Commonly abused logical Fallacies..

[The Cat]

My side would never do what your side does.

 

[Maou]

This is just like on Discord where you tried to convince me that Trump was secretly a genius playing 5 dimensional chess because of all the stuff he got passed and you couldn't give me a single example.

I already provided an example, you just didn't see it how I see it. The Greek culture flooded roman culture, creating a shift in the highly conservative society through soft influence. Resulting in easy pickings for barbarian hordes. It is where the idea of the "age of decadence" even comes from. It was more than "being stretched thin".

 

[The Cat]

Basrbarian Hordes indeed, sounds like Roman Propaganda.

And you know how they are.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Basrbarian Hordes indeed, sounds like Roman Propaganda.

And you know how they are.

Oh my god, I should definitely watch that tonight. Definitely the best Python movie. I feel like Meaning of Life is trying too hard to appeal to Americans with sex jokes. Not that I'm opposed to sex jokes.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I already provided an example, you just didn't see it how I see it. The Greek culture flooded roman culture, creating a shift in the highly conservative society through soft influence. Resulting in easy pickings for barbarian hordes. It is where the idea of the "age of decadence" even comes from. It was more than "being stretched thin".

Dude, you just said that it was ridiculous to look for examples of fallacies being true because they are fallacies. Look, I'm asking you for something you'd need to show me to convince me. A non-controversial example (Gays destroy civillization is controversial). I'm not a scholar of the Roman Empire, so I really can't verify the accuracy of any of your claims, and it doesn't help that you're using that to support your own political positions. Pick something outside of that. I'm trying to help you win your case, because I like you even though support Trump.

 

[Vendrah]

Did you two (@Julius_Van_Der_Beak and [MENTION=37565]Sung Jin-Woo[/MENTION]) read [MENTION=29287]Obfuscate[/MENTION] article?
Just a small part of it:
"Every skeptic is familiar with the saying: correlation does not imply causation. To think otherwise is to commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy. (...) Imagine you eat some mushrooms you picked in the forest. Half an hour later you feel nauseated, so you put two and two together: “Ugh. That must have been the mushrooms”. Are you committing a fallacy? Not as long as your inference is merely inductive and probabilistic. (...) Indeed, almost all of our everyday causal knowledge is derived from such intuitive post hoc reasoning."

I agree completely after that read that article with this:
"if one is too focused on fallacy, they learn nothing"
Its true, if we stop to think about it, there is the authority fallacy, ad verecundiam. If no argument can be validated by any sort of authority or professional, then there is no reason to go to the doctor when you are sick, since any person stands any groung on that opinion. Its almost impossible to live without some "fallacy" at all.

Beg the question fallacy
An attempt to invalidate the cognitive functions using empirical evidence commits beg the question: will the cognitive functions be invalidated because the scientist did not manage to find empirical evidence, is that the nature of psychological function is observable that any observable by the five senses facts will be necessary and sufficient to prove or disprove its existence?. Those questions should be raised and satisfyingly answered before an attempt to collect empirical data is undertaken.

I catch your indirectness to me, although I do think you mean no offense.
So, all evidence is a fallacy? Or just the ones with cognitive functions? You dont need to answer, Im ok...

 

[Maou]

Dude, you just said that it was ridiculous to look for examples of fallacies being true because they are fallacies. Look, I'm asking you for something you'd need to show me to convince me. A non-controversial example (Gays destroy civillization is controversial). I'm not a scholar of the Roman Empire, so I really can't verify the accuracy of any of your claims, and it doesn't help that you're using that to support your own political positions. Pick something outside of that. I'm trying to help you win your case, because I like you even though support Trump.

Have you ever tried using your own logic, and not always relying something that already exists? You can formulate logic and reasoning, even without knowing. Why is that so hard for some people. Do you feel insecure when you don't have the facts to back up literally everything you say? Try debating, with just your current knowledge and understanding. It is much more fun that way.

 

[Nicodemus]

Have you ever tried using your own logic, and not always relying something that already exists? You can formulate logic and reasoning, even without knowing. Why is that so hard for some people. Do you feel insecure when you don't have the facts to back up literally everything you say? Try debating, with just your current knowledge and understanding. It is much more fun that way.

Have you ever tried the opposite? It would make skimming your asinine posts slightly more tolerable.

 

[Maou]

Have you ever tried the opposite? It would make skimming your asinine posts slightly more tolerable.

And have you ever tried being polite and respectful? It might make me put in more effort if I knew I wasn't going to be attacked on a personal level.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Have you ever tried using your own logic, and not always relying something that already exists? You can formulate logic and reasoning, even without knowing. Why is that so hard for some people. Do you feel insecure when you don't have the facts to back up literally everything you say? Try debating, with just your current knowledge and understanding. It is much more fun that way.

Might I suggest that the reason why I'm not accepting your statements as irrefutable truth is exactly because I'm using my own logic? Perhaps I am asking for data and factual examples because that would be one way of helping to either convince me or understand my own position better. Another thing that would work might be a detailed explanation showing the how and why of how a "real" slippery slope would operate, and why it's actually true even though it might get labeled as a fallacy.

