|
|
Logical Fallacies and You!
 Phoenix.Jimie
Serveur: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Phoenix.Jimie 2011-06-16 09:23:39
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Haha! Thanks for the positive shout-out, Issymo.
That's a very good description of me. You honor me.
See, FFXIAH users? I am quite different than what you'd like to believe I am. "Diplomatic", "calming", and "fair" are a long way from "pretentious" and "arrogant".
This was written when you were trying to defend your creation of a "trolling persona" that did not truly represent who you are.
Now, I fully appreciate that nowhere did you state you AREN'T pretentious or arrogant, however, the above quote would suggest that yourself and others either believe you not to be pretentious or arrogant, or that these qualities are muted in you.
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: I'm sorry to have deceived innocent bystanders by faking a persona in the past. I'm sorry for any confusion it may have caused, and I'm sorry for any rancor I caused that was over-the-top.
Ultimately, I intend to now act as myself, my real personality. My only regret is that some (or even most) of you will find me to be far less entertaining now than my arch-villain persona was.
This was your assertion that you were done with that personality.
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: My biggest beef about wanna-be intellectuals on the internet: they spend far too much effort trying to paint arguments that are NOT logical fallacies AS logical fallacies. See "Jimie" and "Ceolwulf" above for examples.
The above is deeply arrogant, the unwavering self belief that you are right when I proved time and again that what you stated were fallacies and not misinterpretations.
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Thanks for playing, try picking on someone your own size next time.
Again, this is a deeply pretentious statement.
I thought your experiment was over and you were done with trolling? Or was there really never an experiment to begin with involving a faked persona and your true personality is arrogant, pretentious and antagonistic?
[+]
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 23653
By Shiva.Flionheart 2011-06-16 09:27:24
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Flionheart said: You people should really stop defending Elanabelle.
He doesn't deserve, or need it. You shouldn't assume that we are defending him.
Exactly, Vinvv!
Flionheart has provided us with another fine example of a logical fallacy. It's known as a "Psychologist's fallacy".
Well done, Flionheart, well done indeed.
And, yes, while I do not need anyone to "defend" me, it's good to know that you're grateful for how I defended you when those numskulls from Ragnarok were roasting you like a pig on a spit here last weekend.
So much for gratitude, eh?
Ya know, for someone who loves to go on-and-on about how I should be more "humble", and much of a "hypocrite" I am, you sure are hypocritical. A finer aspect of humility is the ability to forgive and move on. If you can't find it within yourself to forgive me, then you would be best served to ignore me completely.
You defended me? Don't think so boyo.
You just jumped into another thread to flaunt your e-penis as per normal. As for logical fallacies, I quite frankly don't care. When I read your posts all I see is an egotistical narcissist who must make his family pretty unhappy with his constant one upping and ***attitude.
And maybe I could forgive you if you didn't continue to make the same redundantly hypocritical posts all the time. Do you even read what you type before you press submit?
[+]
 Ramuh.Vinvv
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15542
By Ramuh.Vinvv 2011-06-16 10:17:31
Shiva.Flionheart said: Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Flionheart said: You people should really stop defending Elanabelle.
He doesn't deserve, or need it. You shouldn't assume that we are defending him.
Exactly, Vinvv!
Flionheart has provided us with another fine example of a logical fallacy. It's known as a "Psychologist's fallacy".
Well done, Flionheart, well done indeed.
And, yes, while I do not need anyone to "defend" me, it's good to know that you're grateful for how I defended you when those numskulls from Ragnarok were roasting you like a pig on a spit here last weekend.
So much for gratitude, eh?
Ya know, for someone who loves to go on-and-on about how I should be more "humble", and much of a "hypocrite" I am, you sure are hypocritical. A finer aspect of humility is the ability to forgive and move on. If you can't find it within yourself to forgive me, then you would be best served to ignore me completely.
You defended me? Don't think so boyo.
