Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on August 05, 2016, 02:10:58 PM
-
Seems to me that we have an impasse with some religious members here regarding their indifference to logical fallacies. Essentially when an argument relies on a logically false premise and the fallacy is pointed out in response, the position seems to be either just to ignore it or to complain that the subsequent argument itself isn't being engaged with "properly".
The point though is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. The premise that relies on a fallacy collapses and so any ensuing argument that relies on that premise is nullified a priori. How then should we respond to the "yeah yeah, but never mind all that fallacy stuff let's talk instead about my faith belief that relies on bad thinking for its premise"?
Just pretend that the premise is valid?
Abandon the conversation and watch the Olympics instead?
What?
If you want an honest and fruitful conversation you can't just carry on as if the premise hadn't been undone. The only response is either to rebut the rebuttal - argue cogently that the fallacious thinking isn't fallacious after all - or to try a different argument to establish the premise.
That's it really. If neither occurs, then any discussion has lost its moorings and floats free from reason and rationality. And what's the point of that?
-
Well put.
I wonder if the usual suspects that rely on this faulty reasoning take heed.
My bet is no.
-
Hi BR,
Well put.
I wonder if the usual suspects that rely on this faulty reasoning take heed.
My bet is no.
Mine too. Wouldn't it be nice though if one of the usual suspects at least had the decency to address the issue?
-
Well put.
I wonder if the usual suspects that rely on this faulty reasoning take heed.
My bet is no.
I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding, or whether they regard it as lacking in anything.
-
I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding, or whether they regard it as lacking in anything.
Then all you have to do as suggested, is the rebut the argument and show that you are NOT using a fallacy.
That is all that is being asked.
If you use a fallacy in your argument, then it FAILS automatically for ALL time, not question.
Until you grasp this simple point I think you will just repeat your mistakes.
-
Hope,
I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding, or whether they regard it as lacking in anything.
Your problem there being that you and others think that your personal "understanding" should also be accepted as a means of establishing objective truths for other people.
When you rely on logical fallacies to demonstrate that it doesn't mean that your conclusion is necessarily wrong (a stopped clock is still right twice a day and all that) but it does mean that your means of establishing that your understanding is also an objective truth is necessarily wrong.
Aside from undermining any credibility you might have hoped for, that takes you straight back to a "true for me only" claim.
Your choice then is either to stay there, or instead to attempt an argument that isn't demonstrably false.
-
Then all you have to do as suggested, is the rebut the argument and show that you are NOT using a fallacy.
Many have simply rebutted the argument. Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one.
If you use a fallacy in your argument, then it FAILS automatically for ALL time, not question.
Until you grasp this simple point I think you will just repeat your mistakes.
Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.
-
Many have simply rebutted the argument. Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one.
Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.
This is something you must STOP doing. Stating something was shown somewhere else before. It's tiresome!
Try here, make your argument and let's see if it contains any fallacies.
Can you do that without referring to something said somewhere that cannot be checked?
-
Hope,
Many have simply rebutted the argument.
You make this claim a lot yet, so far as I recall, neither you nor anyone else actually has rebutted the finding that you've relied on one or more logical fallacies for your premise. If you do genuinely believe this to be the case though, why not finally show us one of these supposed rebuttals?
Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one.
I find your dishonesty and hypocrisy to be breathtaking here. You've described precisely your approach - just ignore the fallacies you've tried when they've been pointed out to you, go quiet for a bit, then return only to repeat them. The only reason that I and others repeat the fact of your fallacious thinking is that you repeat it over and over again. Only when you finally either show that you can actually rebut the charge or just abandon the attempt and try a different argument instead will it cease to be necessary to tell you where you've gone wrong again.
Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.
In what way do you think that people "confuse logic and real life"?
-
So to summarise where we are so far Hope has weighed in with, "the fallacies on which I rely aren't fallacies at all and I know that because some posts I can't cite have rebutted those charges, and by the way it's bad form therefore for people to keep pointing them out when I use them."
So is that it? Every time Hope or others trot out the negative proof fallacy, an argument from ignorance, an argument from personal incredulity, an argument from consequences, a post hoc ergo propter hoc etc and wearily etc the rest of us are supposed to take seriously the conclusions they've led them to on the basis that these arguments aren't fallacious after all?
