| so ye people on internet arguments likes to talk about logical fallacies but why though? in a normal or casual conversation you do not say this fallacies to begin with i voted i do not know |
degNov 21, 2018 11:44 PM
internet arguments You see, there's already a problem here. |
| No I mean, fallacies have their place. But just be careful not to fall back on them. Nobody can stop you if you want to scream 'NONSENSCIAL STRAW MAN OLOL' every time you're faced with an opposing viewpoint. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| Fallacies, especially formal fallacies, make the argument invalid, but not necessarily the conclusion. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Railey2 said: Fallacies, especially formal fallacies, make the argument invalid, but not necessarily the conclusion. thats very important since arguments are not always about logical arguments to begin with |
deg said: ah, that's really not what I meant, and I'm not sure what you meant to say there, but this is what I was going for:Railey2 said: Fallacies, especially formal fallacies, make the argument invalid, but not necessarily the conclusion. thats very important since arguments are not always about logical arguments to begin with If I say that, for example, "rain is wet because trees are green", I just committed a non sequitur. The argument (trees are green, therefore rain is wet) is incorrect. The premise is wrong too. Trees aren't even green. But the conclusion is still correct, because rain is clearly wet. |
Railey2Nov 21, 2018 2:26 PM
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| Well, seeing as how it'd be a conversation, I'd ask them why they believe it's a fallacy. There are several things within this that I could talk about though, to be honest. Firstly, in any discussion regardless of whether it's a topic that is purely "logical" or "abstract", if someone is articulating their thoughts poorly it weakens their position. So, in some cases, they can be accused of logical inconsistency and the like, but only because they aren't so great with their discourse. Secondly, I think in any case, if one side is only looking to pick apart the others statements, it's no longer a discussion. Generally speaking, if you were interested in the discourse, you'd ask questions- not make off-hand comments or accusations. Clarify, clarify, clarify, is what I would say- And if you aren't, then it's probably not a discussion. Finally, even if you weaken someone's position, it doesn't necessarily make the entire thing invalid. For example, if someone was debating the scoring of an anime; Regardless of someones opinions, you can't entirely invalidate a position that's so subjective. However, you can remove a lot of the support for the position because it lacks enough merit to be convincing to others. |
 |
Tenma said: Secondly, I think in any case, if one side is only looking to pick apart the others statements, it's no longer a discussion. Generally speaking, if you were interested in the discourse, you'd ask questions- not make off-hand comments or accusations. Clarify, clarify, clarify, is what I would say- And if you aren't, then it's probably not a discussion. yep thats the thing about pointing out fallacies from what i observe |
deg said: Tenma said: Secondly, I think in any case, if one side is only looking to pick apart the others statements, it's no longer a discussion. Generally speaking, if you were interested in the discourse, you'd ask questions- not make off-hand comments or accusations. Clarify, clarify, clarify, is what I would say- And if you aren't, then it's probably not a discussion. yep thats the thing about pointing out fallacies from what i observe Pretty much, yeah. Most people resort to picking apart things they disagree with. It's easier than contending with the ideas, and the possibility we're wrong. I would say the only time it's appropriate to bring up fallacies, is when it's something with a very solid sensory definition or extensive historical reference; meaning, something that has been experienced by humans for a very long time. If it's tangible, and you try to redefine it or alter it, you're living in fiction. |
|
deg said: As much as you'd like the liberal power to assert bullshit without defense, you're not going to get it, because fallacies do occur in real conversation and they get called out. Perhaps differently. Let's review. If someone said something that's flat out incoherent in real life, I'm not going to say, "Dude you just affirmed the consequent." I'm going to say something more like, "Dude, you're fucking full of shit. So you think if a wall was red, everything else has to be red?"so ye people on internet arguments likes to talk about logical fallacies but why though? in a normal or casual conversation you do not say this fallacies to begin with i voted i do not know Then, most likely he'll be a little tool and say, "That's not what I said at all." But it is. Exactly what he said. He just can't realize it because his little brain isn't capable of comprehending basic logic so he can go waste someone else's time with that bullshit. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Anushura said: It's hard to believe you studied this for a year and can't tell the difference between a valid argument and a sound conclusion. The structure of the argument you posted, A->B, B->C, therefore A->C is a syllogism, or the transitive property. This argument is valid, no matter what A, B, and C is. It means that if someone argued with this structure and it was wrong, he made an a posteriori factual mistake, and we can discuss those facts.Logic doesn't solve anything and is good enough to earn brownie points nothing more . Raj is girl . Girl is beautiful . Raj is beautiful . This kind of deduction on facts depend on the infallibility of the facts . On the other hand I consider inference/induction to be a better means to logic but not a perfect one either . But if someone insisted A->B, A->C, B->C or some other nonsense, he is wrong (i.e. making an invalid argument) regardless of what the facts are. It would, in fact, be a waste of time to argue with him about facts. People can be ignorant of facts. Facts require evidence. They are arguable. Logic does not require evidence, since it is self-evident. It is inarguable. Upon pointing out a mistake of logical nature, if someone does not reconcile, then it is a waste of time "discussing" anything with him because he clearly either enjoys bullshitting or is incapable of thought itself (i.e. he is stupid). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
fucking kek i remember that short period where arguments on CE literally devolved into people just making up fallacies. "nice anecdote-fallacy" "well what about-fallacy" "why not be just be nice-fallacy" "fallacy-fallacy".  |
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
Yomiyuki said: Well if people made up fallacies that would be a "fallacy fallacy", but just because Immanoob or (insert favorite pleb here) abused these terms doesn't there aren't tactics of rhetoric used to underhandedly confuse the opponent regardless of facts, and regardless of whether the user knows he is using these tactics.fucking kek i remember that short period where arguments on CE literally devolved into people just making up fallacies. "nice anecdote-fallacy" "well what about-fallacy" "why not be just be nice-fallacy" "fallacy-fallacy" If I argued, "God is real because nature is perfectly ordered. I went out in my backyard and found a leaf with a perfect spiral on it.", that would be an anecdote that completely ignores the billions of non-perfect spirals in nature (and it would happen to ignore what the mosaic virus is). There are people who feel flustered when they get called out, I get that. If someone gets called out for a mistake, they can either accept it and make changes, or mock people pointing out the mistake. These are people not ignorant because they don't know the facts, they are ignorant because they know the facts but rejects them. What else is there to say to people who reject undeniable logical facts besides treat them like a pitiful child? P.S. This post is not about who I quoted, but maybe a passive aggressive shot at everyone who already knows who they are before this thread even existed. After all, you can't close your eyes and not feel any pressure on your lids. You just can't be that in the dark to know you're in the dark. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I think it is moreso on the line of what is within one's capability to truthfully understand and remain as you are, whereas; there's internet argumentation. I find it hard to believe that one would ought to say that both are virtually and definitely the same. Anushura said: When I studied logic and reasoning in last year of college I came across stuff called fallacy . Though I don't remember much , I should say that their is limits to rationality . Logic doesn't solve anything and is good enough to earn brownie points nothing more . Raj is girl . Girl is beautiful . Raj is beautiful . This kind of deduction on facts depend on the infallibility of the facts . On the other hand I consider inference/induction to be a better means to logic but not a perfect one either . This logic is clearly wrong because Raj is not a trap, therefore not beautiful. |
_Ako_Nov 21, 2018 7:19 PM
katsucats said: deg said: As much as you'd like the liberal power to assert bullshit without defense, you're not going to get it, because fallacies do occur in real conversation and they get called out. Perhaps differently. Let's review. If someone said something that's flat out incoherent in real life, I'm not going to say, "Dude you just affirmed the consequent." I'm going to say something more like, "Dude, you're fucking full of shit. So you think if a wall was red, everything else has to be red?"so ye people on internet arguments likes to talk about logical fallacies but why though? in a normal or casual conversation you do not say this fallacies to begin with i voted i do not know Then, most likely he'll be a little tool and say, "That's not what I said at all." But it is. Exactly what he said. He just can't realize it because his little brain isn't capable of comprehending basic logic so he can go waste someone else's time with that bullshit. good instead of stating fallacies by name then why not explain it in laymans terms that majority of people can understand naturally |
