Logical Fallacies

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, I certainly can't beat Ravi's record of the number of logical fallacies in a single Allie post, so instead I will submit 20 straw man arguments Allie fabricated in a single thread all at once:

what you propose is euthanasia. It's murdering people before their time on the ass backwards assumption you're doing THEM a favor.

BTW, I'm 100 percent certain that you are going to die.

May I off you now? Save you the grief I know is coming to you?

So what you're saying is that if you determine a child's life will not be worth living, you should be able to snuff it out, based upon the fact that the child will die anyway.

You think it's a horror to carry a baby that's less than perfect?

That if a baby is sick then we should just kill it before it has a chance to take a breath of air, to be hugged by its mother, to see her face?

That's a funny kind of compassion. Pretty much not compassion at all.

Should we just kill pancreatic cancer patients as soon as they're diagnosed?

As far as that goes, a large percentage of boys die in their teens...should we just determine which ones are at higher risk, and kill them at birth?

the idea that you can eradicate death by killing is absolutely crazy.

the idea that killing something inside your body is better than killing it outside your body. In both places, a baby should be in your loving care.

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

Yes, having imperfect babies is a terrible trial to unfortunate parents. Hopefully someday we can kill all imperfect babies 5 days before they would be born naturally. What an incredible relief that would be to Care.

You equate baby killing with a cessation of misery. Check.

apparently in this case, the mother's health is of secondary importance. That baby needed to be killed, dammit!

Care, however, views the baby as an abomination

So the only thing you are supporting is putting the mother at risk, and taking the life of a child that would most likely die anyway. Because you, personally, can't stand the thought of an imperfect child.

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

It's amazing. Care4All consistently says one thing: the decision should be made by the patient AND HER DOCTOR. You then respond by saying Care believes the mother alone should dictate all. Are you willfully stupid or is it accidental?

thank you for clearing up that the mother's desires are the only factor to take into consideration.

I just noticed...Care is not a proponent of killing babies BEFORE their time, which implies she's ok with killing them when they're time is up...or when someone determines it's time.

So she's just a proponent of killing babies, period, I guess.

But don't worry folks! According to Allie, these aren't REALLY straw man arguments because they are just her "paraphrasing, metaphors, and examples."

If you can find a definition for VERBAL abuse that involves the written word unsupported by anything spoken, I'll stop scoffing.

Until then.

It's funny because you were proven wrong in the very next post, which you then ignored. For the record, did you stop scoffing?

 

[Lumpy 1]

There must be another meaning for fallacies...

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to distinguih between statements of clarification or active listening feedback and an ad hominem logical fallacy. Occasionally they can be the same thing, but usually not.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear AllieB:
Thanks for this post.
I think the most common form of argument I see online
is PROJECTION.

Usually it takes the form of mutual projection/rejection
instead of mutual correction.

It occurs when people take our own biases and paint a picture with that bias by portraying someone else or some other group. This happens because it is easier to see and point out what is wrong or faulty with someone else's statement or ways from our angle, but we don't always see our own biases and thus fail to apply the same criticisms to ourselves. Then the other person does the same to us, and both people can get divided and deadlock.

Online is like being in public, where people often won't acknowledge their own corrections, but are almost expected to jab at others. So the media somehow invites this behavior.

If you figure that out and can forgive it, you can actually learn a lot from people who think different than you, and make corrections you don't see or agree with. You don't even have to admit you learned something, as most people don't or may not even get something until later anyway.

When people figure out the correction process is mutual, for everything that miffs you off about someone else, there is something you can change in yourself that you can actually do something about, that is the saving grace. All things can be changed and corrected that way, by taking care of our part and thanking people for their help in it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, I certainly can't beat Ravi's record of the number of logical fallacies in a single Allie post, so instead I will submit 20 straw man arguments Allie fabricated in a single thread all at once:

what you propose is euthanasia. It's murdering people before their time on the ass backwards assumption you're doing THEM a favor.

BTW, I'm 100 percent certain that you are going to die.

May I off you now? Save you the grief I know is coming to you?

So what you're saying is that if you determine a child's life will not be worth living, you should be able to snuff it out, based upon the fact that the child will die anyway.

I just noticed...Care is not a proponent of killing babies BEFORE their time, which implies she's ok with killing them when they're time is up...or when someone determines it's time.

So she's just a proponent of killing babies, period, I guess.

But don't worry folks! According to Allie, these aren't REALLY straw man arguments because they are just her "paraphrasing, metaphors, and examples."

