NationStates Jolt Archive

I like circular reasoning. Whenever you point it out, they either reveal their stupidity or deny that they said that. Example: I teach evoloution because it's true. And evoloution is true because I teach it.

Simple enough: which fallacy in an argument do you enjoy the most? You can like it because it's effective, or like it in a cheesy, bad 50's horror movie kind of way ("so bad it's almost good").

There shalt be a poll before the day is out.

I like circular reasoning. Whenever you point it out, they either reveal their stupidity or deny that they said that. Example: I teach evoloution because it's true. And evoloution is true because I teach it.

I'm wondering if that example is any indication of your intellectual level (with regards to evolution) or perhaps an indication of the intellectual level of the people around you (with regards to reasoning)?

I'm hoping the latter.

Ad hominem:

I'm wondering if that example is any indication of your intellectual level (with regards to evolution)?

My personal favorite: Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Reduction to Hitler.

The claim that since Hitler did X, X is therefore bad.

Example: Hitler wore boots. Therefore, wearing boots is bad.
More serious example: Hitler supported renewable energy. Therefore, renewable energy is bad.

Ad hominem:

That's not ad hominem, it's just a possible insult.

I like circular reasoning. Whenever you point it out, they either reveal their stupidity or deny that they said that. Example: I teach evoloution because it's true. And evoloution is true because I teach it.


Im hoping the evolution example is just that, a random example, because if you really....nevermind. No thread derailment.



Thats my favorite one too. Christians use it all the time. "The Bible is the word of God." "I know its the word of God because the Bible says so."

My personal favorite: Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Reduction to Hitler.

The claim that since Hitler did X, X is therefore bad.

Example: Hitler wore boots. Therefore, wearing boots is bad.
More serious example: Hitler supported renewable energy. Therefore, renewable energy is bad.


Oh! Or like that retard that wrote Liberal Facism who said that because the nazis wanted to eat organic, prefering organic food basically makes you a nazi.

Ad hominem strikes again!
.

Also not ad hominem, since he's addressing the argument and showing why he thinks the guy is retarded. Ad hominem is when the person making the argument is attacked while the argument itself is ignored. Since he is also addressing the argument it's no ad hominem.

pedantry ftw
*crosses fingers and desperately hopes he didn't get something wrong.*

Im hoping the evolution example is just that, a random example, because if you really....nevermind. No thread derailment.



Thats my favorite one too. Christians use it all the time. "The Bible is the word of God." "I know its the word of God because the Bible says so."
Yeah, circular reasoning seems to be a common argument fallacy. And as for the evoloution example, it was merely because I was thinking about a recent debate I had with my teacher. Sorry if I offended anyone with it.

No True Scotsman.

Behold the power of being able to absolutely define what other people believe and how they act for them. How can you possibly lose?

Ad hominem:
The example you gave is not an Ad hominem.

An Ad Hominem is when you attack the person's motive or character instead of their argument.

An ad hominem would be: You're stupid because of such and such, therefore your argument is incorrect.

It is not an ad hominem to say: Your argument is stupid because of such and such, and you must be stupid to believe in your argument despite being shown otherwise.

Oh! Or like that retard that wrote...
Ad hominem strikes again!

'Favourite' fallacy seems a bit, well, fallacious (;)), but the fallacy of conflating corellation with causation, and the fallacy of false dilemma often get me goat.

My personal favorite: Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Reduction to Hitler.

The claim that since Hitler did X, X is therefore bad.

Example: Hitler wore boots. Therefore, wearing boots is bad.
More serious example: Hitler supported renewable energy. Therefore, renewable energy is bad.

This one basically sums up the entirety of the ideologies of NSG's resident Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists and Aristocratic Anarcho-Capitalists. As such, I really like it as well.

But, No True Scotsman seems to be wrapped up or implied within Reductio Ad Hitlerum (no true X would do anything Hitler ever did), and No True Scotsman is already my favorite. So...

**Awards Reductio Ad Hitlerum Certificate of Demerit - Dishonorable Mention**

Claiming that "I am right", "you are wrong", "I win", "you lose" or "your post fails" because it's pointless. Saying that you think you win or someone loses a debate makes your opinion clear but does not offer any reason why others should agree with you or disagree with the person you say lost.