Anushura said: Logic does not require empirical facts. Logic itself is an analytic fact.But I do think,logic require facts and facts keep changing with new evidence . deg said: Why should I put in the effort to correct someone's who's so lazy he neglected to think about his statements before he said them?good instead of stating fallacies by name then why not explain it in laymans terms that majority of people can understand naturally Eight-Man said: Only if they're not actually fallacies, otherwise it's just some shit you made up to one-up your opponents like a "I know you are, but what am I" child.Pointing out fallacies in your opponent's argument as your argument is the fallacy fallacy; a common mistake for those learning to master the art of rhetoric. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: deg said: Why should I put in the effort to correct someone's who's so lazy he neglected to think about his statements before he said them?good instead of stating fallacies by name then why not explain it in laymans terms that majority of people can understand naturally you think fallacies are like common sense too? why i got a feeling you are just bragging about your intelligence here and saying the layman person are just lazy |
deg said: Why do I have the feeling that you just want shit handed to you with a golden spoon? Because I'm right. People have explained shit to you in detail, but you just blow right past it, in one ear, out the other. Why do you suppose people should waste time educating you on things that you can easily Google for yourself? It takes two to have a conversation. If there isn't, I'd rather talk to my plant. It's more therapeutic.katsucats said: you think fallacies are like common sense too? why i got a feeling you are just bragging about your intelligence here and saying the layman person are just lazy Why should I put in the effort to correct someone's who's so lazy he neglected to think about his statements before he said them? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Flevalt said: deg said: you think fallacies are like common sense too? why i got a feeling you are just bragging about your intelligence here and saying the layman person are just lazy Why would someone be bragging about their lack of intelligence though? Please. im not saying that, im just pointing out the arrogant or rude behavior of katsucats when he said those who lack intelligence are just lazy to think |
deg said: I didn't say you lack intelligence, I said you're too lazy to think. But if you say you lack intelligence, then I stand corrected.im not saying that, im just pointing out the arrogant or rude behavior of katsucats when he said those who lack intelligence are just lazy to think |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: deg said: I didn't say you lack intelligence, I said you're too lazy to think. But if you say you lack intelligence, then I stand corrected.im not saying that, im just pointing out the arrogant or rude behavior of katsucats when he said those who lack intelligence are just lazy to think good now explain things in layman terms so that low intelligence people like me can care enough to know what youre talking about those logical fallacies are like jargon to the layman is what im pointing out |
degNov 22, 2018 8:02 PM
deg said: Which logical fallacy, or should I buy you the entire dictionary?katsucats said: good now explain things in layman terms so that low intelligence people like me can care enough to know what youre talking about I didn't say you lack intelligence, I said you're too lazy to think. But if you say you lack intelligence, then I stand corrected. those logical fallacies are like jargon to the layman is what im pointing out |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| In reality is normal, there are bias which are instinctive behaviors and sometime we are mistaken for this. Bias are not wrong itself, clearly in some situation can be a problem. Anyway the rationality isn't the only way and it's limited, but it's important to understand some aspect to the world, maybe depend also the context. The big problem of the rationality is when we justify our self for irrational behaviors |
Flevalt said: I intended to ignore your extended ad hominem rant about people pretending to be intellectual because they don't dumb things down for you, which is supremely ironic, but I guess I'll give my 2 cents. There's a difference between someone not knowing what they're talking about, and someone not understanding what said person is talking about. Often, the latter gets penis envy, and in a fit of perceived inferiority lashes out their projections. That's how we get all these people claiming "fallacy fallacy", the supposed act of pointing out someone's fallacy, is actually a fallacy, even if the fallacy pointed out is real. Fallacies, by definition, invalidate the argument.Their last post Intention: Insulting the other person. Means: Pretends that "now explain things in layman terms" was you actually asking them to explain the meaning of a logical fallacy to you, despite all of your posts from beginning to end having been about a philosophical standpoint of how to behave in general, specifically while a fallacy pops up during an argument. Meaning, you asked them to change their behavior, yet they read it as (or they pretend that you meant) a request for an explanation of a term. Now, I think my posts are "laymen" enough, but if you have trouble cogitating, I suggest you bust out a dictionary. Self improvement is always the better alternative than whining. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: The fallacy fallacy is actually legit.Flevalt said: I intended to ignore your extended ad hominem rant about people pretending to be intellectual because they don't dumb things down for you, which is supremely ironic, but I guess I'll give my 2 cents. There's a difference between someone not knowing what they're talking about, and someone not understanding what said person is talking about. Often, the latter gets penis envy, and in a fit of perceived inferiority lashes out their projections. That's how we get all these people claiming "fallacy fallacy", the supposed act of pointing out someone's fallacy, is actually a fallacy, even if the fallacy pointed out is real. Fallacies, by definition, invalidate the argument.Their last post Intention: Insulting the other person. Means: Pretends that "now explain things in layman terms" was you actually asking them to explain the meaning of a logical fallacy to you, despite all of your posts from beginning to end having been about a philosophical standpoint of how to behave in general, specifically while a fallacy pops up during an argument. Meaning, you asked them to change their behavior, yet they read it as (or they pretend that you meant) a request for an explanation of a term. The fallacy fallacy states that a fallacy doesn't automatically invalidate a conclusion, "only" an argument. So I might say "vitamin C is good for your immune system because its natural", thereby committing a fallacy by appeal to nature, but if you point that out and say that Vitamin C is therefore not good for your immune system, you have committed the fallacy fallacy. The problem isn't the fallacy fallacy, it's that people seem to think that they are done after saying "hah, you committed the fallacy fallacy". They admitted that their initial argument was fallacious, which means that the onus to prove their initial assertion is still on them. So if I go ahead and say "katsu, you committed the fallacy fallacy by saying that Vit C isn't good because I used the appeal to nature", I'm totally correct and yet I'm still losing the argument on Vit C. That's the part people don't seem to get. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| I actually kind of tested this on this very forum for a bit. For a few weeks I played the smart-ass on this forum and constantly pointed out fallacies based on a list on wikipedia and some other sites. The result? Pretty much nothing but ridicule. People I called out responded with strongly sarcastic undertones about my own supposed fallacies (they were mostly wrong, but some did actually hit home) and I noticed that it was pretty much pointless. It was a total failure that only resulted in excessive hostility by my conversation partners. Then at some other point I tried something else, which is persuasion, and so for a few weeks I almost exclusively pointed out only what appears to be cognitive dissonance and with only the big picture of the person I am arguing with in mind and keeping myself polite from beginning to end, I encountered a very shocking result: I couldn't convince the person to change their mind, but not only did the people I argued with become more open minded toward my position at least, the people I argued with also suddenly took a liking to me and even thanked me on my profile page or PMs "for the good discussions"! It was unbelievable, but it appears if you dig into the other persons' (mental) sensitive spots while keeping it polite you can get them to like you and be more receptive towards your own words, all that while you are technically going a bit off-topic and actually use a rather special kind of ad hominem, but appearently it's much more effective than doing things in the "technically correct way". And by the way, it was not only due to politeness, because at other points I have been polite but was posting normally and the result was that a discussion didn't even really started, because the politeness by itself only ends any arguments pre-maturely. That's the difference of being a smart-ass that tries to flaunt their supposedly "fallacy-free high-level arguments" and someone who knows about applied persuasion. |
Grey-ZoneNov 23, 2018 10:40 AM
 |
| @Grey-Zone ye its the backfire effect at work, people usually defend more their beliefs if they are challenged thats why its more effective as you said to be more polite and explain things in simple terms so that there wont be much resistance on taking the other sides arguments |
deg said: @Grey-Zone ye its the backfire effect at work, people usually defend more their beliefs if they are challenged thats why its more effective as you said to be more polite and explain things in simple terms so that there wont be much resistance on taking the other sides arguments But as I said, being polite by itself doesn't work. You do still have to somewhat get under the other person's skin before you can soften them towards your position and yourself. In terms of persuasion it's the concept of "using just the right amount of wrongness", or whatever the official term for that is. It makes sure that the other person has your attention the entire time and if you do the combination right, you can even add the concept of (metaphorically) "killing with kindness", if the other person is aggressive. By the way, pointing out fallacies is not really "invalid", but rather "ineffective", as I don't think that pointing them out is "forbidden". |
|
Grey-Zone said: By the way, pointing out fallacies is not really "invalid", but rather "ineffective", as I don't think that pointing them out is "forbidden". its as good as invalid in everyday talks or casual conversations is what im saying but of course its not forbidden to says those fallacies especially in formal arguments |