Really?
-
Many have simply rebutted the argument. Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one.
Unbelievable, may I remind you that you still have several questions awaiting responses.
Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.
Not sure what the hell that is supposed to mean but should we take it that you are admitting that non-naturalistic/ supernatural claims cannot be supported by logical arguments?
-
Stephen,
Unbelievable, may I remind you that you still have several questions awaiting responses.
Worse, he's even asked before to be reminded about where the rebuttals have been posted and then just ignored the reminder too.
Not sure what the hell that is supposed to mean but should we take it that you are admitting that non-naturalistic/ supernatural claims cannot be supported by logical arguments?
As I understand it, he seems to be suggesting that because the finding that he relies almost entirely on fallacious reasoning for his premises has supposedly been rebutted (though he never seems to be able to identify those rebuttals) then the arguments that we, the published literature etc think to be fallacious aren't fallacious at all and so he can carry on blithely using them and then complain when we don't deal "properly" with the conclusions to which his premises have led him.
It really is that wrong.
-
Seems to me that we have an impasse with some religious members here regarding their indifference to logical fallacies. Essentially when an argument relies on a logically false premise and the fallacy is pointed out in response, the position seems to be either just to ignore it or to complain that the subsequent argument itself isn't being engaged with "properly".
The point though is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. The premise that relies on a fallacy collapses and so any ensuing argument that relies on that premise is nullified a priori. How then should we respond to the "yeah yeah, but never mind all that fallacy stuff let's talk instead about my faith belief that relies on bad thinking for its premise"?
Just pretend that the premise is valid?
Abandon the conversation and watch the Olympics instead?
What?
If you want an honest and fruitful conversation you can't just carry on as if the premise hadn't been undone. The only response is either to rebut the rebuttal - argue cogently that the fallacious thinking isn't fallacious after all - or to try a different argument to establish the premise.
That's it really. If neither occurs, then any discussion has lost its moorings and floats free from reason and rationality. And what's the point of that?
Look Hillside this could all be settled if you could plainly state what logical fallacy religion is.
If religion itself is not a logical fallacy then shut up about it.
In any case aren't you bordering on the genetic fallacy merely accusing the religious of logical fallacies?
-
Look Hillside this could all be settled if you could plainly state what logical fallacy religion is.
If religion itself is not a logical fallacy then shut up about it.
In any case aren't you bordering on the genetic fallacy merely accusing the religious of logical fallacies?
What at you on about? Each claim should be assessed on it's own merits, shouldn't it.
BHS is raising a specific example I think. The evidence is obvious that, in this case, the reasoning is fallacious. Therefore, why should we accept the conclusions?
Why don't you follow the links I gave and answer the questions if it is that easy?
-
Vlad,
Look Hillside this could all be settled if you could plainly state what logical fallacy religion is.
No-one says that "religion" is a logical fallacy. It's a common enough practice worldwide, and it speaks to our pattern and explanation-seeking nature. What's actually being said though is that when the content of religious beliefs is argued to be objectively true, then relying on false reasoning to do the job is a bad idea.
If religion itself is not a logical fallacy then shut up about it.
Er, nope - because you've missed the point. See above.
In any case aren't you bordering on the genetic fallacy merely accusing the religious of logical fallacies?
No. Either logical fallacies are being used or they're not. Leaving aside Hope's mythic rebuttals, when they are used to establish premises then the arguments that rely on those premises are nullified a priori. Simple enough I'd have thought.
-
What at you on about? Each claim should be assessed on it's own merits, shouldn't it.
BHS is raising a specific example I think. The evidence is obvious that, in this case, the reasoning is fallacious. Therefore, why should we accept the conclusions?
Why don't you follow the links I gave and answer the questions if it is that easy?
Isn't BHS begging the question in his OP though.
-
Vlad,
No-one says that "religion" is a logical fallacy. It's a common enough practice worldwide, and it speaks to our pattern and explanation-seeking nature. What's actually being said though is that when the content of religious beliefs is argued to be objectively true, then relying on false reasoning to do the job is a bad idea.
Fair enough.
-
Vlad,
Isn't BHS begging the question in his OP though.
No.
When someone says, "When X, then Y" that's not begging the question at all.