Strawmen because the exaggerated scenarios spice up debates.

Analogies because sometimes they are amusing, specially when taken too far.

I like circular reasoning. Whenever you point it out, they either reveal their stupidity or deny that they said that. Example: I teach evoloution because it's true. And evoloution is true because I teach it.

I like circular reasoning the best because it's my favorite.

That's not ad hominem.

Also not ad hominem
Wrong, I believe, on both counts.

See below.

The example you gave is not an Ad hominem.

An Ad Hominem is when you attack the person's motive or character instead of their argument.
Not necessarily.

An ad hominem can be used in conjunction with another counter-argument, just as KoL did, or (as you note) simply as the argument, as Seathornia did.

This one basically sums up the entirety of the ideologies of NSG's resident Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists and Aristocratic Anarcho-Capitalists. As such, I really like it as well.

But, No True Scotsman seems to be wrapped up or implied within Reductio Ad Hitlerum (no true X would do anything Hitler ever did), and No True Scotsman is already my favorite. So...

**Awards Reductio Ad Hitlerum Certificate of Demerit - Dishonorable Mention**

But Hitler awarded demerits! You must be a Nazi! :p

I like circular reasoning the best because it's my favorite.

Magnificent...

But Hitler awarded demerits! You must be a Nazi! :p


The name's Hilter. **goes for a hike** (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVxM5IBLeU4)

</non-sequitur>

False dilemma is awesome.

Either you eat babies or want to kill your entire family. So no matter how you answer you are a bad person.

Either you think this fallacy is great or the greatest fallacy.

I never use fallacies, because I am always right, and I have no favorite fallacy used against me because, well, I am always right.:D

The name's Hilter. **goes for a hike** (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVxM5IBLeU4)

</non-sequitur>

Well that's the wrong map you've got there. You won't be having much fun in Stalingrad...

i was reading some ralph waldo emerson yesterday and i found what he said interesting. only true men are non conformers he said. he siad everyone should be a non conformer. isn't he telling everyone to conform to his idea of non conforming? this goes along with my favorite...no true scotsman

Hey, I am a non-conformist. Just like everyone else.

I like circular reasoning the best because it's my favorite.

:D


Me too, once someone's stuck in that loop, it's very difficult to break them out of it.

Well that's the wrong map you've got there. You won't be having much fun in Stalingrad...

Strawman! I'm going to Volgograd, not Stalingrad.

i was reading some ralph waldo emerson yesterday and i found what he said interesting. only true men are non conformers he said. he siad everyone should be a non conformer. isn't he telling everyone to conform to his idea of non conforming? this goes along with my favorite...no true scotsman

Eh, No true Scotsman is a bit fuzzy because it's only a fallacy if the distinction drawn between two kinds of things isn't really a distinction; most people don't get this fact. My favorite response to someone who failed to make that crucial distinction and incorrectly called someone on a No True Scotsman was "Yes, in exactly the way an Irishman is just like a Scotsman".

That being said, I find non sequiturs to be fascinating, because to prove them as non sequiturs, you really have to dig into the argument, understand how the parts fail to work together, and coherently point this out. It's a pleasure for me to figure out that the puzzle pieces can't fit because they're from two different puzzles, and I have to work to prove that to be the case. It really polishes my reasoning and argumentation to encounter them.

You're stupid, so your argument is stupid. And your argument is stupid because you're stupid.

No True Scotsman, because it is simple enough for the common man to commit.

I like circular reasoning the best because it's my favorite.

Win!

I just like fallacies. They are inherently amusing.
:)

While I enjoy Ad Hominem which just to clarify is "When the person attacks the person (including lifestyle, social class and character) putting the argument forward and concluding that the argument is flawed because of this" Source: A Practical Study of Argument 6th edition by Trudy Govier Published in 2005 by Wadsworth.

