I was amused in another thread when two rhp'ers got into an argument over logic and each used three illogical statements to prove their point about the other not being logical.
Here are a list of a few latin things from my youth when I adored reading various gay mathematicians who insisted on Latin. Do you guys study this in school these days or are you supposed to just soak it up from being around idologues?
Argumentum Ad Baculum Might makes right. Example is Al Gore threatening to replace the US government if it fails to stop global warming. “They need to realize that entire governments have been replaced when the government fails to heed the people!” (you will have to summon the slickback hair and strident voice with your imagination. Sorry.)
Argumentum Ad Hominem Poisoning the Well. Example is when Al Gore attacks scientists who work for “big corporations”. “These people are taking money from corporations and those who would spoil our planet! They are not telling you the truth!” This fallacy has two general types… Abusive and Circumstantial. An idea is not believable because it comes from a Corporation. To deny that the earth is warming is wrong because trusted scholars say that it is. If you disagree, you are a fanatic.(this is also closely , but not exactly like an appeal to expertise… below)
Argumentum ad Populum … “Friends, Romans, Country men ! Lend me your ears. “ This one comes in three or four basic flavors. Patriot, “You are with us or you are against us”. Snob , “Any educated person will recognize the need to study logical fallacies.” -- Bandleader. “Everyone is doing it”
Argumentum Ad Traditio Appeal to tradition. “It was good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.”
Argumentum Ad Verecundium Appeal to improper authority. Quoting Einstein on matters of politics instead of physics.
Argumentum Ad Misericordiam Appeal to Pity. “That child can’t be hung! He is too young to know that cutting his mom into little pieces was wrong! Poor lil’ thing. See him shiver and shake! Awwwww!”
Petitio Principii Begging the question. "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God."
Dicto Simpliciter or Jumping to Conclusions “I talked to three of his students from last semester and they ALL failed. He is one tough s.o.b.!”
Non Causa Pro Causa “There was a full moon and everyone was just totally nuts!”
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc “I walked under the ladder and my wife wrecked our brand new car an hour later. It wasn’t insured and now we are screwed. I should never have done it.”
Ignorantio Elenchi Red Herrings of various types… like -- After a three week meeting on controlling drugs, the summary states. “In conclusion, drugs are bad and must be controlled.” When what should have been was a question, “How can we best control drugs in order to establish a better world.” This also can take the form of “Member Smith should not be expelled! Member Jones stole three times as much as he did!” and then Tu Quoque or the “You Too” argument which goes like “Smoking dope can’t be wrong. You said yourself that you used to do it.”
Non Sequitur or “How in the heck do you get there from here!” also called the slippery slope. “If we allow eavesdropping on terrorists, soon the FBI will be listening to our calls and reading our emails.” Ignoring that there are specific legal steps involved in the evesdropping. This also is created by bad either/or – true/false and faulty analogies.
Syllogistic Errata “All snakes are cold blooded. All commies are snakes. All commies are coldblooded.” Ahem. We all know that snakes are better then commies in every way.
Amphiboly “Save soap and waste paper.” Is waste a verb or an adjective modifying a noun?
Equivocatum or just plain confusing the issue with a lie to duck answering… “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Yea. Right! Death sure is a goody all right.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantium My favorite because it is almost universal. “Ghosts are real. NOBODY has ever proved that they don’t exist.” This is truly, truly argument from ignorance.
Argumentum Ad Speculum Arguing to a Speculation. This is putting forth an imaginary hypothetical then arguing that the real world must follow.”If the US had not bombed Japan with nukes, they would have won anyway.” Ugggh! These are so painful they hurt. Any time somebody starts an argument or a statement with “If some imaginary thing” , you have won the argument if you stick to your logical guns.
And of course, there is the loaded question. When did you stop thinking and become a commie? Or “Where did you hide the gun after you shot him?” or “How long has it been since you beat your wife.” These are actually good tools in real life. Smirk.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOne would imagine you'd spot the ones in your arguments by now.
I was amused in another thread when two rhp'ers got into an argument over logic and each used three illogical statements to prove their point about the other not being logical.
Here are a list of a few latin things from my youth when I adored reading various gay mathematicians who insisted on Latin. Do you guys study this in school these days or are ...[text shortened]... been since you beat your wife.” These are actually good tools in real life. Smirk.
Originally posted by Palynkasmile...
One would imagine you'd spot the ones in your arguments by now.
If you have ever seen the final gun fight in "Quigley Down Under", imagine old svw as he blows the smoke off his pistol and says... "I said i didn't have any use for em. I didn't say I didn't know how to use em."
I will admit that "argument" with unarmed opponents is easy. As long as nobody calls out an item, you done got away with it.
And I do know i'm doing it. And I still do it because I can.
good eye! 😉
I was actually trying to remember the Latin names for the type of fallacies that exist. My grade nine english teacher had the good sense to teach us these for the benefit they provide in argumentative essays. I have a question:
You call it a fallacy when Gore rejects the scientific backing provided by companies who will lose millions if they have to cut emissions. Something has to be said for the bias those scientists likely have though. Does that still make it a fallacy?
