User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 13 of 13

  1. #11
    Senior Member Shimpei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    silly Haight

  2. #12
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    5w6 so/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by logan235711 View Post
    hehe yep yep, I know what you mean! I think that is what is considered the difference between debate and argument, is that debate is more about the winning or losing of a conversation by means that focus on things other than purely the premises and the conclusion : ) So an 'appeal to emotion' or psychological use of how conversation structure can influence the audience are good example. Basically, anything where the audience is taken into account in possible addition to the actual premises and conclusion is a debate--while arguments do not attempt at any ulterior audience influence : )

    lol ok, then I suppose to bring up some important ideas, is that first of all, these are not 'logical fallacies,' Logic is usually considered the science 'of' correct reasoning so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Second, a fallacy in logic in entirely different than the type of fallacy you are using : ) (I'll let my latter text expound upon this so hopefully you can derive what I mean through the reading : )

    So what is it that you are doing if not logical fallacies then? These are actually attempts at showing useful pitfalls in reasoning to avoid when arguing. They are not necessarily fallacies as one can, for example, accidentally still solve or answer with a solution that does not lead to a fallacious outcome : ) However, the chance that one might commit one of these ideas many might say, 'usually' leads to an absence of a good argument on ones part. But alas! let us jump to the examples--the yummy stuff!

    1. Ad-Hominem: again, this, or any of the preceding examples, are not 'logical fallacies' shame on you! ;p Ad-Hominem is actually, more precisely, when one transforms the argument into a debate on one's behalf. The appeal to emotions by attacking the person who has presented the argument means that the person is trying to present reasons by no longer looking at the premises presented, but who presented the premises. However! as mentioned above, this doesn't always lead to a bad argument on one's behalf! If, for example, the person making the premises has come to false premises by means that were related to the person in a manner (psychological, historical, etc.) then this might actually be a useful method in argument. However, usually, this is nothing more than an attempt to persuade people not by directing attention primarily to the premises, but to the person--in such a case, where no premises are derived from the person that directly correlate (usually) to the premises already at hand : ) Lastly, this is why it is considered bad reasoning, because one is attempting to reason based on the person, not the premises at hand : )

    2. lol this was the funniest one for me, because about in the attempt to explain the straw hat, you were using a straw hat, mainly because you slightly mis-used and mis-understood how it was used (on the subtler points tho! you got the main gist! ^_^), so you were arguing something that wasn't presented--which is actually what a straw hat is XD

    lol anyways, Straw Hat is usually when one refutes the premises of an arguments towards a new conclusion by arguing a close relative to the original premises that usually occurs through mis-representation : ) Don't confuse this with a 'red herring!' which tends to be rather when someone misrepresents the conclusion as support for further false conclusions, or, even for the very premises that one was trying to reach in order to maintain a sound argument in the end : ) lol a couple things to point out, is that a) straw hat, nor any potential fallacy in reasoning, does not have to be purposeful, accidents can occur, and to be frank, that is mostly what they are, accidents that slipped by people when they were arguing b) the example is actually not accurate, as the ending statement is in the form of If A, then B--and although disproving A does not disprove B, it does eliminate A as a possible example which was brought up as being related to the argument, thus is valid as an indirect attack on the main argument : ) A more correct example would be if someone said If A, then B, and rather than trying to refute A, someone refuted a variation of A (and sometimes a variation of B) because they misunderstood what you were arguing or what you meant : )

    Just goes to show, that even within these examples, it can be tricky!!

    3. Alright, this last one is actually called 'begging the question' leet speak for you philosopher junkies :p (lol not really, but it's generally not as often refered to as 'circular reasoning' by the logical/philosophical community ><) ANNDDD!!! more precisely, this is when the very premises which your argument rests on is the conclusion which one is trying to reach. wowzers!!! :o


    We are seemingly using the same words to referr to different ideas.

    All I am saying is that when you argue, you should attack ideas, and show why ideas are inadequate and not why the person is not adequate. Essentially arguments are about ideas and not their authors.

    If you attack the author and supposedly made him seem inadequate and say that you 'won' the argument, because in order to do that you have to tear down the idea, you only took care of the author, but not the idea itself.

    As for Haight, I am not concerned with the 'emotional entailment' of ad hominem, all I am saying is that 'ad hominem logical fallacy', this is what it is conventionally labelled as attacks not the idea, but the author, period. I get that ad hominem is not always unreasonable, for example, a clevel politician may purposefully attack his opponent to discredit his ideas (and elicit an emotional response to his own end), but as a philosophical statement, his, would be errant. And this is why its appropriate to refer to ad hominem as a logical fallacy, because it is an error in reasoning.(Once more it is an error in reasoning because it asserts that an idea should be rejected without providing an adequate reasoning for why an idea should be rejected, 'proving' that the author of this particular idea is a fool is not an adequate reason for such an idea to be rejected as this has nothing to do with the idea in itself.) And also here is something else to 'ad hominem' to show that it is more than just something that evokes emotions rather than thoughts. 'Look dumbass you're totally wrong', there you havent commited the ad hominem. You can easily evoke an emotional reaction just by saying this, any personal insult will do for that. Yet an ad hominem would be 'Look you're totally wrong because you're a dumbass(I am not even going to read what you said because you're a dumbass I'll assume you're wrong in advance, thats basically what ad hominem is, saying your opponent is wrong not because you've thought about his argument and found his error, but because you know that he is a dumbass and this automatically entails him being wrong.)'.. So the 'because' is the part missing in your statement to qualify it as an ad hominem, as it stands, it would just be a raw personal insult without a logical error, because it has never engaged the province of logic in the first place, it stayed within the province of the 'personal/emotional', ad hominem happens when an entity that belongs in the 'personal/emotional' attempts to envade the province of hard logic.

    There are many ways to perceive 'the straw man fallacy', again logan, I appreciate your INTJ insistence that there is only one way, and this of course is your way.

    The most broad notion of straw man fallacy I can come up with is purposefully misrepresenting your opponent to make his argument appear as weak as possible.

    And circular reasoning, we seem to be on the same page, circular reasoning is better thought of as an absence of argument, rather than an errant an argument.

    Basically if I say God exists, and you ask why, and I just say God exists again. Basically then I'd be claiming that my statement is correct without giving an argument for it.

    I dont think we need to get hung up on the notion of a 'logical fallacy', a fallacy is basically an error in reasoning, regardless of how far-fetched it may be and on that note we are probably on the same page.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog:

  3. #13
    Senior Member raincrow007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    Where's Lee? He's better at this shit.

    *wanders off bored*

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Commonalities/differences between ENFP and ENFJ
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 02:35 PM
  2. [NT] NTs: how do logical fallacies make you feel?
    By Society in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 02:45 PM
  3. [INFJ] Is it common for INFJ's to come out of abusive/neglectful homes?
    By ReadingRainbows in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 09:27 PM
  4. Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.
    By Park in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 04:56 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