07-3-2007, 03:08 AM | #21 | |
Sectional Moderator
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post. And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church, and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument. I have no problems with the defense of an argument. My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done. And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for. In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 07-3-2007 at 03:22 AM.. |
|
07-3-2007, 03:40 AM | #22 |
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
I agree with pretty much everything devonin has posted in this thread.
You see, a majority of the time, I'm just making things up as I go along, so I'm pretty sure everything I say is just one big fallacy after another. And if we started implementing all these rules, I'd probably end up having to ban myself from the forum. Pretty much, if someone puts some effort into their post, I'm fine with it. If their argument sucks, it gets dissected and rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Keep in mind, FFR's userbase is predominantly teenagers; not exactly the brightest bunch. |
07-3-2007, 04:03 AM | #23 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 1,736
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
|
|
07-3-2007, 04:05 AM | #24 | ||||||||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
Quote:
Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as youv'e taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate. Quote:
|
||||||||
07-4-2007, 04:55 AM | #25 | ||||||
Sectional Moderator
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At this point I think if we continue to keep arguing this point it will go further off on a tangent than we already, but I think that there is a personal disagreement here, and not necessarily a logical one. Yes, I know it disposes people against me, but sometimes a dry insult makes a rhetorical effect, sometimes an insult invokes humor. Sometimes it may do exactly what you're saying, but that's a case by case thing, not a blanket rule. Just like my choice of inflammatory words and pretension are not always used and applied the same way. In this instance, it worked for my intended purposes. If I were to do this in the exact same manner repeatedly it would not work. Quote:
Quote:
I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points. I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 07-4-2007 at 05:03 AM.. |
||||||
07-4-2007, 09:29 AM | #26 |
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 1,987
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
"Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement."
And yet that doesn't mean that every statement is a result of the petitio principii, which is what you basically went on to say Vendetta. Have you labelled that one yet Devonin? Also, your standards are way too high for an online DDR simulator site, and I also think that if stricter standards were adopted, we'd be cutting out the majority of users from CT, and some wouldn't even know why. If you think the quality of FFR's CT forum is too low, then I'm sure there're thousands of higher quality CT threads to frequent where you'd fit in better. If not, feel free to start more threads of your own, and ignore the stupid ones. Anyways, about the OP, I totally thought I had some inkling of an idea what it meant when someone said something like "That's just a straw man fallacy" when I totally didn't. I've learned a lot of new terms. What if I appeal to the Probability Fallacy but then say I'm just appealing to Chaos Theory? |
07-4-2007, 12:05 PM | #27 | |||||||||||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd rather have 9 bad threads out of 10, in which we slowly turn them into good threads by demonstration, example, and helpfulness, than have 10 good threads, and 90 locked threads. Quote:
|
|||||||||||
07-4-2007, 12:09 PM | #28 | ||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
07-4-2007, 07:06 PM | #29 | |||
Sectional Moderator
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I hope it is clear that we both intend for the same thing, though. Our goals are not different: higher level of content and thinking. Methodology is where we differ. So don't think I am at odds with you for your goals, or methods for that matter, I just am seeking a more effective method, for I think yours isn't as effective as others might be. I feel that we are really becoming overly tangential at this point, so if you would like to continue this discussion, please send me a PM. If this were the original topic of discussion, I would have no problem continuing on, but I think that at this point the argument is more personal than anything, so if you wish to continue, don't hesitate to in a PM.
__________________
|
|||
01-26-2008, 10:52 PM | #30 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
I can see much of this has been covered. However, my english teacher offered me this site which has even more thorough explanations of logical fallacies. Thanks to gmail I can retrieve it in my archives
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html |
03-22-2008, 11:46 PM | #31 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
To add to the list: tl;dr symptom. Don't go into Critical Thinking forums if you have this.
__________________
This section intentionally blank. |
03-23-2008, 02:35 AM | #32 |
Giant Pi Operator
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
"TL;DR Syndrome" could probably be placed under an "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position, because I know I can't be wrong, so it's just a waste of time," or the shortened version of that, the "I'm right because I KNOW I'm right" fallacy, which is partially circular reasoning and partially the ad nauseum fallacy. It might fall under another one, but I'm not sure.
|
03-23-2008, 09:49 AM | #33 | |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
I don't think it quite falls under any of the two categories you have suggested. It is basically, someone being lazy, and not reading the entire argument or entire thread before replying with a counter argument, which was probably already used in the thread, or was not targeted towards the general issue in the thread because they did not read it. It isn't "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position", its more like "I'm lazy and want to bring up my post count" or something.
__________________
This section intentionally blank. |
|
03-23-2008, 11:11 AM | #34 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Well, this is a list of the "informal fallacies of logic" and the general philosophical community hasn't recognized tl;dr as a formal objection to an arguement *grin*
I think that tl;dr falls under the actual forum rules dictating that every post must be about something, and address the subject at hand. |
03-23-2008, 11:20 AM | #35 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 36
Posts: 848
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
But tl;dr is apart of the subject at hand.
The subject is too long, therefore the user didnt read . |
03-23-2008, 11:24 AM | #36 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
lets not start a debate in a topic about logical fallacies...
I'll just agree with what Devon says
__________________
This section intentionally blank. |
03-23-2008, 11:27 AM | #37 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2008, 09:40 PM | #38 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...s.html#hominem
Another good list, even longer than this one, covering pretty much everything. I linked after the Table of Contents. Scroll up to see it. |
01-4-2009, 04:33 AM | #39 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 106
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
What about appeal to authority? Where people conclude that something is right because someone in power or of higher authority than them said it. Because the president says it's true, it is true!
And what about when someone says that since something can be interpreted multiple ways, it isn't true and there is no true interpretation. Since this huge metaphor is confusing and can be interpreted many different ways, there is no true interpretation of the subject. |
01-4-2009, 05:44 AM | #40 | |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
EDIT: Just in case you get jumped to Ad Hominem (which you should, it's what the link is designed to do), remember, up scrolling is your friend. Link contains every appeal and every other logical fallacy you'll ever need. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|