If you can find a definition for VERBAL abuse that involves the written word unsupported by anything spoken, I'll stop scoffing.

Until then.

It's funny because you were proven wrong in the very next post, which you then ignored. For the record, did you stop scoffing?

Wow. You just don't get tired of making an idiot of yourself, do you?

You need to read the list for comprehension, bubba.

 

[AllieBaba]

Truthiness challenged?

Quote: Originally Posted by AllieBaba

As is saying abstinence is not contraception because it's just a perverted sexual practice that is used by EEVVIIILLL Christians to avoid sex.

sky quote:
"Abstinence only is a form of pregnancy prevention for religious people who are only allowed to have sex to produce babies.

Notice the difference in the two statement s and the absence of the context sky provided, see Feminists for Life, Catholic Church matrimonty guidlines, and link to training manual for anti-abortion provided on thread.

Hey Sky, you left off some of your quote. So again, misleading, dishonest.

I get to paraphrase. And I'm good at it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Whatever. I paraphrased you. Big deal, I also quoted you and provided the link. You have no concept of honesty, no concept of fallacy, and no basic comprehension of discourse, so I don't expect you to make these distinctions. I paraphrased you, I beefed it up a little but it's still in keeping with what you said. We all know what you mean when you say *religion* in that over-the-top way.

 

[editec]

The arguer was the issue, nitwit.

You really do not understand, do you?

If we are here to disucss issues, a personal attack on someone is an ad hominen attack regardless of what you might be thinking.

It is a method of changing the discussion from the topic at hand to the poster you are attacking.

It is, quite frankly, childish and rude, not only to that person, but to anybody who is here to have discussions.

It is rude to anyone who ends up reading it.

 

[Ravi]

Whatever. I paraphrased you. Big deal, I also quoted you and provided the link. You have no concept of honesty, no concept of fallacy, and no basic comprehension of discourse, so I don't expect you to make these distinctions. I paraphrased you, I beefed it up a little but it's still in keeping with what you said. We all know what you mean when you say *religion* in that over-the-top way.

Allie, you should change your tag line from "Registered User" to "Logical Fallacy."

 

[editec]

If you can find a definition for VERBAL abuse that involves the written word unsupported by anything spoken, I'll stop scoffing.

Until then.

Verbal - Of, relating to, or associated with words: a detailed verbal description.

"Verbal" describes both words in used text and/or spoken orally, Allie.

 

[AllieBaba]

The arguer was the issue, nitwit.

You really do not understand, do you?

If we are here to disucss issues, a personal attack on someone is an ad hominen attack regardless of what you might be thinking.

It is a method of changing the discussion from the topic at hand to the poster you are attacking.

It is, quite frankly, childish and rude, not only to that person, but to anybody who is here to have discussions.

It is rude to anyone who ends up reading it.

And you do it all the time.

But it is not ad hominem to make an accurate observation. It's an observation to point out lying. While of course I engage in logical fallacy, the one thing that ISN'T logical fallacy is to point out the lying or incorrect statements of others.

The list is up there. Read it.

 

[AllieBaba]

If you can find a definition for VERBAL abuse that involves the written word unsupported by anything spoken, I'll stop scoffing.

Until then.

Verbal - Of, relating to, or associated with words: a detailed verbal description.

"Verbal" describes both words in used text and/or spoken orally, Allie.

I'm not so sure. While verbal abuse might, if applied loosely, apply to the written word I don't think it is correctly applied to interactions on a message board, which is anonymous and entirely voluntary.

At any rate, as I stated before, I find it repugnant for a person who lies, trolls, who starts thread after thread after thread perpetuating the issue, whsends neg reps with obnoxious notes attached, who leaves messages on my profile, to turn around and shout "I'M BEING ABUSED! I'M BEING HARASSED! POOR, POOR ME!" from the rooftops. She antagonizes, then calls any sort of reciprocity abuse. She exhibits the behavior, then accuses others of harassment when they do. It's nauseating, and I'll continue to call attention to it because that's the only way to clip her wings.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Wow. You just don't get tired of making an idiot of yourself, do you?

So instead of addressing the points I make you resort to childish name calling. Ad hominem!

You need to read the list for comprehension, bubba.

Well I read the list, then compared to the nice list of fallacies you don't understand in the first post, which states:
"25. STRAW MAN. This fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to ridiculous extremes.