You just jumped into another thread to flaunt your e-penis as per normal. As for logical fallacies, I quite frankly don't care. When I read your posts all I see is an egotistical narcissist who must make his family pretty unhappy with his constant one upping and ***attitude.
And maybe I could forgive you if you didn't continue to make the same redundantly hypocritical posts all the time. Do you even read what you type before you press submit?
I'm just a bit annoyed that you assumed I was siding with him.
It makes me feel like you didn't actually read what I said, but just skimmed and saw the part that was "defending" the word used.
This is an example of defunct human reasoning where you correlate my involvement in the discussion and defending of the formal nature of the conversation with defending elanabella, which let me assure you is not the case.
I think you also need to read what you type prior to hitting submit, as well as review what you are replying to.
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 23653
By Shiva.Flionheart 2011-06-16 10:24:59
Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Flionheart said: Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Flionheart said: You people should really stop defending Elanabelle.
He doesn't deserve, or need it. You shouldn't assume that we are defending him.
Exactly, Vinvv!
Flionheart has provided us with another fine example of a logical fallacy. It's known as a "Psychologist's fallacy".
Well done, Flionheart, well done indeed.
And, yes, while I do not need anyone to "defend" me, it's good to know that you're grateful for how I defended you when those numskulls from Ragnarok were roasting you like a pig on a spit here last weekend.
So much for gratitude, eh?
Ya know, for someone who loves to go on-and-on about how I should be more "humble", and much of a "hypocrite" I am, you sure are hypocritical. A finer aspect of humility is the ability to forgive and move on. If you can't find it within yourself to forgive me, then you would be best served to ignore me completely.
You defended me? Don't think so boyo.
You just jumped into another thread to flaunt your e-penis as per normal. As for logical fallacies, I quite frankly don't care. When I read your posts all I see is an egotistical narcissist who must make his family pretty unhappy with his constant one upping and ***attitude.
And maybe I could forgive you if you didn't continue to make the same redundantly hypocritical posts all the time. Do you even read what you type before you press submit?
I'm just a bit annoyed that you assumed I was siding with him.
It makes me feel like you didn't actually read what I said, but just skimmed and saw the part that was "defending" the word used.
This is an example of defunct human reasoning where you correlate my involvement in the discussion and defending of the formal nature of the conversation with defending elanabella, which let me assure you is not the case.
I think you also need to read what you type prior to hitting submit, as well as review what you are replying to.
You always give off an air like you're better than other people, or like you see more than other people.
I must admit that irritates me.
I can't be bothered with this any more to be honest. This entire thread seemed pretentious from the first post, and I should have avoided it. If I have nothing nice to say I really shouldn't say anything at all.
[+]
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 16303
By Ramuh.Sagittario 2011-06-16 10:43:04
Shiva.Flionheart said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Flionheart said: Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Flionheart said: You people should really stop defending Elanabelle. He doesn't deserve, or need it. You shouldn't assume that we are defending him. Exactly, Vinvv! Flionheart has provided us with another fine example of a logical fallacy. It's known as a "Psychologist's fallacy". Well done, Flionheart, well done indeed. And, yes, while I do not need anyone to "defend" me, it's good to know that you're grateful for how I defended you when those numskulls from Ragnarok were roasting you like a pig on a spit here last weekend. So much for gratitude, eh? Ya know, for someone who loves to go on-and-on about how I should be more "humble", and much of a "hypocrite" I am, you sure are hypocritical. A finer aspect of humility is the ability to forgive and move on. If you can't find it within yourself to forgive me, then you would be best served to ignore me completely. You defended me? Don't think so boyo. You just jumped into another thread to flaunt your e-penis as per normal. As for logical fallacies, I quite frankly don't care. When I read your posts all I see is an egotistical narcissist who must make his family pretty unhappy with his constant one upping and ***attitude. And maybe I could forgive you if you didn't continue to make the same redundantly hypocritical posts all the time. Do you even read what you type before you press submit? I'm just a bit annoyed that you assumed I was siding with him. It makes me feel like you didn't actually read what I said, but just skimmed and saw the part that was "defending" the word used. This is an example of defunct human reasoning where you correlate my involvement in the discussion and defending of the formal nature of the conversation with defending elanabella, which let me assure you is not the case. I think you also need to read what you type prior to hitting submit, as well as review what you are replying to. You always give off an air like you're better than other people, or like you see more than other people. I must admit that irritates me. I can't be bothered with this any more to be honest. This entire thread seemed pretentious from the first post, and I should have avoided it. If I have nothing nice to say I really shouldn't say anything at all.
