The problem with logical fallacy rebuttals on a message board

[Chris]

Attachment 21294

Argument from mockery!!!

[Chris]

Actually Who politics runs on emotion, ego, greed, hyped opinion and a sports team mentality . Neither politics nor the way governments operate have much to do with logic at all. Otherwise we wouldn't still be promoting largely unchanged policies that have literally failed for at least 40 years. Logic of any kind would dictate that policies are programs are periodically evaluated for effectiveness not one opinion vs. another. But in fact such evaluation is only given lip service. Father Martin, a recovery speaker, taked about how the active addict is driven by e/i ( emotion over intellect) and to recover they must learn to operate as i/e ( intellect over emotion). He was right of course but such never seems to apply to government. We apparently aren't there yet as a species.

I think you captured the motivation here precisely.

Some here want to argue passionately in reaction to mass murders to regulate guns. They don't want to be challenged how regulating guns will solve the problem. They don't want to analyze the problem. They just want to regulate guns.

And that's just one example of a liberal argument from passion.

That's what leads to the government we have.

[Chris]

The OP is an attempt to logically argue that being illogical is a good thing.

[Standing Wolf]

This thread has been nicely illustrative of at least two things: how a general criticism is received, in some quarters, is dependent entirely on the source of the criticism; and those who offer up the most lip service about addressing "the post, not the poster" are largely incapable of recognizing any violation of that rule when they are the one doing it.

Just as certain people will jump on a perceived ideological opponent in a heartbeat for the commission of a "logical fallacy" that they have studiously ignored when committed by those with whom they agree about other matters, those same people will react negatively in a kneejerk fashion to an observation made by Member A which they would have praised and agreed with had it come, in exactly the same words, from Member B.

The OP makes great points, while much of the reaction to it has been irrelevant, non-responsive and an embarrassed attempt at distraction and the - logically fallacious - imputation of bad or secret motives.

[Chris]

This thread has been nicely illustrative of at least two things: how a general criticism is received, in some quarters, is dependent entirely on the source of the criticism; and those who offer up the most lip service about addressing "the post, not the poster" are largely incapable of recognizing any violation of that rule when they are the one doing it.

Just as certain people will jump on a perceived ideological opponent in a heartbeat for the commission of a "logical fallacy" that they have studiously ignored when committed by those with whom they agree about other matters, those same people will react negatively in a kneejerk fashion to an observation made by Member A which they would have praised and agreed with had it come, in exactly the same words, from Member B.

The OP makes great points, while much of the reaction to it has been irrelevant, non-responsive and an embarrassed attempt at distraction and the - logically fallacious - imputation of bad or secret motives.

One, no one here has attacked any poster. It's disingenuous to say that, it violates address the post not the poster.

Two, your second point is argument from hypocrisy (avoiding the rude Latin tu quoque). It, too, violates address the post not the poster.

Three, is meaningless. Just a personal opinion taking sides personally. It argues nothing. It doesn't argue what's "irrelevant, non-responsive and an embarrassed attempt at distraction" but just procliams it.

Your post is just another argument to be free from the constraints of logic.

[Captdon]

Let me break it down for you. When you start accusing people who haven't studied logical fallacy of committing logical fallacy, you are diminishing their opinions, not for their opinions, but for not understanding what in the world that you are talking about. If you think a statement is illogical, then just say so in plain language. Don't quote Latin phrases to people and make them feel ignorant and uneducated. It's rude. Don't get distracted with arguments about what is or what isn't an ad hominem statement. People will post their "opinions" about an OP. That is what the forum is all about. Opinion. If they post an unfortunate opinion about a member, we have rules about that.

I would argue that not one single person accused of logical fallacy has changed their style of posting to fulfil those expectations. However, it may have alienated many members by doing so.

Where do you get whataboutisms from what I posted? Furthermore, where do you get personal attacks from what I posted?

People who use 2 dollar words for a dollar worth of tripe.

[Safety]

First of all the membership of a message board or forum, such as this one, is not triaged for formal educational equality. You have members who did not graduate high school discussing topics with people who may have PHDs. Rebutting an argument from the former with an accusation of 'tu quoque' or 'ad hominem' by the latter may be the equivalent of responding in a foreign language. It's rude and elitist.

Secondly, the use of logical fallacy accusations does not exist in the real world of informal discussion. It is confined to academia and specifically to formal debate, which is for all intents and purposes a contest with a definite winner and loser. While the principles of logical fallacy are observed by all manner of people when crafting formal arguments in the legal world, in politics or other adversarial situations, they are not used in informal conversation.

Thirdly, a political forum deals with the exchange of opinions. If you google the definition of opinion, the first definition that appears is:

"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge".

Beliefs are not necessarily logical or informed. More often than not they are based in emotion, worldview or even faith. Political affiliation is an aspect of an individual's belief system and just as emotional.

Finally, you cannot interject logical fallacy arguments into what is ultimately a battle of beliefs. Doing so is merely a distraction from the conversation. Clear victories are impossible, however tiny concessions are not.

You don't participate on a political forum to win an argument. You participate in order to exchange ideas and possibly influence the ideology of others.

/Rant

Thank you. Seriously.

[Safety]

Good rant ... I'd like to add that logical fallacies are fun and are only fun when we all know that that's what or when and how the intention is ... unfortunately, not everyone plays by the rules of logical fallacies ...

It's also extremely hiliarous to see those that use it the most only to police ideologies they oppose, while completely staying silent otherwise.

[Safety]

This thread has been nicely illustrative of at least two things: how a general criticism is received, in some quarters, is dependent entirely on the source of the criticism; and those who offer up the most lip service about addressing "the post, not the poster" are largely incapable of recognizing any violation of that rule when they are the one doing it.

Just as certain people will jump on a perceived ideological opponent in a heartbeat for the commission of a "logical fallacy" that they have studiously ignored when committed by those with whom they agree about other matters, those same people will react negatively in a kneejerk fashion to an observation made by Member A which they would have praised and agreed with had it come, in exactly the same words, from Member B.

The OP makes great points, while much of the reaction to it has been irrelevant, non-responsive and an embarrassed attempt at distraction and the - logically fallacious - imputation of bad or secret motives.

You won the internets today. @Green Arrow are you planning on doing the POTD awards again, if so, I nominate this one.

[Chris]

People who use 2 dollar words for a dollar worth of tripe.

http://www.thesaurus.com/ is free.