But I like the another fallacy of relevance and that is Guilt by Association this is when a person claims that an argument is flawed because of a connection that the arguer has with an undesirable group or person

E.g Arguing that a business consultant's decisions are correct because he has an MBA from Harvard

Of course all fallacies of relevance are good and we see on NSG all the time

In addition to the above two the other four are

The Strawman Fallacy
Appeals to popularity
Appeals to ignorance
and
Emotional Appeals

one can beg the question until after the cows come home. which begs the question...

I like a form of ad hominem called "Bulverism;" I think C. S. Lewis came up with the term. To steal from Wikipedia, it follows this form:

Opponent claims A to be true
Opponent benefits from A being true because of B
Thus, B "proves" that A is false

It's a great fallacy because it's patronizing enough to make people unwilling to question it. You don't need to even explain yourself, just say, "Oh, you would say that," and you've got yourself an argument.

I never use fallacies, because I am always right, and I have no favorite fallacy used against me because, well, I am always right.:D
No true NSG'er ever uses fallacies!

"I don't hate you dear, I love you, however if I give you a cookie today, then all things being equal I have to give you one tomorrow and if I give you one tomorrow then I have to give you one the day after and so on, and eating cookies everyday is bad because cookies are a sometimes food, so you wouldn't learn self control and moderation and then you will grow up to be a crack head and kill me for some smack and then regret that and kill yourself and then your sister and father will be so sad they will have to kill themselves too and our whole family will be gone forever, all because you wanted a cookie"

yay!
Ignore what I said earlier. This is my favorite fallacy. For lack of a better term, I call it the "you'll-shoot-your-eye-out" argument. It's employed by mothers everywhere.

my oldest child seems to be a huge fan of the false dilemma, so of course it pisses me off

"you never give me cookies because you hate me"
"no, I give you cookies, just not today"
"then you hate me"
:headbang:

so, in response I have been using the slippery slope, it's working wonderfully

"I don't hate you dear, I love you, however if I give you a cookie today, then all things being equal I have to give you one tomorrow and if I give you one tomorrow then I have to give you one the day after and so on, and eating cookies everyday is bad because cookies are a sometimes food, so you wouldn't learn self control and moderation and then you will grow up to be a crack head and kill me for some smack and then regret that and kill yourself and then your sister and father will be so sad they will have to kill themselves too and our whole family will be gone forever, all because you wanted a cookie"

yay!

My favorite fallacy is the false dilema.

my oldest child seems to be a huge fan of the false dilemma, so of course it pisses me off

"you never give me cookies because you hate me"
"no, I give you cookies, just not today"
"then you hate me"
:headbang:

so, in response I have been using the slippery slope, it's working wonderfully

"I don't hate you dear, I love you, however if I give you a cookie today, then all things being equal I have to give you one tomorrow and if I give you one tomorrow then I have to give you one the day after and so on, and eating cookies everyday is bad because cookies are a sometimes food, so you wouldn't learn self control and moderation and then you will grow up to be a crack head and kill me for some smack and then regret that and kill yourself and then your sister and father will be so sad they will have to kill themselves too and our whole family will be gone forever, all because you wanted a cookie"

yay!

Holy shit that's funny!

No true NSG'er ever uses fallacies!

Probably because each one of us is always right.

No trews scottsman because everyone knows they were kilts... :D

What's the genetic fallacy again?
I think i know it but i'm not sure.

Does it go something like, because all other religions made in the past are bad, this one will also be bad? :confused:

I like false dilemma, because it's the best one for debating. the either/or thing is a classic.

That being said, I find non sequiturs to be fascinating, because to prove them as non sequiturs, you really have to dig into the argument, understand how the parts fail to work together, and coherently point this out. It's a pleasure for me to figure out that the puzzle pieces can't fit because they're from two different puzzles, and I have to work to prove that to be the case. It really polishes my reasoning and argumentation to encounter them.

Actually, I agree, but for slightly different reasons. It isn't uncommon to encounter a non sequitur that is so blatant you almost just submit to it because its complete inadequacy as an argument shuts down your mind. In fact, I think these are way more common than the ones you have to dig around for.

That's not ad hominem, it's just a possible insult.

And I made sure that it only remains possible.