Typical Flion post.
1) Start argument.
2) Lose argument.
3) Accuse others of acting holier than thou.
[+]
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2011-06-16 10:47:57
This thread should have been titled "Yo dawg we heard you like to argue so we put an argument inside an argument so you can argue while you argue", but I guess that would have been too long.
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 16303
By Ramuh.Sagittario 2011-06-16 10:49:31
Leviathan.Chaosx said: This thread should have been titled "Yo dawg we heard you like to argue so we put an argument inside an argument so you can argue while you argue", but I guess that would have been too long.
lol XD
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 14155
By Valefor.Slipispsycho 2011-06-16 10:50:17
Lakshmi.Mabrook said: Ramuh.Sagittario said: 1) Start argument.
2) Lose argument interest.
3) Accuse others of acting holier than thou. This sounds about right for 99% of all posts that are not an open-book essay. ITT: open-book essays are interesting. D:
Ramuh.Vinvv
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15542
By Ramuh.Vinvv 2011-06-16 11:05:02
Shiva.Flionheart said: You always give off an air like you're better than other people, or like you see more than other people.
I must admit that irritates me.
I can't be bothered with this any more to be honest. This entire thread seemed pretentious from the first post, and I should have avoided it. If I have nothing nice to say I really shouldn't say anything at all. "seemed" being the core word of this.
I don't care if you think this is pretentious or not.
I made this thread for myself first and foremost, past that it's for others that actually take something from the information I relay.
Here's an assumption that I can illustrate based on what you say:
I have to disagree and hate on elanabella for you to provide even a modicum of support for what content I provide.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: This thread should have been titled "Yo dawg we heard you like to argue so we put an argument inside an argument so you can argue while you argue", but I guess that would have been too long. logical fallacies aren't strictly in regards to discussion or arguments, they are used all the time not being mutually exclusive to arguments.
though I still wish there was an Xhibit image there either way.
 Asura.VyreForum Moderator
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 16592
By Asura.Vyre 2011-06-16 13:30:52
Ramuh.Vinvv said: Continuation of Informal Logical Fallacies: Since there are only two left for informal fallacies I will cover both here in this post. Vagueness Quote: All things…swim in continua. (Charles Sanders Peirce) Quote: Vagueness is a characteristic of language, specifically of those terms which classify or qualify objects, that is, common nouns and adjectives. Such terms divide the world of objects into those the term applies to—the extension of the term—and those to which it doesn't. For example, the common noun "elephant" divides the world into elephants and non-elephants. What characterizes a vague term is the existence of borderline cases which do not clearly belong or not belong to its extension. For example, consider the familiar concept of "chair": some things are clearly chairs—what you're sitting on right now, for instance—and others are clearly not—for instance, an elephant even though you might sit upon one. But there are many borderline cases: barstools, beanbag "chairs", school desks, etc. Vagueness is to be distinguished from ambiguity, though rather fittingly the distinction is vague! An ambiguous term is one with more than one meaning, whereas vagueness is characteristic of a single meaning that has borderline cases. However, it is not unusual for a term to be both ambiguous and vague; in fact, this is the usual case. Vagueness is a pervasive characteristic of language, and there is no reason to think that it can or should be eliminated. This is because many things in the world that we wish to distinguish lie upon qualitative scales. The color spectrum is a good example of this, and we definitely wish to distinguish colors such as orange and yellow, even though the difference between them is one of wavelength. Moreover, the fallacy of Vagueness occurs only when the appearance of soundness in an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms. The mere fact of vagueness is not sufficient to justify an accusation of fallacy, but it is sometimes a boobytrap which can cause the unsuspecting person(you) to fall into fallacious reasoning. For this reason, it is useful to be aware of and on our guard against vague terms, so that we can continue to use our vague language without being ensnared by it. Example: Quote: A Supreme Court ruling regarding pornography included the view that what is "pornographic" should be determined in accordance