-
Can it be assumed that everyone now agrees that it is important that any argument put forward should be free of logical fallacies?
-
Another thread that was and is doomed to the interminable refusal of the dyed-in-the-wool falacist to admit that their arguments and proofs are falacious!
In other words another thread that is a total and complete waste of time and a fiurther demonstration of why the forum is descending, rapidly, into a total waste of time in the "Religion" part of its title and the reason that its membership is inexorably dwindling to extinction. No matter how hard those who recognise this fact try to prevent it.
But to name those who are contributing most to this situation is a Moderatable offence!
-
I think we know the names of the guilty.
-
Seems to me that we have an impasse with some religious members here regarding their indifference to logical fallacies. Essentially when an argument relies on a logically false premise and the fallacy is pointed out in response, the position seems to be either just to ignore it or to complain that the subsequent argument itself isn't being engaged with "properly".
The point though is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. The premise that relies on a fallacy collapses and so any ensuing argument that relies on that premise is nullified a priori. How then should we respond to the "yeah yeah, but never mind all that fallacy stuff let's talk instead about my faith belief that relies on bad thinking for its premise"?
Just pretend that the premise is valid?
Abandon the conversation and watch the Olympics instead?
What?
If you want an honest and fruitful conversation you can't just carry on as if the premise hadn't been undone. The only response is either to rebut the rebuttal - argue cogently that the fallacious thinking isn't fallacious after all - or to try a different argument to establish the premise.
That's it really. If neither occurs, then any discussion has lost its moorings and floats free from reason and rationality. And what's the point of that?
As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true. We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.
-
As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true. We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.
Alas, I think a few saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion.
They were cruelly disappointed and any victories they claim are in fact emigrations due to boredom of their style.
-
As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true. We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.
It IS the point of the forum! But those most guilty of propounding these various fallacious arguments refuse point-blank to "discuss" anything with regard to the truth or otherwise of their beliefs.
They do not "discuss" - they state as incontrovertable "fact".
Thast is the problem, and, regardless of how many threads that they destroy with these fallacies, nothing, no action whatsoever, is going to change that fact.
There is, unfortunately, one simple choice to make - keep trying to show the errors of these arguments to their perpetrators or quit the forum.
Unless, perhaps, the Moderators can come up with some sort of limit to the numbers of "pro" and "con" posts that are to be allowed (say, three of each) before a thread is locked as an impassable dead-end.
-
Alas, I think a few saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion.
They were cruelly disappointed and any victories they claim are in fact emigrations due to boredom of their style.
Another dead-end! No, correction! There are no dead-ends - just impassable bogs of fallacious "facts".
This applies equally to the religious!
-
It IS the point of the forum! But those most guilty of propounding these various fallacious arguments refuse point-blank to "discuss" anything with regard to the truth or otherwise of their beliefs.
They do not "discuss" - they state as incontrovertable "fact".
Thast is the problem, and, regardless of how many threads that they destroy with these fallacies, nothing, no action whatsoever, is going to change that fact.
There is, unfortunately, one simple choice to make - keep trying to show the errors of these arguments to their perpetrators or quit the forum.
Unless, perhaps, the Moderators can come up with some sort of limit to the numbers of "pro" and "con" posts that are to be allowed (say, three of each) before a thread is locked as an impassable dead-end.
Before becoming a Christian I believed religion was being rammed down my throat.....in fact I came to realise that it was the mere mention of religion which was troubling me.........
Most religious people on this board recognise that they are in a predominantly non religious society.
So how do you talk when you have something you believe to be much more than a philosophical punt?
-
Before becoming a Christian I believed religion was being rammed down my throat.....in fact I came to realise that it was the mere mention of religion which was troubling me.........
Most religious people on this board recognise that they are in a predominantly non religious society.
So how do you talk when you have something you believe to be much more than a philosophical punt?
Explain what you believe and why.
If the why has fallacious reasoning, change your reasoning or accept that you have no justification for your beliefs.
I think that is all that is being asked, believe what you want, it's only when you say this is objectively true, and therefore true for me too, that the problems arise.
-
Hi Gabriella,
As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true.
You’d think so wouldn’t you. “God” as a branch of aesthetics or similar would be fine for those who like that kind of thing. The problem though is that more often than not it seems that theists claim “God” as a fact, and his thread is about what happens when they use broken reasoning to try to demonstrate that position.
