The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Hellfire Scavenger Hunt on Fallacies
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3525		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  LadyKate [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Hellfire Scavenger Hunt on Fallacies
Ok, ya'll know I'm not the brightest bulb around here....(I know...shocking, isn't it?)

I remember something in college about fallacies and I remember memorizing a few things for a test and writing a paper but that was years ago.

Khross said something about a "No True Scotsman" and I hear "strawman" after everything that Monte posts, but I still don't quite get it.

I checked Wikipedia and there is a list of like a hundred different types of fallacies.

Here's the deal...it would be helpful to me, and possibly fun for you if you could list a fallacy, a definition, and an example. Extra points if you can find the example through some of the debates in Hellfire...helps to get things in context.

Thanks! :D
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oooh. This'll be a fun thread.
/popcorn
Author:  Lenas [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
...and let's not use Monte's posts for every example.
Author:  LadyKate [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

Khross wrote:
Aizle wrote:
I've explained my position on why athiesm is not a religion many times on these forums, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it again.
Yes, you've explained. And, when confronted with the reality of how Atheism is practiced, continually fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy. More to the point, New Atheism and Atheism as you describe it both require active disbelief, which makes both irrational and faith based.


Quote:
No True Scotsman: when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hellfire Scavenger Hunt on Fallacies
Strawman is one you should definitely be familiar with. After that, look up circular argument.
Author:  Müs [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tautological cat is tautological.
Author:  Taskiss [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Moving the goalposts is a common fallacy..

Quote:
Moving the goalposts means changing the rules after the game has started.


If someone asserts "Nobody can jump over three camels!" and you cite references that show that someone indeed has jumped over three camels, then to further argue that the camels in question were dromedary and not bactrian and it doesn't count 'cause the dromedary has fewer humps, they've moved the goalposts on you.

All it takes is one exception to undermine someone's assertion and folks typically have an investment in their assertions...
Author:  Rafael [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Go look for false equivalence.

Oh wait, it isn't one. It's just something someone made up in lieu of an actual fallacy being applicable. Most often, it's applied in situation to deny germane and pertinent information.

Ironically, its use is much more often than not, a fallacy in and of itself. Commonly a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Either that, or it's a completely subjective value judgement masquerading as a fallacy.
Author:  Dash [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hellfire Scavenger Hunt on Fallacies
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common one. "after this, therefore because of this". So for example if people say "I never heard all these people complaining about big government before a black man was elected president. They must be racist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Author:  Wwen [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Why scour, when I can just deliver them directly to the thread?
Author:  Dash [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hellfire Scavenger Hunt on Fallacies
This site has a list of them actually:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... html#index
Author:  Nevandal [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:49 am ]
Post subject: 
See, this is why I don't even use these terms. Nobody understands 'em. I admit, even I don't want to think about the terms..because noone understands. I'd rather explain it in plain english, so the people who I'm arguing against can understand. Though, it does help to have a highly developed bullshit detector.

This reminds me, the phrases I used to and sometimes do have issues with


"red is no match for blue" ...what the hell does that mean, does that mean red is better or blue is better? I always have to interpret this kind of statement based on context.


"the two are not mutually exclusive" -- i get this one now...but at first, I was like "PC Load Letter? What the **** does that mean?" Maybe because the tone of the statement feels like a double-negative.


"objects in mirror are closer than they appear" appear in the mirror, or appear as if you looked directly at them? It almost makes me feel like I'm autistic with not knowing what the hell people actually mean with these cookie cutter phrases.

I guess it's the same reason people say things like "i could care less" when they mean to say "i couldn't care less"


So yeah, I'll stick to just calling 'em like I see 'em.


Ok... /end tangent
Author:  Screeling [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 
What about a Scottish Korean eating a Snickers? It's like one contradiction eating another.

Contradictions taste goot!
Author:  Raltar [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Screeling wrote:
What about a Scottish Korean eating a Snickers? It's like one contradiction eating another.

Contradictions taste goot!


Wrong. He's eating Starbursts. Stop being such a fail, Screeling.
Author:  darksiege [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think in lieu of telling someone Slippery Slope, Strawman, and Changing the Goalposts it is so much easier to tell them "**** You, you are wrong!" let them figure out why... even if they are not wrong. :)
Author:  DFK! [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Lenas wrote:
...and let's not use Monte's posts for every example.


Well then where's the fun in it? Jebus.
Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
darksiege wrote:
I think in lieu of telling someone Slippery Slope, Strawman, and Changing the Goalposts it is so much easier to tell them "**** You, you are wrong!" let them figure out why... even if they are not wrong. :)

What do you propose calling this? The Beryllin Gambit?
Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
I vote for The Khross Conundrum. ;)
Author:  Khross [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Vindicarre wrote:
I vote for The Khross Conundrum.
... Curse you lack of inflection ... curse you!
Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Hopwin wrote:
darksiege wrote:
I think in lieu of telling someone Slippery Slope, Strawman, and Changing the Goalposts it is so much easier to tell them "**** You, you are wrong!" let them figure out why... even if they are not wrong. :)

What do you propose calling this? The Beryllin Gambit?

Oh wait, can I change my vote to: Business as Usual ?
Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Khross wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
I vote for The Khross Conundrum.
... Curse you lack of inflection ... curse you!

Image
Author:  Khross [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Vindicarre wrote:
Image
Moo ... Vindicarre's poking me!
Author:  darksiege [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Hopwin wrote:
What do you propose calling this? The Beryllin Gambit?


I prefer to call it the Wormwood Logical Argument:
Harry Wormwood wrote:
I'm smart; you're dumb; I'm big, you're little; I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Author:  Rafael [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Argumentum ad nauseam.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/