with "community standards." However, a prosecutor who tried to establish a case against a distributor of pornographic materials on the grounds that he or she had acted in violation of "community standards" would have to assign a very precise meaning to that very vague criterion-a precision to which it does not lend itself. Alias: Quote: False Analogy Faulty Analogy Questionable Analogy Quote: A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (Where the analogy between A and B is weak.) : Quote: Efforts to ban chlordane assailed WASHINGTON (AP)--The only exterminator in Congress told his colleagues Wednesday that it would be a short-sighted move to ban use of chlordane and related termiticides that cause cancer in laboratory animals. Supporters of the bill, however, claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency was "dragging its feet" on a chemical that could cause 300,000 cancers in the American population in 70 years. "This bill reminds me of legislation that ought to be introduced to outlaw automobiles" on the grounds that cars kill people, said Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who owns an exterminating business. EPA banned use of the chemicals on crops in 1974, but permitted use against termites because the agency did not believe humans were exposed. Chlordane does not kill termites but rather drives them away. Source: Associated Press, June 25th, 1987 : This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy: 1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. 2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle: How is a raven like a writing desk? The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance: Because Poe wrote on both. Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength. -------------------------------- I've made a bit of a mistake in reasoning in regards to the amount of fallacies. So far I have covered the core aspects of informal fallacies, but not the subfallacies. So past this I shall cover the subfallacies. I am working on fashioning a list so that I can have a better method of which to cover the items. List of informal sub-fallacies(I know it may cover some redundant information, but I feel it shall be okay since it will be in a more specific manner.I think I will just format the list, and provide a brief statement about each item with a hypertext link) Then further past that I am going to try to illustrate formal fallacies different as to where I will cover each fallacy and subfallacy in accordance to where they are located here. Is it just me, or did this happen to coincide with the discussion that came just before it? xD
Ramuh.Vinvv
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15542
By Ramuh.Vinvv 2011-06-16 13:35:29
Asura.Vyre said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Continuation of Informal Logical Fallacies: Since there are only two left for informal fallacies I will cover both here in this post. Vagueness Quote: All things…swim in continua. (Charles Sanders Peirce) Quote: Vagueness is a characteristic of language, specifically of those terms which classify or qualify objects, that is, common nouns and adjectives. Such terms divide the world of objects into those the term applies to—the extension of the term—and those to which it doesn't. For example, the common noun "elephant" divides the world into elephants and non-elephants. What characterizes a vague term is the existence of borderline cases which do not clearly belong or not belong to its extension. For example, consider the familiar concept of "chair": some things are clearly chairs—what you're sitting on right now, for instance—and others are clearly not—for instance, an elephant even though you might sit upon one. But there are many borderline cases: barstools, beanbag "chairs", school desks, etc. Vagueness is to be distinguished from ambiguity, though rather fittingly the distinction is vague! An ambiguous term is one with more than one meaning, whereas vagueness is characteristic of a single meaning that has borderline cases. However, it is not unusual for a term to be both ambiguous and vague; in fact, this is the usual case. Vagueness is a pervasive characteristic of language, and there is no reason to think that it can or should be eliminated. This is because many things in the world that we wish to distinguish lie upon qualitative scales. The color spectrum is a good example of this, and we definitely wish to distinguish colors such as orange and yellow, even though the difference between them is one of wavelength. Moreover, the fallacy of Vagueness occurs only when the appearance of soundness in an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms. The mere fact of vagueness is not sufficient to justify an accusation of fallacy, but it is sometimes a boobytrap which can cause the unsuspecting person(you) to fall into fallacious