User Tag List

First 311121314 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 140

  1. #121
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blairvoyant View Post
    informal then

    I noticed you're steamrolling past my point
    There was not one "point" made, but three salient propositions offered:

    1) (implied) The straw man fallacy is a formal fallacy.

    2) "all formal fallacies are based on a common cognitive bias/error."

    3)"it's unlikely for anyone to commit a strawman fallacy without following the formula I described, even though it might be theoretically possible."

    1 is obviously false; 2 is vague and unclear; 3 fares little better than 2.

    I simply ignored 2 and 3 because, not only were they digressive and irrelevant to the discussion, but, frankly, I couldn't be bothered to address them and the misunderstandings that inevitably lay beneath them (e.g. ignorance of what constitutes a formal fallacy vis a vis an informal fallacy, what a "straw man" fallacy is, conventionally understood). 1, however, whilst irrelevant to the discussion, was quick and painless to correct, and thus I did so.

    Moreover, you began your post with a juvenile "fuck you" and emoticon and then made a glaring error. This, combined with your lacklustre grasp of English and general puerility, as well as my suspicion that you are not especially intelligent, was sufficient for my above reticence.

    If you want to be taken seriously by interlocutors who aren't easily impressed, use better English, avoid profanity, and gain more than a slight knowledge of the subject about which you are talking. If not, you are welcome to continue being a dolt.

  2. #122
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    There was not one "point" made, but three salient propositions offered:

    1) (implied) The straw man fallacy is a formal fallacy.

    2) "all formal fallacies are based on a common cognitive bias/error."

    3)"it's unlikely for anyone to commit a strawman fallacy without following the formula I described, even though it might be theoretically possible."

    1 is obviously false; 2 is vague and unclear; 3 fares little better than 2.

    I simply ignored 2 and 3 because, not only were they digressive and irrelevant to the discussion, but, frankly, I couldn't be bothered to address them and the misunderstandings that inevitably lay beneath them (e.g. ignorance of what constitutes a formal fallacy vis a vis an informal fallacy, what a "straw man" fallacy is, conventionally understood). 1, however, whilst irrelevant to the discussion, was quick and painless to correct, and thus I did so.

    Moreover, you began your post with a juvenile "fuck you" and emoticon and then made a glaring error. This, combined with your lacklustre grasp of English and general puerility, as well as my suspicion that you are not especially intelligent, was sufficient for my above reticence.

    If you want to be taken seriously by interlocutors who aren't easily impressed, use better English, avoid profanity, and gain more than a slight knowledge of the subject about which you are talking. If not, you are welcome to continue being a dolt.
    lol.

    Okay, I shouldn't have added 'formal' in there. I was just trying to add jargon in order to sound smart. But, while that makes my statement rather an attack on an implied straw man itself, it's still correct and does apply on the wider scale.

    -Logical fallacies which are not possible to process in the human brain are never used by humans in discourse. Fallacies which are not possible for a human to process on paper are never used by humans in written work.
    -Many types of logical fallacies exist, and it is possible for a human brain to identify them.
    -Each type of fallacy has a specific context in which it is most commonly found, and a useful function outside of pure logic. (more obvious examples would be appeals to force/emotion)

    The reason it's relevant is because I described the conditions common to most, if not all, straw man arguments (the exception being intentional ones), as well as the social dynamics involved. You may not have noticed, since you seem to operate on a binary of 'smart/not smart' where you ignore anyone who doesn't use words that normal folk will need a dictionary for, but simply identifying a fallacy is rarely enough to correct it in the mind of an interlocutor, especially when there is a gap in understanding (almost always the case for a straw man).
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  3. #123
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blairvoyant View Post
    lol.

    Okay, I shouldn't have added 'formal' in there. I was just trying to add jargon in order to sound smart. But, while that makes my statement rather an attack on an implied straw man itself, it's still correct and does apply on the wider scale.

    -Logical fallacies which are not possible to process in the human brain are never used by humans in discourse. Fallacies which are not possible for a human to process on paper are never used by humans in written work.
    -Many types of logical fallacies exist, and it is possible for a human brain to identify them.
    -Each type of fallacy has a specific context in which it is most commonly found, and a useful function outside of formal logic.

    The reason it's relevant is because I described the conditions common to most, if not all, straw man arguments (the exception being intentional ones), as well as the social dynamics involved. You may not have noticed, since you seem to operate on a binary of 'smart/not smart' where you ignore anyone who doesn't use words that normal folk will need a dictionary for, but simply identifying a fallacy is rarely enough to correct it in the mind of an interlocutor, especially when there is a gap in understanding (almost always the case for a straw man).
    I rest my case.

  4. #124
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I rest my case.
    Does that mean I win?
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  5. #125
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Sigh. Do you want a rope or can you climb up here yourself?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #126
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    No, I think I can hear people speaking Chinese. I'm not going to give up this close to the goal.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  7. #127
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    or maybe they are the most accurate words to use many times?
    yeah i think so too

  8. #128
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    haha, sometimes they can be the most accurate words. However, there are many times you can tell when people (in general, not just INTPs) are just trying to come off smart but end up coming off sounding asinine with no real substance using fancy smancy language. In a sense, some are sacrificing substance and common understanding to sound "intelligent". IMO, it's pseudointellectualism at its finest.

  9. #129
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I don't see why a dialectical approach infers no interest in content. Can you talk more about this? Also, I'd be interested in reading the Ni vs Ti stuff you edited out of your post.
    There wasn't much I really said, it was more the tone I was carrying. I edited it so it didn't sound like I was pushing a Ni vs Ti agenda. I was simply too exhausted to go into any real details about the differing approaches of Ni and Ti, but that certainly would be quite an interesting topic.

    I didn't mean to say that dialetical approach equates to no interest in content. I was commenting on Jennifer's remark about INTPs being more interested in the discussion itself than the content. Then I proceeded to comment on Litvyak's remark about how understanding the underlying issues of the discussion is key to Ni's approach; and related it to Buber's distinction between dialectical and dialogical approaches.

  10. #130
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    I've always associated this with INTs - especially INTPs - and can't help to find it meaningless and boring, the very least. Nitpicking kills creativity and constructivity. Debating with the risk of a possible logical fallacy is more worth it than tearing every syllable apart until the goal is lost. Eventually, it all comes down to a handful of nerds mental-masturbating in which nobody's interested in.

    You either get the "underlying foundation" or you don't get it. I honestly doubt that such mind games ever get you closer to what you're trying to find out.


    I tend to associate it with NTPs and also find it very annoying and to stifle conversation & flow of ideas; although, there are certainly some NTPs who do not do this. It comes off as very "can't see the forest for the trees" nitpicking, in which the main meaning of the expression is ignored as the NTP harps on some minor detail that is beside the point.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] Female INTPs-What do they look like?
    By TopherRed in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 03-04-2017, 12:48 PM
  2. Why do they keep some commandments and not others?
    By Haphazard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 09:01 PM
  3. [ENFP] Why Do you love ENFP's?
    By littledarling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 399
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:00 PM
  4. TypeC nee MBTIc -- Why Do I Love Thee?
    By CzeCze in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 03:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO