He'll flip ya!
Posted On:12/25/2005 2:12pm
You know one thing that I have noticed about this site is the general lack of keeping within the relevant points that the poster had made. If the poster had made 15 good points and made one mistake in his thread. He would be flamed mercilessly by 15 idiots who will say 'Nah anh!That's not what my inztruktor saz!!**** u!'
Most people here don't want to listen to you but would rather piss and moan for 15 pages until that good poster shoot himself in the head.
"God damn America" --Muammar al-Gaddafi
Hole in one.
Posted On:12/25/2005 2:15pm
Style: LongFist CMA
Originally Posted by MEGA JESUS-SAN
because stupid people need to be put in their place.
Then why aren't you in your place?
Give to Haiti relief. text "haiti' to 90999
All Out of Bubblegum
Posted On:12/25/2005 2:41pm
Satori, your examples of these flaws are actually pretty bad.
There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.
Posted On:12/25/2005 2:51pm
It was a spur of the moment thing...and I'd had a few drinks. I was using an old college textbook from a logic class I had, and I tried to insert what my point was...but alcohol does funny things to typed conversation.
If you (or anyone else with speech/debate/logic knowledge) has some wittier and more appropriate examples, post them and I'll edit them in with credit due. I posted this as more of a joke than anything else, but if serious debators want to create solid examples of fallacies, then I'm game.
Great article on internet arguing, Hapkido Keith.
Posted On:12/25/2005 3:07pm
Originally Posted by hapkido_keith
Teh r34l way to argue on the internet
Posted On:12/25/2005 6:55pm
Style: Muso Shinden Ryu
Originally Posted by Satori
I'm bored. Therefore, everyone will suffer.
The medium of the "Message Board" allows for people of every ethnicity and origin to converse on matters of personal importance. In addition, the lack of direct inter-personal contact neglects a facet of logical discussion that is otherwise found in day to day conversation. This can lead to a lack of accountability within the posting community, as can be demonstrated by a quick perusal of said forums.
Those without formal training in the science of Logic may find themselves falling prey to various forms of "conversational trickery". This "trickery" is perpetrated by individuals who have a strong desire to be deemed "correct", but who lack sufficient reasoning power to prove their respective point in a reasonable, Logical manner.
I am going to assume you have a good reason for capitalizing logic, like a faulty space bar.
Therefore, as a service the Bullshido community, I will provide an overview of common "Logical Fallacies" often used and abused by posters herein. May the light of reason banish said abusers once and for all!
Ah, well, you see, only SOME of these are logical fallacies. A good many of them are rhetorical fallacies. There's a difference.
-Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum): Direct or indirect threat hidden within a statement that attempts to coerce the listener to the speaker's way of thinking.
---"MMA is the best martial art in existence. If you disagree, then I'm sure Ken Shamrock will correct you. So obviously, my style is better."
This is actually a rhetorical fallacy. You see, arguing this way does not invalidate the thesis that MMA is the best martial art. It may not provide the rational agent much incentive to accept the argument... or it might, depending on how much fear I live in of Ken Shamrock.
-Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam): Direct or indirect attempt to elicit feelings of compassion and pity from the listener in order to coerce the listener to the speaker's way of thinking.
---"My instructor says that every other martial art other than his is worthless and stupid, and he would come here and back that up...except he was in a tragic Port-a-Potty accident while feeding starving children in Antarctica. He no longer has the use of his hindquarters, so let us have a moment of silence for this philanthropist. Obviously, my instructor is better."
Again, appeals to pity are rhetorical devices, and not terribly fallacious either. They present extenuating circumstances and ask us as humans to empathize with the situation. Now, the example you used contains a type of logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur, where there is no logical link between the story presented and the conclusion that was hypothesized.
-Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum): Direct or indirect attempt to make the speaker's opinion appear popular and exclusive.
---"I train in Muay Tae Kwon Jitsu. Before my instructor will even look at you, you must first defeat a hungry lion with your bare hands, then build a house with your elimination orifices while quoting Hamlet backwards with a Swahili accent. Obviously, my style is better."
