one, and his monkey as well. lol

Ok so how do you tell if the statements about a person are being used to reject their arguments rather than being used as 'persuasive rhetoric.'
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.