reasoning. For this reason, it is useful to be aware of and on our guard against vague terms, so that we can continue to use our vague language without being ensnared by it. Example: Quote: A Supreme Court ruling regarding pornography included the view that what is "pornographic" should be determined in accordance with "community standards." However, a prosecutor who tried to establish a case against a distributor of pornographic materials on the grounds that he or she had acted in violation of "community standards" would have to assign a very precise meaning to that very vague criterion-a precision to which it does not lend itself. Alias: Quote: False Analogy Faulty Analogy Questionable Analogy Quote: A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (Where the analogy between A and B is weak.) : Quote: Efforts to ban chlordane assailed WASHINGTON (AP)--The only exterminator in Congress told his colleagues Wednesday that it would be a short-sighted move to ban use of chlordane and related termiticides that cause cancer in laboratory animals. Supporters of the bill, however, claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency was "dragging its feet" on a chemical that could cause 300,000 cancers in the American population in 70 years. "This bill reminds me of legislation that ought to be introduced to outlaw automobiles" on the grounds that cars kill people, said Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who owns an exterminating business. EPA banned use of the chemicals on crops in 1974, but permitted use against termites because the agency did not believe humans were exposed. Chlordane does not kill termites but rather drives them away. Source: Associated Press, June 25th, 1987 : This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy: 1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. 2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle: How is a raven like a writing desk? The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance: Because Poe wrote on both. Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength. -------------------------------- I've made a bit of a mistake in reasoning in regards to the amount of fallacies. So far I have covered the core aspects of informal fallacies, but not the subfallacies. So past this I shall cover the subfallacies. I am working on fashioning a list so that I can have a better method of which to cover the items. List of informal sub-fallacies(I know it may cover some redundant information, but I feel it shall be okay since it will be in a more specific manner.I think I will just format the list, and provide a brief statement about each item with a hypertext link) Then further past that I am going to try to illustrate formal fallacies different as to where I will cover each fallacy and subfallacy in accordance to where they are located here. Is it just me, or did this happen to coincide with the discussion that came just before it? xD Somewhat, but vagueness has a pretty wide stretch so lol.
[+]
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2011-06-16 14:00:23
Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: nothing is true, everything is permitted -A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions. normalcy is an illusion, shed all of your convictions and come taste the rainbow. Does not invalidate the statement. :D Normalcy is as figmentary as hope or love. It's yet another aspect of our....let me get it right here... "perceived cultural balance". it's a line in the sand. which is exactly why I mentioned rule of thumb in the first place. Quote: nothing is true, everything is permitted ^Rule of thumb. holy hell. i just noticed the youtube symbol there. also nik, I have yet to reach a rainbow directly, I've tried and failed several times.* *Not really, maybe like once or twice at most as a child...
But is this what you really want to do? If so ignore the rest.
What is the first job you wanted to do as a child? I always wanted to be a garbage man. And everyone told me that it as a stupid dream and I was stupid and everything I ever believed in was stupid etc.
And I suppose I could of wasted alot of time argueing about it or feeling bad or trying to figure out how their arguement or thought process was flawed and why I was right etc.
But I don't care and I did it anyway and it was awesome. I performed the ballet swan lake on the back step of the truck and bumper skied in the winter and swam in peoples pools fully clothed and drank from their garden hoses and jumped on their giant trampolines and dug threw their trash and found everything.
I think you gotta live and have great adventures, the answers you are seeking aren't found by narrowing the definitions and defining all the narrow mindedness. The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things, of shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings etc...
