<< Back to Off-topic Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 22 of 22   
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 09:25:01


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
a lot of people in this forum like to attempt to have debates about various topics, but don't have even a basic understanding of how logic works. it is my aim that this post will help them begin to form coherent arguments.

these are the four most common logical fallacies i see committed here:

strawman argument -- attacking an argument that was not made, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

ad hominem attack -- making a personal attack and pretending that is an argument, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

red herring -- bringing up something unrelated and irrelevant, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

genetic fallacy -- attacking the history of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

notice anything these all have in common? in each case, the argument that was made was not addressed. if you wish to actually debate constructively and with some semblance of intelligence and coherence, you need to address the argument that was made. If you're not addressing the argument made, you're not even in the game. you're just babbling irrelevant bullshit and making a fool of yourself.

i was going to provide some examples but then I realized this forum is full of stubborn trolls who don't have even a basic grasp of logic, who will not heed or likely even be able to understand my advice, so they'll provide the examples for us. i'll identify fallacies in the thread as they are committed.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 09:40:52


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
You're stupid to call fishes reptiles. Just because you never did well on the ladders doesn't mean you can call fishes whatever you want cause they are clearly not repltiles
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 10:15:00


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
hi master of desaster, thank you for demonstrating our first logical fallacy. that would be a red herring. a bunch of irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with what i said. and although the case for it is not as strong, that's almost certainly a genetic fallacy. you're referencing my history and seeking to dismiss what i said on that basis, when my history is irrelevant, all that matters is my argument.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 10:19:14


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
also possibly a strawman argument, you appear to be attacking an argument about fishes and reptiles that i never made.

if you were attempting to commit all four fallacies, that was a valiant effort, but there was no ad hominem attack. a personal attack by itself is not an ad hominem, you have to be using the attack in an attempt to dismiss the argument, which you have not done.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 10:21:33


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
Damn. I tried so hard :(
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 10:45:36


berdan131
Level 56
Report
Professor Wally, please explain what's the point of using logic and debating constructively and with some semblance of intelligence and coherence.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 11:05:43


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
You can't show that you are right or that somebody else is wrong with incoherent, illogical arguments.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 12:16:09


FDR 
Level 46
Report
So, that means all your arguments are illogical and incoherent.

Edited 12/19/2016 12:18:01
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 12:48:46


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
Hi FDR, thanks for wonderfully demonstrating the genetic fallacy. You've tried to deflect what I've said by bringing up my history. If you wish to make a coherent and logical argument, you need to actually address what I've said, which you have not done.

Edited 12/19/2016 12:52:52
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 12:52:21


FDR 
Level 46
Report
I did address what you said, by telling you that you demonstrate what you preach is bad.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 12:54:53


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
Referring to what I said is not the same as addressing it.

What you've just done is actually a logical and coherent argument, you've responded directly to what I said and tried to refute it.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 12:56:24


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
If you think that was not a genetic fallacy then it was easily also a strawman. The argument you were attacking was 'I've never been guilty of this myself' and I never argued that.

Edited 12/19/2016 12:57:54
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 12:57:32

Pulsey
Level 56
Report
Just commenting to say I downvoted.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 13:39:58


BUFFALO
Level 49
Report
great! a list of all the arguments globeheads use to defend their fairytale ideology!

FLAT EARTH
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 14:42:12


Stewie
Level 51
Report
the original post contains all the fallacies.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 14:56:43


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
Hi Stewie, thanks for demonstrating a red herring, bringing up irrelevant nonsense rather than addressing my argument.

That also happens to be untrue. Strawman and red herring are not possible as I wasn't responding to any arguments. I made no personal attacks instead of making arguments, I made them along with arguments: so no ad hominem. Genetic fallacy is possible depending on what you define as my argument.

Edited 12/19/2016 14:57:44
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 15:04:34


Stewie
Level 51
Report
you missed my point Wally, I suggest you re-read my sentence and re-check your post again. I won't bother explaining it to you.

also how exactly do you expect people to come up with arguments on an "introduction" post? The only people who will post here are either trolls or just bored people, with me being the latter part.

and yes, I have nothing else to do atm.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 15:31:49


Wally Balls 
Level 58
Report
i read your post several times and it still seems that you are accusing me of committing all four fallacies and you evidently cannot read because two of them are not even possible.
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 17:04:48


Beren • apex 
Level 63
Report
Notice he never said that you committed the fallacies...
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 17:13:50


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
ad hominem goy
an introduction to logic: 12/19/2016 19:27:01


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
ad hominem goy
an introduction to logic: 12/20/2016 02:15:20


Seraph
Level 57
Report
Just a for-fun post.

Maybe people aren't addressing what you said (for whatever reason may be), that doesn't always mean they're committing a fallacy. I don't know the whole story here, but you can't just dismiss every argument as a 'fallacy' because that alone is deflection in itself, and deflection is a fallacy. One example of this type of failed reasoning is called the 'fallacy fallacy'.

The fallacy fallacy is used to deflect against opposing arguments by dismissing them as fallacies. When you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, that is a fallacy fallacy and when both parties are dismissing each others arguments you simply waste time and get nowhere.

I deal with people who argue this way all the time, not saying you necessarily do, and not really targeting you specifically either but gosh it's annoying and worth pointing out. :P

You're certainly good at generating attention whether or not you're trolling, and that's respectable. ^_^
Posts 1 - 22 of 22