We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.
Well, I’m not sure I’d want to claim to know what the point of the forum is but there’s a difference between “subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs” and supposedly objectively good or bad reasons for belief. This thread is about those who think that bad thinking is a good way to demonstrate the latter.
-
Vlad,
Alas, I think a few saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion.
They were cruelly disappointed and any victories they claim are in fact emigrations due to boredom of their style.
And the king of the straw man walks among us again.
Just in case anyone should be taken in by this, no-one "saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion". What some of us do though is to argue against the overreaching of the religious into unquestioned claims of fact, specifically when they use broken reasoning to do it.
-
Explain what you believe and why.
If the why has fallacious reasoning, change your reasoning or accept that you have no justification for your beliefs.
I think that is all that is being asked, believe what you want, it's only when you say this is objectively true, and therefore true for me too, that the problems arise.
Stop trying to tell others how to think.
-
I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding
There aren't different varieties of logic, Hope.BHS's logic is the same as every logic everywhere in the Universe.
-
There aren't different varieties of logic, Hope.BHS's logic is the same as every logic everywhere in the Universe.
He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself. He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.
With such unbridled pisstaking I wonder if this guy actually hates you people.
-
Stop trying to tell others how to think.
Stop telling other people what to post.
-
He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself. He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.
With such unbridled pisstaking I wonder if this guy actually hates you people.
Then just point out when a fallacy is used, and the statement will have to be corrected or your challenge stands.
Try it.
-
He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself. He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.
You can back up your assertion with evidence of course.
No? What a surprise.
-
Then just point out when a fallacy is used, and the statement will have to be corrected or your challenge stands.
Try it.
You are completely blind to his arguments by associating whatever he disagrees with something ridiculous even though there is no logical link nor good reason to do so........although he did come a pearler on it the other day.....(Vlad smiles).
-
You can back up your assertion with evidence of course.
No? What a surprise.
Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.
Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.
-
Vlad,
He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself.
Well, you've never identified one correctly yet but by all means try to do so now if you think that to be the case.
He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum...
You never have grasped this have you. If an argument you attempt for "God" works equally well for outcomes you think to be ridiculous, then you have a problem with your argument. It really would save a lot of time if you would finally grasp this simple enough point.
...and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.
I have no idea what you mean by "argument from his own disbelief" (and nor I suspect do you). When you attempt a logically false argument to demonstrate your position then pointing that out isn't an "argument from disbelief", it's just pointing out. It would for example be perfectly possibly for me to be a card-carrying god-botherer and still to be able to tell you where your arguments had gone off the rails.
With such unbridled pisstaking I wonder if this guy actually hates you people.
Aw, shucks - and again you fail to grasp that you cannot just ring fence "God" from the problems that bedevil your arguments. When those arguments lead to a conclusion that is as ridiculous as leprechauns (or whatever) then the problem is yours to fix it, and not just to throw the charge of "pisstaking" at in the hope the problems will thereby go away.
-
Vlad,
Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.
Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.
Flat wrong again. See Reply 37 to tell you why.
-
jeremy,
There aren't different varieties of logic, Hope.BHS's logic is the same as every logic everywhere in the Universe.
Yes, it's an odd charge isn't it: "Well, if you're going to use your logic to defeat me then...etc" as if in some way I'd carved out a special kind of logic all to myself, whereas the logic of the theist is somehow "better".
It's a bit like the, "well, if you're going to use facts you can prove anything" line as an argument.
Weird.
-
Stop telling other people what to post.
I'm not!
Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.
People don't all have to think alike.
There are more ways of constructing arguments.
-
Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.
Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.
Ah no, that was you failing to understand an analogy, not a fallacy on anybody else's part.
-
Vlad,
You are completely blind to his arguments by associating whatever he disagrees with something ridiculous even though there is no logical link nor good reason to do so........
Stop lying. The precise link is that when your argument works equally for "God" and for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
...although he did come a pearler on it the other day.....(Vlad smiles).
(Vlad lies).
-
I'm not!
Yes you are.
Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.
What's wrong with that? If you came across somebody thinking in a way that was obviously fallacious, would you not correct them?
People don't all have to think alike.