My general experience with people using arguments that qualify as slippery slope fallacies is that it's sloppy reasoning used to support an idea that doesn't make sense in the first place, but has some particular emotional appeal for the person holding. Usually, I'm better at spotting that when the idea does not have emotional appeal for me.

The "gays destroy civilization like in Ancient Rome" is not an idea that has any particular emotional appeal for me, since I associate it with Dubya-era conservatism. Which is quite ironic because I thought Trumpism was supposed to "socially liberal" at least in the sense that it's pro-LGBT. Personally I suspect that "pro-LGBT" elements of Trumpism are things that only really come into play when fundamentalism Muslims are in the picture, which has a direct parallel with the relationship between feminism and Dubya-era neoconservatism.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It was also the first to embrace democratic means, hedonism, sexual degeneracy, and allowing woman to vote. Aka progressive.

While it's true that most civilizations that lessened sexual mores fell soon after, it's also true that pretty much every civilization has fallen. Although I don't really like the view that history is a series of distinct civilizations and periods. It's all a lot more continuous and fluid than that. For instance, the period from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages in western Europe really wasn't a sudden change, in that people alive in western Europe in the late 5th century and early 6th century wouldn't have really perceived they were living in a time straddling two distinct periods and civilizations. There was actually a great deal of continuity from the late Western Empire to the period post-collapse. Similar to how the period from colonial to early US independence has a lot of continuity. Americans weren't commonly referring to themselves as Americans en masse until after the war of 1812, and even then many people often referred to themselves by regional affiliation OR by where their ancestors originated for quite some time, rather than as americans.

 

[Maou]

Might I suggest that the reason why I'm not accepting your statements as irrefutable truth is exactly because I'm using my own logic? Perhaps I am asking for data and factual examples because that would be one way of helping to either convince me or understand my own position better. Another thing that would work might be a detailed explanation showing the how and why of how a "real" slippery slope would operate, and why it's actually true even though it might get labeled as a fallacy.

My general experience with people using arguments that qualify as slippery slope fallacies is that it's sloppy reasoning used to support an idea that doesn't make sense in the first place, but has some particular emotional appeal for the person holding. Usually, I'm better at spotting that when the idea does not have emotional appeal for me.

The "gays destroy civilization like in Ancient Rome" is not an idea that has any particular emotional appeal for me, since I associate it with Dubya-era conservatism. Which is quite ironic because I thought Trumpism was supposed to "socially liberal" at least in the sense that it's pro-LGBT. Personally I suspect that "pro-LGBT" elements of Trumpism are things that only really come into play when fundamentalism Muslims are in the picture, which has a direct parallel with the relationship between feminism and Dubya-era neoconservatism.

You don't have to accept anything I say as truth, as I am not trying to convince you of anything. My point is not everything can be explained well enough to understand. I will however, try to break down why I think many things are slippery slopes in reality. It is all because of human nature, and psychology. Humans, need something to strive for. It is what gives people purpose. Having a goal is what keeps people going. Humans enjoy the process more than they do the end result. Just like we hate finishing a very good videogame, or a very good book. We want it to go on forever. This is the same for living in society. We strive for immortality, we strive to perfect and improve our lives, and those lives around us. We constantly need something new to keep us feeling like we have a purpose. Once we reach a goal, we have to find another. Then, when there are no more struggles to overcome, we turn on ourselves. How to improve ourselves, how to improve society. How to help everyone. Each time we succeed, we look for another goal. This process, will repeat forever, because it is human nature. What happens when we run out of things to improve within our realm of influence? What happens when we are powerless to improve the lives of lesser off people? We attack the things that are insignificant that we do have some sort of power over, to convince ourselves we are making an impact. Eventually, it becomes lies and narcissism. Eventually, we attack the very thing that made our societies successful to begin with. We attack our foundation, like a cancer turning on the body, slowly degrading it from the inside out. It isn't so much as X leads to Y, or gays leads to the fall of society. Its about how we ourselves decay society once it runs out of things to overcome externally, once it runs out meaningful things to strive for. Once people have to make up things to fight for. So yes, all societies eventually fall due to change. Due to progressive thinking. Due to constantly needed change, and to fight for change. Due to human nature. Human nature, is the slippery slope, and it is often overlooked. Yet it explains almost everything that has happened currently in society, and in the past, and it will predict the future.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You don't have to accept anything I say as truth, as I am not trying to convince you of anything. My point is not everything can be explained well enough to understand. I will however, try to break down why I think many things are slippery slopes in reality. It is all because of human nature, and psychology. Humans, need something to strive for. It is what gives people purpose. Having a goal is what keeps people going. Humans enjoy the process more than they do the end result. Just like we hate finishing a very good videogame, or a very good book. We want it to go on forever. This is the same for living in society. We strive for immortality, we strive to perfect and improve our lives, and those lives around us. We constantly need something new to keep us feeling like we have a purpose. Once we reach a goal, we have to find another. Then, when there are no more struggles to overcome, we turn on ourselves. How to improve ourselves, how to improve society. How to help everyone. Each time we succeed, we look for another goal. This process, will repeat forever, because it is human nature. What happens when we run out of things to improve within our realm of influence? What happens when we are powerless to improve the lives of lesser off people? We attack the things that are insignificant that we do have some sort of power over, to convince ourselves we are making an impact. Eventually, it becomes lies and narcissism. Eventually, we attack the very thing that made our societies successful to begin with. We attack our foundation, like a cancer turning on the body, slowly degrading it from the inside out. It isn't so much as X leads to Y, or gays leads to the fall of society. Its about how we ourselves decay society once it runs out of things to overcome externally, once it runs out meaningful things to strive for. Once people have to make up things to fight for. So yes, all societies eventually fall due to change. Due to progressive thinking. Due to constantly needed change, and to fight for change. Due to human nature. Human nature, is the slippery slope, and it is often overlooked. Yet it explains almost everything that has happened currently in society, and in the past, and it will predict the future.