Ramuh.Vinvv
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15542
By Ramuh.Vinvv 2011-06-16 14:04:02
Shiva.Nikolce said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: nothing is true, everything is permitted -A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions. normalcy is an illusion, shed all of your convictions and come taste the rainbow. Does not invalidate the statement. :D Normalcy is as figmentary as hope or love. It's yet another aspect of our....let me get it right here... "perceived cultural balance". it's a line in the sand. which is exactly why I mentioned rule of thumb in the first place. Quote: nothing is true, everything is permitted ^Rule of thumb. holy hell. i just noticed the youtube symbol there. also nik, I have yet to reach a rainbow directly, I've tried and failed several times.* *Not really, maybe like once or twice at most as a child...
But is this what you really want to do? If so ignore the rest.
What is the first job you wanted to do as a child? I always wanted to be a garbage man. And everyone told me that it as a stupid dream and I was stupid and everything I ever believed in was stupid etc.
And I suppose I could of wasted alot of time argueing about it or feeling bad or trying to figure out how their arguement or thought process was flawed and why I was right etc.
But I don't care and I did it anyway and it was awesome. I performed the ballet swan lake on the back step of the truck and bumper skied in the winter and swam in peoples pools fully clothed and drank from their garden hoses and jumped on their giant trampolines and dug threw their trash and found everything.
I think you gotta live and have great adventures, the answers you are seeking aren't found by narrowing the definitions and defining all the narrow mindedness. The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things, of shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings etc... So I should give up(or "ignore the rest", if that is what you mean by that....you said it pretty vaguely) what I am passionate about because you think I have to live and have great adventures?
Seems a bit contrary if you ask me.
I've been passionate about reading and writing since a young age.
So just like you, I'm going to ride my garbage truck even if you tell me it's stupid(not saying you did specifically, just in the context of the story presented).
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2011-06-16 14:08:32
Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: Ramuh.Vinvv said: Shiva.Nikolce said: nothing is true, everything is permitted -A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions. normalcy is an illusion, shed all of your convictions and come taste the rainbow. Does not invalidate the statement. :D Normalcy is as figmentary as hope or love. It's yet another aspect of our....let me get it right here... "perceived cultural balance". it's a line in the sand. which is exactly why I mentioned rule of thumb in the first place. Quote: nothing is true, everything is permitted ^Rule of thumb. holy hell. i just noticed the youtube symbol there. also nik, I have yet to reach a rainbow directly, I've tried and failed several times.* *Not really, maybe like once or twice at most as a child... But is this what you really want to do? If so ignore the rest. What is the first job you wanted to do as a child? I always wanted to be a garbage man. And everyone told me that it as a stupid dream and I was stupid and everything I ever believed in was stupid etc. And I suppose I could of wasted alot of time argueing about it or feeling bad or trying to figure out how their arguement or thought process was flawed and why I was right etc. But I don't care and I did it anyway and it was awesome. I performed the ballet swan lake on the back step of the truck and bumper skied in the winter and swam in peoples pools fully clothed and drank from their garden hoses and jumped on their giant trampolines and dug threw their trash and found everything. I think you gotta live and have great adventures, the answers you are seeking aren't found by narrowing the definitions and defining all the narrow mindedness. The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things, of shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings etc... So I should give up(or "ignore the rest", if that is what you mean by that....you said it pretty vaguely) what I am passionate about because you think I have to live and have great adventures? Seems a bit contrary if you ask me. I've been passionate about reading and writing since a young age. So just like you, I'm going to ride my garbage truck even if you tell me it's stupid(not saying you did specifically, just in the context of the story presented).
ride captain ride!
/cheer
Ramuh.Vinvv
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15542
By Ramuh.Vinvv 2011-06-16 14:12:00
Carbuncle.Ceolwulf
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 71
By Carbuncle.Ceolwulf 2011-06-16 18:19:37
You should probably edit your first post and put all that info inside of it so people aren't sifting through seven pages to find your main focus.