Well they do in your normal opinion. For example, you have, on several occasions, tried to admonish me for thinking that Brexit is a disaster.
There are more ways of constructing arguments.
Arguments constructed with fallacies in them are worthless. Why can't we point that out?
-
jeremy,
Ah no, that was you failing to understand an analogy, not a fallacy on anybody else's part.
Quite. The problem he has here is that for reasons known only to himself his idea "God" should be exempted a priori from the charge of being ridiculous (though only presumably his god rather than, say, the Roman or Sumerian gods), so he focusses instead on outcomes we all agree to be ridiculous as if that somehow invalidates the falsification of his arguments. It actually does the opposite of that though - once you sweep away the special pleading of his god exemption, then when his arguments work equally for leprechauns what he should do is revisit his arguments rather than spit the dummy.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that though.
-
Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.
Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.
This is a method to show that if your argument works for something which YOU also think is ridiculous, then your argument must either be wrong, or you also accept the ridiculous conclusion.
-
I'm not!
Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.
People don't all have to think alike.
There are more ways of constructing arguments.
But any argument that is true must be free from fallacies.
-
But any argument that is true must be free from fallacies.
The fallacy fallacy! The conclusion might still be true even if the argument contains fallacies.
Only joking, but we need to be a bit more precise. An argument is valid if it leads from the premises to the conclusion without fallacy regardless of the truth of the premises. An argument is sound if it is free of fallacies and the premises are true. Only in this latter case can we assume the conclusion is true.
-
jeremy,
Quite. The problem he has here is that for reasons known only to himself his idea "God" should be exempted a priori from the charge of being ridiculous (though only presumably his god rather than, say, the Roman or Sumerian gods), so he focusses instead on outcomes we all agree to be ridiculous as if that somehow invalidates the falsification of his arguments. It actually does the opposite of that though - once you sweep away the special pleading of his god exemption, then when his arguments work equally for leprechauns what he should do is revisit his arguments rather than spit the dummy.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that though.
It's funny Hillside.....when you refer to Leprechauns as small Irishmen dressed in green supposedly at the end of rainbows I find I don't believe in them. When you change your definition and equate them completely as God I believe in them.......although they presumably cease to be a ''them'..............Surely changing your definitions depending on and during an argument is fallacious.....Antitheist fallacy hunters where are you?
-
Yes you are.
No I'm not
There is a difference between telling people what to post and trying to control someone by telling them how to think. I'm not telling anyone to post or not to post something, just not to try and control how others think.
What's wrong with that? If you came across somebody thinking in a way that was obviously fallacious, would you not correct them?
No, because it's a bit patronising like correcting someone's spelling, instead of looking at their argument, I'd disagree with them and give them my POV and why I thought something was as it was.
But people believe all sorts of things from experience, for example.
Well they do in your normal opinion. For example, you have, on several occasions, tried to admonish me for thinking that Brexit is a disaster.
No not quite, I'm admonishing you because you are so completely negative on the subject of Brexit, almost to the point I think you enjoy being miserable about it. I think Brexit is a disaster up to a point, the difference is I don't let myself become so negactive about it.
I tend to think that in time there will be good and bad things about it. I think we need to be positive about it, now it's happened, otherwise it's a self fullfilling prophecy.
You have to let go, to see the opportunities that might spring up.
It's not good to be too negative.
Arguments constructed with fallacies in them are worthless. Why can't we point that out?
Because they arn't worthless. It's another persons POV.
There are so many fallacies that instead of holding interesting discussions on what people believe you can always find a fallacy to accuse them of instead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
It then becomes an intellectual exercise, bashing the person over the head with fallacies instead of ingaging in what is actually being said.
It's trying to make everyone conform, so you squeeze out actual opinion.
A sort of point scoring!
You stop discussing the persons ideas, and pick at the way the arguments are put together instead.
So it's like reading Wordsworth but being hung up with his spelling, until you've lost the plot.
:)
-
No I'm not
Yes you are.
There is a difference between telling people what to post and trying to control someone by telling them how to think. I'm not telling anyone to post something, just as,I got them not to try and control how others think.
You spend plenty of time telling people what not to post though. How is that not trying to control them?
No, because it's a bit patronising like correcting someone's spelling, instead of looking at their argument, I'd disagree with them and give them my POV and why I thought something was as it was.