This makes enough sense, except, it's not just progressives looking for things to overcome. Trying to revert things back to some myth that never existed is also a constant battle in its own way. It can never succeed at anything except making society less adaptable, which doesn't seem like a source of strength to me. But then, I think my adaptability has helped me to thrive as an individual, so I'm biased. I think if my entire worldview was about me wishing I lived in 1969, 1989, or 1999, I'd be nowhere. Instead, I position myself to understand where things are going and prepare for that. There's lots of different ways someone can do that.

 

[Maou]

This makes enough sense, except, it's not just progressives looking for things to overcome. Trying to revert things back to some myth that never existed is also a constant battle in its own way. It can never succeed at anything except making society less adaptable, which doesn't seem like a source of strength to me. But then, I think my adaptability has helped me to thrive as an individual, so I'm biased. I think if my entire worldview was about me wishing I lived in 1969, 1989, or 1999, I'd be nowhere. Instead, I position myself to understand where things are going and prepare for that. There's lots of different ways someone can do that.

Conservatism isn't about not adapting, its about resisting change and preventing the almost autoimmune response human nature has on society. Same goes with religion I think. No matter how non-sensical it can be, it is a psuedo "purpose giver" to many. It does help in many ways. I think individualism can also be harmful past a certain extent. One of the reason I identify as a conservative, is because I want to slow down the speed of decay. I don't want to see it in my lifetime. How can anyone live, when it feels like everything is going insane and suicidal? It becomes hard to find meaning, if at all. Its depressing to know my future will become darker with each passing decade.

 

[Norexan]

Those who have a power must use power for evil.

Why?

Those with gun has a power to kill you but that doesn't mean all people with guns will kill you, even if you provoke them they won't. Same as aliens or any other being with more brain then humans. Aliens can obliterate Earth whenever they want but they don't want do this because such an action would be evil.

If you are immoral scum on Earth I am not.

 

[The Cat]

Bazinga

 

[Maou]

Those who have a power must use power for evil.

Why?

Those with gun has a power to kill you but that doesn't mean all people with guns will kill you, even if you provoke them they won't. Same as aliens or any other being with more brain then humans. Aliens can obliterate Earth whenever they want but they don't want do this because such an action would be evil.

If you are immoral scum on Earth I am not.

Because of peer pressure, and you yourself changing and becoming comfortable with your way of life.

For example, you do not choose to step on the ants on the ground. But to move forward, even if you try to avoid ants. You will step on a few. It is an act of "evil", but it is also a part of life. It is the only way to move forward. Power is the same way. Humans get caught up in the results, not the means used to get there. It is easy to ignore suffering you do not have to see. If you enjoy the results or benefits, it is even easier.

No one is evil for the sake of evil. Everyone usually thinks they are the good guy. But everyone can be a villan in someone else's story. So I think it is better to not get caught up on morality to rationalize anything.

 

[Tellenbach]

I saw this on a park bench or bus: "No one is well unless everyone is well."

Total head scratcher; sounds like something a pothead would say.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Conservatism isn't about not adapting, its about resisting change and preventing the almost autoimmune response human nature has on society. Same goes with religion I think. No matter how non-sensical it can be, it is a psuedo "purpose giver" to many. It does help in many ways. I think individualism can also be harmful past a certain extent. One of the reason I identify as a conservative, is because I want to slow down the speed of decay. I don't want to see it in my lifetime. How can anyone live, when it feels like everything is going insane and suicidal? It becomes hard to find meaning, if at all. Its depressing to know my future will become darker with each passing decade.

Darker in what way? If you weren't a Trump supporter, I would suppose that this had something to do with global warming.

 

[Maou]

Darker in what way? If you weren't a Trump supporter, I would suppose that this had something to do with global warming.

Darker in the general aspect, as in the fall of society. The fall of humanity in response to the decay. I feel that society, like an ecosystem responds to stimulus and change, and evolves. I think humans are beyond the peak, and on their way out. That we will change, and evolve. Whether or not we will retain our consciousnesses about existence, is a whole other matter.