Do you actually think you accurately represent other people's ideas? You're horrible at it. I have yet to see you do it once with someone you disagree with. You call it "paraphrasing" and "metaphor" when it is still in fact distortion and misrepresentation. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need to make a "parallel" and "metaphor" to represent it, you'd just represent their point accurately and respond accordingly, which you fail to do every time.

I get to paraphrase. And I'm good at it.

False. You're terrible at it. Every single person in this thread aside from you thinks you're terrible at it. People have provided countless examples of you being terrible at it and you still think otherwise. This is known as ignorance. Doesn't matter how much proof someone shows you, you still don't change your stance. Do you think by not admitting to your repeated epic failure that you aren't viewed as immature and failing anyway?

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll say it again. You don't make points. You pontificate endlessly, dragging lies and ad hominem through every one of your interminable posts. If you do make points, they are well hidden and I have no interest in ferreting them out.

If you really are interested in debate, then instead of going through the posts as you do and responding to each sentence, I suggest you pick one or two salient points, and compose a post that addresses those points only (and in one cohesive post) and post it, with your evidence.

My experience with your writing show me you are dishonest in debate and more interested in seeing how words you can string together than you are in actual debate. I find it boring and a waste of time. When I look at a long, drawn out post that takes up a page and the first paragraph is nothing but assumptions and assertions based on opinion with absolutely no supporting evidence, though you pretend the assertions are PROVEN, then I get bored and blow off the rest of the post. That's what I do with yours.

 

[edthecynic]

42. I wasn't debating or I WAS JUST BEING A BITCH. A common ploy by Allie Babble when engaging in discussion. Example: Calling someone a crack whore during a discussion of assisted suicide and then claiming there was no debate going on.

This is stupid. Luser said something obnoxious about me and I called her a crack whore.

The ad hominem was hers, and I called her a crack whore because of it.

You guys really are pathetic and could benefit from a class on critical thinking.

Here, let me help you:

Online College Degree Programs - Online School - University of Phoenix

Lol. No it's not one of the hallowed halls of higher learning, but it is still probably too much for you two dweebs.

26. TWO WRONGS MAKE THE RIGHT. This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

 

[HUGGY]

This is ...well it could have been an interesting and informative primer on the tactics of evasion in debate. The irony is thick at the outset in that Miss Babba is the OP.

I guess there should be praise for her attempt to weed out deception from debate.

My next guess is that she does not believe that these rules apply to her message board offerings.

Here are a few additions for the debate/logic list:

Gaming the truth by invoking "special privilege" for what is fact or not.

Faith is not a substitute for logic.

Painting a lie as "Holy" makes it two lies not a truth.

No matter how badly you may want it to be otherwise humans ARE apes.

Winning a debate is not the same thing as convincing the other participant of your point.

 

[AllieBaba]

Peeps is larning.

 

[AllieBaba]

And Huggy, I'm sorry, you're just a wee bit looney.

Yes, I know it's a logical fallacy if being used to win some sort of argument against you, but I'm not. I'm just point it out for general purposes.

I just did my homework, I think I'll go say hi to my horse.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'll say it again. You don't make points. You pontificate endlessly, dragging lies and ad hominem through every one of your interminable posts. If you do make points, they are well hidden and I have no interest in ferreting them out.

Oh I get it now. You come to an online message forum and then complain about reading too much. Well, I guess I can't expect you to actually read people's posts before responding to them, can I?

If you really are interested in debate, then instead of going through the posts as you do and responding to each sentence, I suggest you pick one or two salient points, and compose a post that addresses those points only (and in one cohesive post) and post it, with your evidence.

Here's a point you'll ignore: people have provided countless examples of you basing the entirety of your posts on many of the logical fallacies listed in the first post. What does that say about you?

My experience with your writing show me you are dishonest in debate and more interested in seeing how words you can string together than you are in actual debate. I find it boring and a waste of time. When I look at a long, drawn out post that takes up a page and the first paragraph is nothing but assumptions and assertions based on opinion with absolutely no supporting evidence, though you pretend the assertions are PROVEN, then I get bored and blow off the rest of the post. That's what I do with yours.

Oh that's why you say ridiculously ignorant or otherwise moronic things all the time. Thanks for the explanation.

If you want to claim my writing is dishonest or false, perhaps you should provide an example instead of your usual tactic of just saying "that's wrong/dishonest/LIAR!/crack-whore" without a lick of evidence. Notice how when people want to claim your posts are ridiculous and full of fallacies, there is an endless sea of examples to draw from.

I expect you will in your usual fashion ignore or distort what I said, and then blame someone else for your continued ignorance.