No. That's just so wrong. If somebody makes a fallacious argument here, I'm not going to let it go just because you think proper debate is patronising.
No not quite, I'm admonishing you because you are so completely negative on the subject of Brexit
See, you are telling me what to think.
It's not good to be too negative.
Telling me what to think again.
There are so many fallacies that instead of holding interesting discussions on what people believe you can always find a fallacy to accuse them of instead.
If an argument contains a fallacy, it is wrong. Full stop.
It then becomes an intellectual exercise, bashing the person over the head with fallacies instead of ingaging in what is actually being said.
Sorry but exposing fallacies in the opponents arguments is a form of engagement.
-
The adventures of fallacy man!
Dun! dun! dun!
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Jeremy, fallacy man :P
;)
-
I'm not!
Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.
People don't all have to think alike.
There are more ways of constructing arguments.
Jesus Christ Al-bloody-mighty! This is what the fallacious argumentors have been doing to the non-believers and non-Christians for yonks.
I e - you MUST MUST MUST believe in OUR GOD or you perish in the fires of Hell! Don't under any circumstances whatsoever disagree with us for any reason as we are only trying to save your immortal soul!
Yeah - and Donald Trump is the tooth-fairy in dusguise!
-
The adventures of fallacy man!
Dun! dun! dun!
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Jeremy, fallacy man :P
;)
So you think people here should be allowed to wallow in their wrongness with no comeback from the rest of us?
I'm actually finding your posts on this thread quite offensive. You admonish people for "telling others what to think" and yet you are the worst offender in that regard so far.
Incidentally, your posts are a beautiful example of the problem described in the OP. Wake up and smell the roses.
-
Jesus Christ Al-bloody-mighty! This is what the fallacious argumentors have been doing to the non-believers and non-Christians for yonks.
Assuming that Christians are fallacious augmentors is the genetic fallacy as is assuming non believers and non Christians aren't.
-
Vlad,
It's funny Hillside.....when you refer to Leprechauns as small Irishmen dressed in green supposedly at the end of rainbows I find I don't believe in them. When you change your definition and equate them completely as God I believe in them.......although they presumably cease to be a ''them'..............Surely changing your definitions depending on and during an argument is fallacious.....Antitheist fallacy hunters where are you?
Try to focus here. Really, really, really try to focus.
OK? Good.
The characteristics, properties, behaviours or anything else about the outcomes of bad arguments has nothing whatever to do with those arguments being bad arguments.
"God", leprechauns, unicorns, whatever - it matters not a jot. Ascribe any characteristics you like to any of them for all I care.
The point though is that when you use an argument - Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy for example - to get to one of them then pointing out that exactly the same argument can lead to outcomes we all think are ridiculous should give you pause about using that argument for the outcome you don't think to be ridiculous.
I have very little hope that this will ever sink in for you, but by all means let me know if ever it does.
-
Vlad,
Assuming that Christians are fallacious augmentors is the genetic fallacy as is assuming non believers and non Christians aren't.
No-one assumes that. Either the Christian or anyone else makes an argument that's logically false or s/he doesn't. The arguments stands alone regardless of the personal beliefs of the persons making them.
Here for example you've made the false argument of the straw man. Whether you happen to be a Christian, a muslim or Melanesian Tree Frog worshipper makes no difference to that - it's still a false argument
-
Vlad,
Try to focus here. Really, really, really try to focus.
OK? Good.
The characteristics, properties, behaviours or anything else about the outcomes of bad arguments has nothing whatever to do with those arguments being bad arguments.
"God", leprechauns, unicorns, whatever - it matters not a jot. Ascribe any characteristics you like to any of them for all I care.
What they have in common is that they are believed to be mythological to some people Hillside.
But it would only be intellectual slovenliness of Hillsidian proportions to leave things at that.
Outside that all you are doing is saying look A is ridiculous therefore B is ridiculous on the grounds that I am insinuating that there is an equivalence between A and B.
-
So you think people here should be allowed to wallow in their wrongness with no comeback from the rest of us?
I'm actually finding your posts on this thread quite offensive. You admonish people for "telling others what to think" and yet you are the worst offender in that regard so far.
Incidentally, your posts are a beautiful example of the problem described in the OP. Wake up and smell the roses.