deg said: Grey-Zone said: By the way, pointing out fallacies is not really "invalid", but rather "ineffective", as I don't think that pointing them out is "forbidden". its as good as invalid in everyday talks or casual conversations is what im saying but of course its not forbidden to says those fallacies especially in formal arguments Well, OK. One thing I learned is that arguing about definitions of words is pretty much always a huge waste of time, even more so if it's about words that have multiple meanings. Let's just say "I get what you mean to say" and leave it at that. |
|
Grey-Zone said: Haha. Semantics happen to be my favorite branch in philosophy because it is so pertinent in everyday arguments. A lot of people say "that's just semantics!", as if the meanings of words aren't important, but the so-called semantic fallacy only applies when people argue the definition of words when they are not central to the argument. In many cases, they are.One thing I learned is that arguing about definitions of words is pretty much always a huge waste of time, even more so if it's about words that have multiple meanings. Let's just say "I get what you mean to say" and leave it at that. One of the most common and insidious tactics is to use different definitions of words as if they are the same. Most people don't even realize that they're doing this because these ideas have been so ingrained into our culture, and arguing semantics is looked down on by people who don't know what they're doing. Examples. P1. Judges should be objective. P2. Reviewers judge anime. C1. Reviewers should be objective, not subjective. This conflates 2 definitions of objective. In the case of a court judge, he must be impartial between 2 parties, the prosecutor and the defendant. Therefore, he is the "objective" third party. But he is not impartial to himself, so is subjective. Objectivity/subjectivity is not a judgment between 2 external parties, but whether a person exercises his own perceptions. Here's another one: P1. Chemicals are often bad for you. P2. (Something) has tons of chemicals. C1. (Something) is bad for you. Note that these arguments are valid, but unsound. Because in P1, the argument most likely refers to chemicals as compounds that have been artificially purified. Then in P2 and the conclusion, it ignores that most chemicals are natural, and in fact everything literally are made up of chemicals. Here's another one: P1. Good deeds exist. P2. God is absolute good. C1. Therefore, God exists. In P1, we are introduced to good, the common definition. Then in P2, the argument pulls a fast one on us by defining God in some odd way such that it is synonymous to "good', whatever that means. Here's one: P1. Randomness is a quantum principle. P2. Sometimes, people do random ass things. C1. Things people do must be regulated by quantum principle. This one conflates that quantum uncertainty has a very specific scientific definition that's different than what people ordinarily find uncertain. This is related to P1. Theories are unproven. P2. Evolution is a theory. C1. Evolution is unproven. This has 2 conflations, theory and unproven. The common definition of theory is that it's just a conjecture, something we are unsure about. The scientific definition is that it's a formalized explanation of scientific laws that are continuously tested and have never been found wrong. If anything, there is nothing we can be more sure about. Proven suggests that things must be proved to be true -- likely a conception from analytic facts (e.g. math). However, in empirical facts, nothing is ever absolutely proven. So as you can see, these kinds of things pervade our daily lives, and is impossible to just brush under the rug. It's unfortunate that the same people who regularly make these kinds of mistakes are also the same people who want us to ignore them, and criticize people who call them out on their bullshit. Because they're so brainwashed and indoctrinated by these cultural truisms that they refuse to even consider any analysis about them. That's the real reason some people find logic and semantics incomprehensible -- their cognitive dissonance. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Railey2 said: Thanks for pointing this out. I suppose if someone believes the conclusion is proven false by proven the argument invalid or unsound, then the "fallacy fallacy" is apt. I would agree that most people who use this don't realize, then, that proving an argument invalid or unsound is completely rational grounds for rejecting the assertion of the conclusion, if not necessarily the conclusion itself.The fallacy fallacy is actually legit. The fallacy fallacy states that a fallacy doesn't automatically invalidate a conclusion, "only" an argument. So I might say "vitamin C is good for your immune system because its natural", thereby committing a fallacy by appeal to nature, but if you point that out and say that Vitamin C is therefore not good for your immune system, you have committed the fallacy fallacy. The problem isn't the fallacy fallacy, it's that people seem to think that they are done after saying "hah, you committed the fallacy fallacy". They admitted that their initial argument was fallacious, which means that the onus to prove their initial assertion is still on them. So if I go ahead and say "katsu, you committed the fallacy fallacy by saying that Vit C isn't good because I used the appeal to nature", I'm totally correct and yet I'm still losing the argument on Vit C. That's the part people don't seem to get. For example, let X be an invalid argument, and someone argues: "God exists because X." Since X is invalid, his reason for believing in God is invalid regardless of whether God itself is invalid -- it is enough/sufficient grounds for him to stop asserting God. P.S. Notice how even after we spend paragraphs explaining our positions, people like Flevault and deg will still be convinced that we're just "flaunting" our introductory critical thinking level intelligence. |