I think it is technically still a fallacy to discredit those scientists based on their agenda, but I'd be VERY skeptical nonetheless! I guess one assessing that scenario should look at the arguments put forth by those scientists and dismiss their biased work on that basis alone.
Something struck me about that example as complicated since I think I agree with that fallacy!
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGore "threatened" no-one. He's in no position to. He merely points out certain realities.
I was amused in another thread when two rhp'ers got into an argument over logic and each used three illogical statements to prove their point about the other not being logical.
Here are a list of a few latin things from my youth when I adored reading various gay mathematicians who insisted on Latin. Do you guys study this in school these days or are ...[text shortened]... been since you beat your wife.” These are actually good tools in real life. Smirk.
The fact that an oil company might lose millions, nay billions, of dollars might be considered by some a good reason for biasing research. I believe Mr Gore believes more that if you willfully ignore the data you are a fanatic.
The CIA are spying on people. It's already been admitted.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe CIA are spying on people. It's already been admitted.
Gore "threatened" no-one. He's in no position to. He merely points out certain realities.
The fact that an oil company might lose millions, nay billions, of dollars might be considered by some a good reason for biasing research. I believe Mr Gore believes more that if you willfully ignore the data you are a fanatic.
The CIA are spying on people. It's already been admitted.
Holy Crap! Do The American People know about this!?
Originally posted by reinfeldThe left doesn't like waterboarding. They are going to have to switch tactics and give them swirlys instead.
..and i hope that they waterboard every islamofascist they can get their hands on ...32 seconds with that last dope saved many from burning bombs in some nightclub, hotel, etc...
Originally posted by reinfeldWith that attitude, who can blame other countries for torturing American POW's? After all, they're just saving their own countrymen from being killed.
..and i hope that they waterboard every islamofascist they can get their hands on ...32 seconds with that last dope saved many from burning bombs in some nightclub, hotel, etc...
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are refering to the Argumentum ad Baculum example...
Gore "threatened" no-one. He's in no position to. He merely points out certain realities.
The fact that an oil company might lose millions, nay billions, of dollars might be considered by some a good reason for biasing research. I believe Mr Gore believes more that if you willfully ignore the data you are a fanatic.
The CIA are spying on people. It's already been admitted.
This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent's argument that he will smash your nose in if you don't agree with his claim doesn't change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash--financial, professional, and so on. Here is a second example: "Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by thirty grand. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs." Compare it carefully to what Gore was saying... "Bush! You need to cut polution to hit Kyoto. I need not remind you that past governments have been fired for not doing the will of the people."
All well and good, but it is illogical to use the threat to reinforce the premise of global warming.
While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators' constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn't vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn't a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!
Originally posted by SwissGambitWe PRAY for the enemy to just torture our American solders. So far, the terrorist enemy kind of tends toward beheading... after a live gutting and several weeks of slow torture.
With that attitude, who can blame other countries for torturing American POW's? After all, they're just saving their own countrymen from being killed.
But I'm sure that if we treat them nice, they will learn to just "torture" and not behead us. God knows we don't want to make them into terrible people by our example!
Originally posted by The Dude 84People do tend to want to please the boss or the person who signs the paycheck.
I was actually trying to remember the Latin names for the type of fallacies that exist. My grade nine english teacher had the good sense to teach us these for the benefit they provide in argumentative essays. I have a question:
You call it a fallacy when Gore rejects the scientific backing provided by companies who will lose millions if they have to c ...[text shortened]...
Something struck me about that example as complicated since I think I agree with that fallacy!
But is illogical to then state that they are dishonest only because they cash the check.
Scientists usually follow the money. So what you have to do is examine how much and where they get their money from.
I will only say that it works BOTH ways in the particular case of Climate Change... because the BIGGEST money comes from governernment funding "Investigations Into The Effects Of Man Made Polution"...
It does occur that should one take money then say "There is no Man Made Effect..." etc... then they are by definition OFF THE LIST for next years hand out of moneys. They have already proven themselves incompetent... have they not? According to the will of those doling out the money?
What I am saying is that one would have to be REALLY, REALLY naive to not see that "Global Warming" has a lot to do with politics... and a little to do with science. There are literally the same number of scientists on each side of the POLITICAL side of the cat fight... so on and on it goes.
We all need to just be thankful for the little extra heat. It is utterly inevitable that in 15,000 years, NY City and all of Europe will AGAIN be under two miles of ice. That is not theory. No believable Geologist would ever say anything to dispute that fact. So let's just enjoy the good old warm earth while we can. We are getting Cleaner air, which reflects less solar energy. It's a trade off. If we want it to cool down, we must put up a lot of reflective polution. I don't want that. I'll take warm and clean. While it lasts.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGreat. We, the alleged 'good guys' are stuck with the lame argument that 'our torture's not as bad as theirs!'
We PRAY for the enemy to just torture our American solders. So far, the terrorist enemy kind of tends toward beheading... after a live gutting and several weeks of slow torture.
But I'm sure that if we treat them nice, they will learn to just "torture" and not behead us. God knows we don't want to make them into terrible people by our example!
Edit: I wonder how many prisoners would choose beheading over a sexual humiliation, as with Abu Ghraib.