No I'm not telling people "what" to think, they can think whatever they like.
What I'm admonishing is the telling of how to think..... ( not what.... How)
There is a subtle difference you are not picking up on.
People can wallow in their wrongness ( perceived) if they wish too, variety is what makes people interesting.
In what way are my posts on this thread so far a good example of the OP?
Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point. :)
-
Vlad,
What they have in common is that they are believed to be mythological to some people Hillside.
That's one thing they have in common, yes. But it's not the thing they have in common for the purpose of the argument that actually being made here.
What that thing in common is is that certain bad arguments can produce "God" and "leprechauns" alike. The negative proof fallacy for example will do that. I merely point out that if you want to use that argument for just one of them nonetheless, you should probably have a re-think.
But it would only be intellectual slovenliness of Hillsidian proportions to leave things at that.
Then - as ever - you would say wrongly. The only "intellectual slovenliness" here is your insistence on looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Turn the thing around and finally engage with what's actually being said and you might stand a chance of not falling flat on your face again. And again and again.
It really isn't a good idea to cling on to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it. Really, it isn't.
Outside that...
Sadly, your "that" in this case has collapsed completely again but ok...
...all you are doing is saying look A is ridiculous therefore B is ridiculous on the grounds that I am insinuating that there is an equivalence between A and B.
You're leaving me no choice but to conclude that your lying here is deliberate. What else can I think when I've told you over and again why this is precisely not what I'm doing?
I make no insinuation, arguments, statement, anything to say that there's an equivalence between A and B. A and B can be as un-equivalent as you can possibly make them for this purpose. Really, fill your boots - make them as different as you like.
Done that? OK. Good.
Now then, back to the actual issue: when the argument that gets you to A and to (the completely different remember) B is exactly the same argument for each, and you agree that either A or B is ridiculous, then you have no choice but either to accept both A and B as true nonetheless, or to abandon the argument completely.
Look, I'll even put it in bold and in big letters so you don't have to lie about it again:
When the argument that gets you to A and to (the completely different remember)B is exactly the same argument, and you agree that either A or B is ridiculous, then you have no choice either but to accept both A and B as true nonetheless, or to abandon the argument completely.
You're welcome.
-
No I'm not telling people "what" to think, they can think whatever they like.
What I'm admonishing is the telling of how to think..... ( not what.... How)
There is a subtle difference you are not picking up on.
People can wallow in their wrongness ( perceived) if they wish too, variety is what makes people interesting.
In what way are my posts on this thread so far a good example of the OP?
Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point. :)
So my nephew's opinion (he's two and half and when he was here on Saturday announced poo tasted good) is just as valid on global warming as my cousin who is a Ph.d in Climate Sciences - and my cousin should not try to explain how to do scientific analysis to his students because that's showing people how to think?
-
Rose,
What I'm admonishing is the telling of how to think..... ( not what.... How)
There is a subtle difference you are not picking up on.
The issue isn't "telling" them but rather it's showing them. The methods of science for example work, and we teach that by showing pupils the experiments that demonstrate it. If a pupil wants to conclude that, say, crystals are made by pixies rather than by natural chemical processes nonetheless they're free do so so, but it's the evidence that tells them how to think rather than the authority of the teacher (pretty much the opposite of theology by the way).
People can wallow in their wrongness ( perceived) if they wish too, variety is what makes people interesting.
Well yes, provided they don't try to do anything with that wrongness - treat cancer by burning sage leaves for example - and it's not just "perceived" wrongness when the patients consistently die.
In what way are my posts on this thread so far a good example of the OP?
Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point.
It's not "chucking around" the fallacy argument. Some arguments demonstrably are fallacious - and when they are, there is no ensuing point to address.
-
Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point. :)
If your argument contains a fallacy, then you have no point.
Do you understand this concept. The fallacy is not just checked at you, the fallacy has a name and a definition, and anyone saying you have used a fallacy must explain which one and why it applies to you.
They cannot just cry "FALLACY"
-
BR,
They cannot just cry "FALLACY"
FALLACY!
Oh, sorry :-[
-
BR,
FALLACY!
Oh, sorry :-[
Actually is sounds a bit rude when you shout it like that.
Sorry Phalus is what I was thinking