And now I'm sad because Elanabelle will probably never respond to my response. :(
Ramuh.Vinvv
Serveur: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15542
By Ramuh.Vinvv 2011-06-16 18:56:34
Carbuncle.Ceolwulf said: You should probably edit your first post and put all that info inside of it so people aren't sifting through seven pages to find your main focus.
And now I'm sad because Elanabelle will probably never respond to my response. :( I plan on editing it further and adding more information, that's just the first half lol.
But I'll still amend the first post with it regardless.
:D
alrighty, edited and dated.
as for Elanabella...I'd say I'm bored with the back and forth until some new content materializes.
So I was stumbling around on http://www.stumbleupon.com and I came upon this: taxonomy of logical fallacies
I think I'm just going to cover it(paraphrasing pretty much, each of the items on the link provided direct you to a definition and explanation of the term) step by step, maybe throw in a few examples. Welp, here's the first one.
Logical Fallacy-
the word "fallacy" can be a bit vague and ambigous, frequently it is used to mean "common factual error", logical fallacy is a bit different, it shares the meaning in it being a error, but rather than a specific factual error it's more a common error in reasoning.
further ambiguity is conveyed through "type" and "reason", I'll slap on a quotation here for this:
Quote: 1.Type: In this sense, a logical fallacy is a type of error, that is, a class of many similar instances of bad reasoning.
2.Instance: In this sense, a logical fallacy is an instance of bad reasoning, that is, a specific argument rather than a class of them.
So, again
Quote: Logical Fallacy = a common type of error in reasoning.
Logical fallacies are subdivided into three categories, I'll cover the one that doesn't branch out further first.
Loaded Question-
Quote: "How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.
"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know." A loaded question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
Ex.
Quote: Why should merely cracking down on terrorism help to stop it, when that method hasn't worked in any other country? Why are we so hated in the Muslim world? What did our government do there to bring this horror home to all those innocent Americans? And why don't we learn anything, from our free press, about the gross ineptitude of our state agencies? about what's really happening in Afghanistan? about the pertinence of Central Asia's huge reserves of oil and natural gas? about the links between the Bush and the bin Laden families?
Loaded questions are chock full of false or questionable presuppositions(see:ASSUMPTIONS).
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
I was going to go with the whole wife beating one but I'd rather go with one that I heard quite frequently growing up.
"Does your Mom know that you are gay? Yes or No?"
Answering both yes and no makes you "gay" in the context of that conversation.
Makes me wonder at what point I correlated the word gay with homosexual and past that when negativity was associated with the word.
I'm going to try to just cover this over time because it's a pretty large set of items.
edit-6/16/11-
If you follow the thread I went through each of the primary informal fallacies, here is a comprehensive list full of links for each subcategory.
I plan to change this further so that I will include all the previously mentioned fallacies that did not contain sub-fallacies.
Either way if you want to see a more elaborated version of my input for this you can follow the thread to see each fallacy I have mentioned so far, while looking through the thread you can also see many of these fallacies in action.
informal fallacy continuation----EXPANDED EDITION-----
___________________
One Sidedness
Quoting Out of Context
Ambiguity
Amphiboly
Scope Fallacy
Accent
Equivocation
Redefinition
Red Herring
Straw Man
Genetic Fallacy
Appeal to Misleading Authority
Appeal to Celebrity
Etymological Fallacy
Ad Hominem
Poisoning the Well
Bandwagon Fallacy
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Tu Quoque
Appeal to Consequences
Appeal to Force
Wishful Thinking
Emotional Appeal
Guilt by Association
The Hitler Card
Non Causa Pro Causa
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Regression Fallacy
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
Vagueness
Fake Precision
Slippery Slope
Appeal to Nature
Begging the Question
Loaded Words
Question-begging Analogy
Weak Analogy
Unrepresentative Sample
Hasty Generalization
Anecdotal Fallacy
|
|