I don't think your example matches up to this rhetorical fallacy. An argument from popularity is simply of the form: "One should believe idea X because a majority/great number of people believe X." It might be like "BJJ is the best martial art because most Bullshido members seem to think so." If the student of MTKWJ above did all of that, I'd humbly bow to his or her skills as well.
-Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem): Direct or indirect attempt to attack the speaker's credibility on unrelated issues, thereby diverting attention from the original point.
---"The respected Sensei Joe Millionaire has fought in a dozen death matches and proven his skill beyond a doubt. However, Sensei Joe Millionaire is also a member of the Purple Party, and the Purple Party is responsible for the depletion of the O-Zone. I also heard that Sensei Joe Millionaire caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, so obviously his style is worse."
This is the first logical fallacy you've highlighted, but you leave out the reason why this is a logical fallacy and not a rhetorical fallacy. An argument against the person brings up an irrelevant point about one of the people in the argument. In your example, all of the things about Joe are either good or bad, but none of them have any direct bearing on the conclusion that we are seeking to establish. Argumentum ad hominem are types of red herring arguments. They seek to distract, or at least do not support, the conclusion they purport to support.
-Straw Man: The creation of a fake "personae" that is easily attacked and criticized, upon which the feelings of negativity translate to the person the speaker intends.
---"Brazilian Shoto Kung Chi is a style that incorporates aspects of many different arts, and was developed by several elderly martial artists over several decades. However, we know that old people smell and can't drive well, and that they make gross sounds when they chew. These characteristics are identical to the Nazis, who nearly exterminated an innocent religious group. Obviously, that style is worse."
Wrong. Strawmen arguments are another type of red herring. It is where one intentionally misrepresents another's argument as a weaker version in order to attack that one and not the real argument. If you and I are arguing the relative merits abortion, for instance, and I bring up the argument that legal abortions are safe abortions, you might respond with "but abortions performed in the eighth month of pregnancy often pose significant damage to the reproductive system!" You're arguing a point that I won't bother to refute, because doing so forces me to accept a weak position -- that late-term abortions do not pose a risk. You, on the other hand, construe my unwillingness to answer this argument (or if I do answer, the obvious flaw in my answer) as proof that you have refuted my original point about legal abortions being safe.
-Missing the Point: A fallacy in which the original point is misinterpreted to form a completely unrelated conclusion.
---"Thousands died in Rowanda yesterday. Therefore, all Mixed Martial Artists suck. Obviously, they are worse."
This is a non-sequitur. It is a logical fallacy because no logical relation exists between the objects in question.
-Red Herring: A deliberate attempt to negate argument against the speaker by leading the argument onto a different but relatively related path.
---"Sure, many traditional martial artists were destroyed within the ruleset of the UFC. However...have you noticed that all the judges for the UFC had black hair? People with black hair are proven to be favorable to non-traditional martial arts, and so it makes sense that they rigged the competition in favor of non-traditional MA. Obviously, my style is better."
Your example is a non-sequitur, though your description is correct. A better example would be "Taxes should not be raised because it would place an unfair burden on working families." "Ah, but families with only one parent could increase their income by having the parent take on a second job." The response in the argument I just created is a red herring. It diverts the original argument. In yours, the argument is diverted, but only by going off on a non-sequitur instead of just attempting to draw one's verbal opponent down a tangent.
Please forgive me.
Posted On:12/26/2005 1:27pm
Wow...at first I thought you'd flame me with all sorts of capital letters and interspersed numbers...but you actually know your ****.
The textbook I was using referred to "Fallacies of Relevance", but made no distinction between rhetoric and logic. I only attended one class, but you've obviously had some experience in speech/debate/logic.
Good read. Even if the majority of bullshido posters don't give a Mexican Food **** (capitalized on purpose) about arguing properly, at least I learned a bit from your post.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info