katsucatsNov 23, 2018 1:11 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
nicethings said: Grey-Zone said: By the way, pointing out fallacies is not really "invalid", but rather "ineffective", as I don't think that pointing them out is "forbidden". SAYS THE FELLA WHOSE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BAISIS ON THE FORUMS IS DEDICATED TO POINTING OUT OTHER PEOPLE'S FALLACIES hypocrisy, check yourself, before you wreck yourself That was part of the "few weeks" in which I deliberately argued like that, as an experiment. How about actually reading the contents of the thread instead of just jumping into this thread just to once again pointlessly voice your childish grudge on me? Though to be honest I feel honored that you let me live rent free in your head like this. Your hatred against me just makes me appear more influential than I probably am and makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum ;) @Railey2 Yes, you are right about a debunked argument only invalidating the argument itself and not the conclusion the argument was ment to make. Unfortunately people make this mistake all the time. @katsucats Indeed, semantics can matter, but that usually involves stuff like that one incident where someone made the handsign formed by thumb and index fingers forming a circle with the remaining three fingers stretched out sperately and a media-wide discussion broke out about whether that's the traditional "A-OK" sign or whether it's that "new" out-of-nowhere meaning of "White Power" it supposedly now also holds. Basically it's only used in the act of mind-reading someone who said something and personally I have come to despise the mind-reading habit of people. Recently I deliberately try to hold myself back from reaching conclusions if the words used can have multiple interpretations. It's better to ask the person in question directly if possible instead instead of a pointless back and worth of "Person A ment X - No! Person A ment Y!", so in conclusion the arguments about semantics never reach any meaningful conclusion unless you actually ask the person in question themselves to clarify, otherwise all the arguments are 100% speculation, unless the context can somehow provide a definite answer. |
Grey-ZoneNov 24, 2018 12:21 PM
|
Grey-Zone said: Yes, if a person gives a satisfactory clarification, I'll give him benefit of the doubt. If a person stumbles on his words, contradicts himself 3 times, or refuses to answer some questions without lawyers present, I'm going to just assume, right or wrong, that he's full of shit. Unfortunately, at least on MAL, when I ask people for clarification, it's usually the latter.nicethings said: SAYS THE FELLA WHOSE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BAISIS ON THE FORUMS IS DEDICATED TO POINTING OUT OTHER PEOPLE'S FALLACIES hypocrisy, check yourself, before you wreck yourself That was part of the "few weeks" in which I deliberately argued like that, as an experiment. How about actually reading the contents of the thread instead of just jumping into this thread just to once again pointlessly voice your childish grudge on me? Though to be honest I feel honored that you let me live rent free in your head like this. Your hatred against me just makes me appear more influential than I probably am and makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum ;) @Railey2 Yes, you are right about a debunked argument only invalidating the argument itself and not the conclusion the argument was ment to make. Unfortunately people make this mistake all the time. @katsucats Indeed, semantics can matter, but that usually involves stuff like that one incident where someone made the handsign formed by thumb and index fingers forming a circle with the remaining three fingers stretched out sperately and a media-wide discussion broke out about whether that's the traditional "A-OK" sign or whether it's that "new" out-of-nowhere meaning of "White Power" it supposedly now also holds. Basically it's only used in the act of mind-reading someone who said something and personally I have come to despise the mind-reading habit of people. Recently I deliberately try to hold myself back from reaching conclusions if the words used can have multiple interpretations. It's better to ask the person in question directly if possible instead instead of a pointless back and worth of "Person A ment X - No! Person A ment Y!", so in conclusion the arguments about semantics never reach any meaningful conclusion unless you actually ask the person in question themselves to clarify, otherwise all the arguments are 100% speculation, unless the context can somehow provide a definite answer. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - 7 hours ago |
12 |
by GinIonSui
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - 3 hours ago |
12 |
by deg
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» MAL Sakuga ClubaemnTheTroll - Apr 16 |
18 |
by aemnTheTroll
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» Are you e-famous? Are you an Internet celebrity?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
31 |
by deg
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Is English your native language? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 16 |
59 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
25 minutes ago |