- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10626
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to invalid or unsound arguments. Beware. I'm going to start calling you out. Please stop doing the following things:
Ad Hominem: Attacking the character, motive, or trait of the person making an argument instead of addressing the actual argument.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an argument to make it easier to condemn or refute.
Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming that a conclusion is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.
False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): Presenting a situation as having only two choices when actually more options exist.
Slippery Slope: Arguing that a small first step will lead to a chain of extreme, negative events without providing evidence for the chain.
Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): Restating the conclusion as part of the proof, meaning the argument assumes what it is trying to prove.
Hasty Generalization: Making a broad, sweeping conclusion based on a very small or unrepresentative sample.
Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.
Bandwagon Fallacy (Ad Populum): Claiming that something is true or good simply because a lot of people believe it or do it.
Appeal to Authority: Relying on the opinion of someone who is not an expert on the specific topic being discussed.
False Causality: Assuming that because event B happened after event A, event A must have caused event B.
Equivocation: Using an ambiguous term or phrase in different ways during an argument to mislead or confuse.
@wildgrass
Composition fallacy; what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. One trivial example and one non-trivial example.
Every piece of the engine weighs not more than 1 kg, therefore the entire engine weighs less than 1 kg.
Every event in the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause; every process in the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe must have had a beginning. This is the fallacy in creationist first mover arguments.
@wildgrass saidLets start calling out then ... You first. Here is a strawman you posted : We have enough. They're driving up the price of electricity and polluting all the clean water.
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to invalid or unsound arguments. Beware. I'm going to start calling you out. Please stop doing the following things:
Ad Hominem: Attacking the character, motive, or trait of the person making an argument instead of addressing the actual argument.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an argument to make it easie ...[text shortened]... ation: Using an ambiguous term or phrase in different ways during an argument to mislead or confuse.
This in your words is an example of, Misrepresenting or exaggerating an argument to make it easier to condemn or refute.
According to Claude AI:
*****************************
Data centers mostly consume water (it evaporates through cooling towers), they don't typically pollute it. About 80-90% of direct water use comes from evaporative cooling, and roughly 80% of what's withdrawn evaporates rather than returning contaminated. This isn't like industrial dumping of chemicals into rivers; it's more like water being permanently removed from the local supply.
Although there are documented pollution/contamination complaints, though narrower than "all water." Some Georgia communities near data centers report contaminated or depleted local supplies, and there are real wastewater capacity concerns — this is real, but it's local and site-specific, not "data centers are poisoning the water supply" as a blanket claim.
The industry is actually responding, unevenly. Some newer facilities use air-cooling or closed-loop/reclaimed water systems approaching near-zero on-site water use (Microsoft's newer liquid-cooled campuses target under 0.1 liters per kWh using reclaimed water); older evaporative-cooling designs remain far thirstier. So "should be stopped" ignores that the water intensity varies drastically by design choice and regulation, which is the actual lever available.
************************************
@wildgrass saidWhen Hannah Poling was given money from the vaccine court for her autism they claimed the vaccine did not cause her autism and that her autism was just the result of the vaccine.
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to invalid or unsound arguments. Beware. I'm going to start calling you out. Please stop doing the following things:
Ad Hominem: Attacking the character, motive, or trait of the person making an argument instead of addressing the actual argument.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an argument to make it easie ...[text shortened]... ation: Using an ambiguous term or phrase in different ways during an argument to mislead or confuse.
Unbiased people know that "result of the vaccine" is the same thing as "caused by the vaccine". Should democrats be called out on that logical fallacy? Can democrats acknowledge that is a logical fallacy?
How do you debate a person that will not admit something is a logical fallacy because of an extreme and illogical partisan bias?
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10626
@Rajk999 saidOk, fair point, Claude (is that who I am debating?). I exaggerated.
Lets start calling out then ... You first. Here is a strawman you posted : We have enough. They're driving up the price of electricity and polluting all the clean water.
This in your words is an example of, Misrepresenting or exaggerating an argument to make it easier to condemn or refute.
According to Claude AI:
*****************************
Dat ...[text shortened]... gn choice and regulation, which is the actual lever available.
************************************
But if there's no water because it evaporated then it's not polluted or unpolluted. It's gone. The remaining 20% of the water that's left is... polluted. So I think Claude in this response is ignoring the fact that AI data centers do pollute the fresh water systems near where they are built.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10626
@Metal-Brain saidThis is the anecdotal generalization fallacy. One persons experience does not necessarily validate a connection like that.
When Hannah Poling was given money from the vaccine court for her autism they claimed the vaccine did not cause her autism and that her autism was just the result of the vaccine.
Unbiased people know that "result of the vaccine" is the same thing as "caused by the vaccine". Should democrats be called out on that logical fallacy? Can democrats acknowledge that is a log ...[text shortened]... hat will not admit something is a logical fallacy because of an extreme and illogical partisan bias?
There are millions of vaccinated people and millions of unvaccinated people. Studies have shown that there is no difference in the rate of autism between these two groups. That seems like very strong evidence to me that vaccines don't cause autism.
@wildgrass saidAnd yet another one of your logical fallacies on display:
Ok, fair point, Claude (is that who I am debating?). I exaggerated.
But if there's no water because it evaporated then it's not polluted or unpolluted. It's gone. The remaining 20% of the water that's left is... polluted. So I think Claude in this response is ignoring the fact that AI data centers do pollute the fresh water systems near where they are built.
False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): Presenting a situation as having only two choices when actually more options exist.
For you, data centers have to go and there is no solution because they need water for cooling and they pollute. Its as if that situation never occurred in the history of mankind. I mean how many brain cells you need to figure out that facilities that need lots of water can be located near a river, lake or the sea, and the pollution can be dealt with by cleaning and filtration etc.
Noooo ... put an end to all of them. Yeah, you are not guilty of logical fallacies.
All your buddies carry on with the most ad hominem and personal insults on this forum and they all talk rubbish. So when you calling out, do the honorable thing and call them out.
@wildgrass saidNo. You are overlooking the fact the vaccine court paid out for that autism.
This is the anecdotal generalization fallacy. One persons experience does not necessarily validate a connection like that.
There are millions of vaccinated people and millions of unvaccinated people. Studies have shown that there is no difference in the rate of autism between these two groups. That seems like very strong evidence to me that vaccines don't cause autism.
You don't get to ignore this inconvenient fact. Vaccines caused Hannah Poling's autism. If it didn't the vaccine court never would have paid for it. And their statement is a logical fallacy. So let's examine that statement logically.
Do you think there is a difference between "vaccine caused autism" and "autism resulted from the vaccine"? Yes or no?