Yeah, circular reasoning seems to be a common argument fallacy. And as for the evoloution example, it was merely because I was thinking about a recent debate I had with my teacher. Sorry if I offended anyone with it.

It most certainly is. It's such a shame when people use it to defend something (And a teacher failing to defend evolution without resorting to fallacies is disheartening).

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is my personal favorite, because it's just so damn bad that it's phenomenally great.

my oldest child seems to be a huge fan of the false dilemma, so of course it pisses me off

"you never give me cookies because you hate me"
"no, I give you cookies, just not today"
"then you hate me"
:headbang:

so, in response I have been using the slippery slope, it's working wonderfully

"I don't hate you dear, I love you, however if I give you a cookie today, then all things being equal I have to give you one tomorrow and if I give you one tomorrow then I have to give you one the day after and so on, and eating cookies everyday is bad because cookies are a sometimes food, so you wouldn't learn self control and moderation and then you will grow up to be a crack head and kill me for some smack and then regret that and kill yourself and then your sister and father will be so sad they will have to kill themselves too and our whole family will be gone forever, all because you wanted a cookie"

yay!

Smunkee. Wins. Thread.

Can I bring the tone down?


Fallacy-o:eek:

Circularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoning
worksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecir
cularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningwo
rksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircula
rreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksb
ecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircular...

That's not ad hominem, it's just a possible insult.

Of course it was an ad hominem, you stupid turd! Why don't you go read a book before you post on these boards! :p

I just like fallacies. They are inherently amusing.

It's what makes internet forums so much fun. ;)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is my personal favorite, because it's just so damn bad that it's phenomenally great.

Is that the same as just post hoc? Because A preceded B, A caused B?

My personal favorite: Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Reduction to Hitler.

The claim that since Hitler did X, X is therefore bad.

Example: Hitler wore boots. Therefore, wearing boots is bad.
More serious example: Hitler supported renewable energy. Therefore, renewable energy is bad.

"What? It's a song about holding hands!"
"You know who has hands? The Devil. And he uses them for holding things!"
I dunno if anyone here's seen that movie... just had to say it. :D

I'm also a big fan of straw man fallacies. Always interesting to see what conclusions people draw about those who disagree with them.

Circularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoning
worksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecir
cularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningwo
rksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircula
rreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksb
ecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircular...

We have a winner.

Is that the same as just post hoc? Because A preceded B, A caused B?

Post hoc is the abbreviation of Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this").


I forget the name. But I quite like the one fallacy that claims just because your opponents arguements contains a fallacy yours is "correct" by default.

I like non-sequitors because they are so damn common and yet sometimes difficult to find.

Can I bring the tone down?


Fallacy-o:eek:

lolz

Wrong, I believe, on both counts.

See below.


Not necessarily.

An ad hominem can be used in conjunction with another counter-argument, just as KoL did, or (as you note) simply as the argument, as Seathornia did.

Hmm, I disagree about the conjunction, but agree to disagree. He addresses the argument and because the guy is taking the view that he is is calling him a retard. Rather than claiming he's retarded as a way of disproving the argument.

Ad hominem = You believe X, you're retarded/objectionable/evil/etc, therefore X is false.

If the argument is, You believe X, X is something only a retarded/objectionable/evil/etc person would believe, therefore you're that sort of person. That isn't ad hominem.

Same as above in the first one he's not even talking about the argument, but about the example. As far as I can tell they're agreeing with the argument re:circular reasoning as a fallacy but saying the example suggests the person might be... (see above equations).

I like a form of ad hominem called "Bulverism;" I think C. S. Lewis came up with the term. To steal from Wikipedia, it follows this form:

Opponent claims A to be true
Opponent benefits from A being true because of B
Thus, B "proves" that A is false

It's a great fallacy because it's patronizing enough to make people unwilling to question it. You don't need to even explain yourself, just say, "Oh, you would say that," and you've got yourself an argument.
Oh so often used to dismiss studies by the tobacco and oil industries. Never realised that was a fallacy.
Circularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoning
worksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecir
cularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningwo
rksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircula
rreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksb
ecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircularreasoningworksbecausecircular...

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd244/squirrell_2007/circular.gif