Logical Fallacies

[HUGGY]

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.

A weak apology. Perhaps you would be "good" enough to point out in my reply what was "a wee bit loony". One cannot use a "logical fallacy" to win an argument. CLAIMING a win is not a win. I pointed out some additions to your list because you were the OP. I might have offered something else to another poster.

I commend you for your homework. I believe if you adhere to your new knowledge of stated typical methods of evading truth in debate you may learn more and defer less.

Unless your horse is Mr. Ed I doubt it will be good council in this thread.

 

[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.

A weak apology. Perhaps you would be "good" enough to point out in my reply what was "a wee bit loony". One cannot use a "logical fallacy" to win an argument. CLAIMING a win is not a win. I pointed out some additions to your list because you were the OP. I might have offered something else to another poster.

I commend you for your homework. I believe if you adhere to your new knowledge of stated typical methods of evading truth in debate you may learn more and defer less.

Unless your horse is Mr. Ed I doubt it will be good council in this thread.

My horse isn't even that fond of me, lol. She does love the kids tho.

And I was just observing your general looniness, nothing specific to this. I like it.

 

[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.

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.

I don't so much ignore them as I just don't read them. I have no patience for people who liberally sprinkle their ponderous, officious, pontificating with blatant lies, ignorance, and erroneous bullshit. You say you've made salient points, and I believe you, but I'm not interested in sifting through the crap you pile on and around them. Edit your own bullshit; if I have to separate fact from fantasy and read a bunch of crap that is neither interesting or pertinent, I opt out.

Just so you know..I've always gotten good grades in speech and debate, and I'm pulling an A so far in Critical Thinking (tho of course I'm always a hair's breadth away from flunking any class I'm taking spectacularly). I'm not ignorant or moronic, though honestly I don't care if you think I am. I like to mess around on here, it's fun and it's a break from the rigid standards I have to maintain with my writing elsewhere. But when I say your writing is not worth the read, I mean it, and I know what I'm talking about. I think you like to write but you need to focus on doing it correctly instead of trying to make yourself look smart.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't so much ignore them as I just don't read them.

And yet you comment on things anyway, which explains why you always seem to be so clueless on any given topic.

Just so you know..I've always gotten good grades in speech and debate, and I'm pulling an A so far in Critical Thinking

Yes yes dear. I'm very proud of your online degree. I don't mean to demote anyone who strives for education, but there is a clear difference between knowing factoids and practical application. I have no reason to believe or deny your claim that you are getting a grade in a class, but the misapplication of these terms combined with your blatant hypocrisy as you yourself exhibit enough logical fallacies in your posts to spur competitions of other people to find how many they can find in a single post of yours makes any such insecure claims of knowledge irrelevant. "run on sentence fallacy"

I'm not ignorant or moronic, though honestly I don't care if you think I am.

It's not just me, as proof by every other person posting in this thread. Moronic as a whole, questionable, despite saying many ridiculous things. Ignorant: definitely. I and several other people here have directly highlighted evidence to that point, which you repeatedly ignore.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear AllieBaba: What I find missing is any acknowledgement of the CONTEXT or REASON surrounding why people make this arguments back and forth.

I tried to post a reply about PROJECTION but can't find it now, nor can I find your message (I think? or was it someone else's msg?) about differences between mediation and debate?

The common dynamic when people CAN'T accept correction (even when the fallacy or error is pointed out) is that people are focused on changing another person more than they are focused on changing themselves. When both people do this, that is when these arguments tend to fly back and forth without end. They can both see the fault in the other, but the more this is pointed out, the more the resistance and barriers are reinforced.

It results in "mutual stuckness" like one of those woven "Chinese finger traps"
The more you reject and pull away from each other, the more you remain stuck yourself.
But if you push toward each other to meet in the middle, then you loosen up what binds you, and you are able to break free from the deadlock or impasse you are both in.

Whatever THAT dynamic is, is the root to be addressed!

By forgiving each other first, then all these other corrections can be made in the environment of shared respect and mutual correction "as equals" (who both have strengths and weaknesses) not as adversaries competing to make the other person wrong.

My paraphrase. Her actual idiocy was: "Abstinence only is a form of pregnancy prevention for religious people who are only allowed to have sex to produce babies.

Contraception is for everyone else with a healthy sex life.

The anti-choice movement not only is ant-abortion, but they anti-contraception. They are abstinence only religious fanatics."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/159012-pro-life-or-anti-abortion-5.html

And that is a prime example of ad hominem as well. And a couple of other fallacies.
But don't ask me what ant abortion is. I don't know.

And why do people MAKE ad hominem attacks in the first place?

Usually when one person feels attacked or targeted, or has been in the past, and this is projected on another person seen as a "representative of a group"; and then the pattern repeats so both sides feel attacked and rejected equally.

And what is the purpose of ad hominem attacks?

To reinforce walls to justify not having to change one's position since the problem is clearly with the other side!

Just use words to throw all the blame on the other person's side of the fence.

If people cannot forgive and heal of negative experiences or associations, it is often projected or pushed into someone else's space, by emotional verbal or even physical abuse, to try to relieve this anger or pain by expressing it negatively.