Hasty generalization. Your describing an unbalanced F in a bad mood. Strawman fallacy as well, which makes sense because if you're attacking an entire group (F's) your view is going to be distorted (you can't accurately describe an entire group of people, especially just when its the F part of Mbti when Fs will be very different depending on other Mbti features.)Some claim that Feeling is a rational function, that it sticks to values and the Feeler does what he believes in. That is not true at all, as too often we hear them say 'but I don't feel like it' or 'I am not in the mood' or just simply 'doesn't feel right'. If he were acting out on principles he would say, this is what I believe in, this is a matter of fact, completely objective, and this is what I shall do. Doing this requires a tough-minded attitude with and aptitude for objective reality which manifestly requires a Thinking faculty. Feeling does not have any firm principles as it is this profoundly infused in the flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh.
Very often their goal is to be liked by others, and when relating to others they utter total non-sense and play the hurt feelings card when Thinkers do not reciprocate. Of course, we ought to know that what they say has nothing to do with making sense or matters of fact, its all about how others will react to them and what feelings it will evoke. Words are simply extensions of gestures like smileys, nods, head-shaking, laughter and so on. When they express what seems to be an objective opinion, especially about people, this has nothing to do with objective reality, it is inevitably an expression of their feelings.
Well you've got alot of hasty generalizations everywhere so i'm not going to mention it again.. Strawman too, won't mention it again but they'll both probably be below.
Weak Analogy fallacy with the intent of damaging the opposition (partial Ad Homineum because you're referencing Osama bin Laden when talking about Feelers).YouTube - Bin Laden Speaks - its all jibbersih to me
It is incredibly frustrating how self-assured they may be and how on a heat of passion they may assert their opinions with great vehemence hardly paying attention to the fact that what they say has very little, if any basis in objective reality. That would be fine as long as they acknowledged their claim as an expression of sentiment, but they pass it off as fact. This is what 'your feelings are valid' cant is about. We are supposed to budge into the unreasonable expectations they impose upon us as if what they said was a matter of fact, matter to be taken seriously. They hardly see a problem with changing their mind or maintaining the exact opposite of what they claimed earlier, as once more their claims are but expressions of sentiment, they bare no rational judgment, and their feelings may change like weather. As after all where could they get a backbone if not from solid, dispassionate judgment. A kind of judgment that treats ideas as true or false, matters of fact and not matters of mood-what we tend to associate with the Thinking function. This they sorely lack.
Once again the 2 mentioned before. You're obviously describing a Specific person with the characteristic "F" that you're upset with, however you continue flagrantly throwing the word "they" around.
The usual fallacies ^. The Strawman that you're lighting on fire is just enormous, apparently F's are just Mindless zombies wandering around the streets letting their feelings go wild, destroying logic, contributing nothing.They pride themselves on sensitivity to other people, fear offending others, but strikingly fail to realize that many people (like me) are deeply offended when they do not take their thoughts seriously. (When a T shares a well thought out perspective or a solution to a problem, they just go on about their personal experiences on the matter or how they still feel the same way, in effect not having presented any evidence of reflection upon the claims they are responding to.)Thoughts that other people have devoted much effort to. Fail to honor the personal values of some people concerning consistency and clarity, simply do not understand that for some of us it is important for situations to make sense. Fail to honor the value of truth, as because some of us need for the situation to make sense it is more important to call it like it is as opposed to wallowing in heart-warming fantasy. As well as they fail to communicate clearly (again the value of the need to make sense) because they're too caught up in making it sound 'nice'.
Silencing the opposition, not a fallacy, but its not very respectful.Fs...please dont respond...I dont want to know if its a sad day..I dont want to know if your other INTP friend appreciates F..I dont want to know about how it will feel good if I do X...I just want a simple, impersonal reply to the above statements.
No True Scotsman fallacyJennifer, I have doubts that you are a T. I ask that you refrain from posting in this thread again. I did not say that Fs have no value, only that I have a problem with them.
Oh yea, and did a whole lot of Poisoning the Well. And I think that you're description of "F"s could pass for Misleading Vividness fallacy as well (you're describing an F that is an extreme occurance and then expect us to think that all "F"s we will meet or have met are the same way. Misleading vividness is another form of hasty generalization so bleh.)
You could have made this thread ALOT more constructive very easily. You could have described the specific F or Fs that you are having problems with (maybe even their specific types), described why you have the problems with them (not in heated rant fashion), and then asked everyone here (not just T's) what we think about it and if there is a possible solution or understanding to be formed.