User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 46 of 46

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Here is more from the same page as above.

    Logical Fallacies
    In arguing and persuading there are rules, and the following logical fallacies are common examples of ways those rules are often broken.

    Oversimplification: This is when a persuader jumps to a conclusion without considering nuance. For example, to simply state "poverty causes crime," is an oversimplification because while it is true that crime exists in poverty stricken areas that is not necessarily evidence of causality as many people are poverty stricken but not criminals.

    False dichotomy: This is when a persuader presents only two choices with one being an obviously bad option, and offers no potential third way. For example, someone arguing against corporal punishment might say, "we can choose between time outs or child abuse." This is a false dichotomy, however, because they have not considered the parents who administer corporal punishment in loving, effective ways.

    Ad Hominem Attack: This is when a persuader attacks the source of an argument rather than the content. For example, if in a debate about the legalization of marijuana one claimant accused the other claimant of beating his wife he might get a shocked response from the audience but he will also have committed a logical fallacy.

    The Slippery Slope: This is when a persuader suggests a negative future that does not logically flow from the current situation. For example, when arguing about handguns, a persuader invoking the slippery slope might say, "if you are going to outlaw handguns for safety reasons you will eventually have to outlaw automobiles."

    Appeal to Ignorance: This is when a persuader invokes some variation of, "yes, but, we might never know what would happen if..." While it is a good rhetorical device, the fact that something has in fact not happened negates its evidentiary value.

    Protecting the Hypothesis: This is when a persuader considers only their side of an argument without offering an analysis of the opposing position. One-sided arguments are logical fallacies.
    Im out, its been fun

  2. #42
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Fake Encyclopedia says:

    In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses[1]) is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, to differentiate from the original deterministic explanation, of the behavior or feeling in question.[2][3] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[citation needed]

    This process can be in a range from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

    Rationalization is one of the defense mechanisms proposed by Sigmund Freud, which were later developed further by his daughter Anna Freud.

    According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
    ^TG

    1. Where Did The
    "One-Eyed Monster"
    Come From?

    Main Entry: log·ic
    Pronunciation: \ˈlä-jik\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend
    Date: 12th century

    1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
    2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

    — lo·gi·cian \lō-ˈji-shən\ noun
    ^Argentine Worker Ant
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
    Fake Encyclopedia says:



    ^TG



    ^Argentine Worker Ant
    That whole section on rationalization is meaningless to me. How do you determine if someone is constructing a logical justification to hide a percieved controversial action or behavior vs actually using logic to come to an understanding? Basically logic will cave in on itself, the more it caves in the more illogical the logic is.

    If someone never let go of rationalization they will always hold a fear against others logic because they wont be able to tell if it is constructed logical justification vs a constructed logical understanding. How will they know if they are being steered or if they are being taught?

    Really all someone can do is ask for the other persons explanation and create their own judgement based on it. The person who gets this explanation can even hide behind rationalization because they could continue to rationalize this explanation away. They get caught in an endless loop of doubt of others.

    Loops suck.

    I would continue down this thought process, but it would just propogate my master plan
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #44
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    LOOPS
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    90

    Default

    I dunno maybe when talking about god I guess. Can god make a stone so heavy he can't lift it. He probably can and can't at the same time, and he can do it backwards while flying a kite

  6. #46
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    After around the 11th page of any debate thread

    (it all just inevitably descends into an ad hominem-laden clusterfuck from there)

Similar Threads

  1. Personology... When is your birthday?
    By persianeyes in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 03:50 AM
  2. What is logic?
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 05:27 PM
  3. When is it going too far?
    By GinKuusouka in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 06:26 AM
  4. When is Feeling positive/negative?
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 03:48 PM
  5. When is it type?
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-25-2007, 01:55 PM

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