ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 30th December 2016, 05:50 PM   #481
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
More blatant falsity.

Really sad.
No, I'm sorry, you seem to have misinterpreted me this time.

Here's what I meant.

There is a post found here. About this post, you said the following.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.
I think we can all see that you are claiming that sts60 is dismissing an argument that Candidate A (Hillary) is dishonest. Agreed?

Let us look at what sts60 actually says. I won't repeat it here, since I've given a link and highlighted the appropriate portion a couple of times. What he says, in effect, is that he is not disputing the claim that Hillary is dishonest.

So, let's repeat this: you say sts60 dismisses the argument that Hillary is dishonest, when a casual glance at the post in question shows that he explicitly accepts this claim. Given that this dismissal is, in fact, a necessary condition for sts60's post to be a tu quoque, it is clear that your assessment fails.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 05:51 PM   #482
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We are actually at the point where people don't understand that "he did it too!" Is fallacious, let alone why it is fallacious.
By itself, "he did it too!" is not fallacious. It's merely an assertion, which may be true or false.

The question is one of context. Surely, you can see that obvious point.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 05:53 PM   #483
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
And now he cuts out the sentence where I explained it in detail

Absolulutely intellectual dishonesty.

Really sad.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 06:14 PM   #484
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And now he cuts out the sentence where I explained it in detail

Absolulutely intellectual dishonesty.

Really sad.
Explained it? Let's look at the two paragraphs in detail, shall we?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.

As I previously pointed out in this thread, the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.
As I've pointed out, the first paragraph is plainly false. Undeniably so. sts60 did not dismiss any argument that Clinton was dishonest, but rather accepted the claim explicitly.

Now, let's look at the second paragraph. Does it "explain" the first? No, not at all, since the first asserts that sts60 denies that Clinton was dishonest and the second paragraph asserts no such thing, nor does it "explain" the false assertion of the first.

The second paragraph is in fact a bit hard to understand in the context of a tu quoque claim. I'm not sure what you're saying there, but it matters little, since it is utterly clear, undeniably obvious in fact, that sts60 has not dismissed any argument that Clinton was dishonest -- and hence has not dismissed it on the basis of alleged hypocrisy.

We may, of course, look at the second paragraph in more detail, but first let's determine whether or not you accept that the claim of the first paragraph is just as obviously false as I have said. One issue at a time, fair enough?

Last edited by phiwum; 30th December 2016 at 06:21 PM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 08:10 PM   #485
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
jesus wept.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 08:15 PM   #486
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
jesus wept.
Well, I'm sorry for Jesus, but have you any rebuttal?

Are you or are you not claiming that sts60 dismissed arguments that Clinton was dishonest? If so, what do you mean by "dismissed", given that he explicitly accepted that she was dishonest?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 08:24 PM   #487
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
As I previously pointed out in this thread, the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.

christ
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 08:55 PM   #488
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We are actually at the point where people don't understand that "he did it too!" Is fallacious, let alone why it is fallacious.
We might be at the point where people don't understand what a fallacy actually is.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 09:05 PM   #489
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We might be at the point where people don't understand what a fallacy actually is.
People, or canines?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 09:31 PM   #490
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
As I previously pointed out in this thread, the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.

christ
Fine, show me where in that post sts60 dismissed anything as irrelevant.

It's a short post. Two paragraphs. Enough for him to say that he is frustrated by the hypocrisy while accepting that Hillary acted dishonestly. But he never once says that this dishonest action is irrelevant, does he?

So, tell me why you think that this is what he meant, even though he never said anything like that.

ETA: Note, by the way, that tu quoque has nothing to do with "dismissing as irrelevant". If you say I shouldn't buy a bagel sandwich because it has gluten, and I point out that all the lunch choices have gluten, then it is indeed irrelevant whether the bagel has gluten or not. That would not be a fallacy of any sort.

Last edited by phiwum; 30th December 2016 at 09:40 PM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 09:32 PM   #491
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We might be at the point where people don't understand what a fallacy actually is.
I believe you'll find my definition upthread, without any poetic images of "path of knowledge" ******** required.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 09:48 PM   #492
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
The bagel example is the clearest example I have ever seen that people do not know what a tu quoque fallacy is.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 10:00 PM   #493
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The bagel example is the clearest example I have ever seen that people do not know what a tu quoque fallacy is.
Do tell. Explain the error in my reasoning, dear boy. Show me how the bagel example is a tu quoque fallacy or how it differs from your misreading of sts60's post.

But, before you bother, show us where sts60 claims that Hillary's dishonesty is irrelevant. That would be a great place to start. I reproduce the post once again, for your convenience.

Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.
Do please highlight the line that suggests her dishonesty is irrelevant. You can do that, right? If it is implicit, then tell us how to infer the irrelevance from what is written above.

Thanks much. Always eager to learn at your feet, etc.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 12:17 AM   #494
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,042
It's like he doesn't realize that people are capable of cordially expressing and exploring their disagreements. He can't get out of pro-wrestling mode.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 02:34 AM   #495
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
It's like he doesn't realize that people are capable of cordially expressing and exploring their disagreements. He can't get out of pro-wrestling mode.
He finds it pathologically impossible to admit error and will not accept, from any authority anywhere, even the suggestion that he might be in error.

I suspect that's all we need to give his arguments the weight they deserve.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 07:46 AM   #496
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
With due respect, let's listen to whatever meager evidence the so-called Big Dog can muster regarding his interpretation of a fairly explicit two paragraphs. His previous behavior is irrelevant.

He claims that sts60 dismissed the fact that Hillary was dishonest as irrelevant. Already, I think it's clear that he is going off-script, since a tu quoque fallacy has to do with dismissing the argument that she is dishonest, not with claiming that her dishonesty is irrelevant. It might be a subtle point for some, but there's a very clear difference if one thinks about it carefully.

Nonetheless, let's give our intrepid thinker the benefit of the doubt and not tie him to a particular fallacy which is clearly beyond his reach. Let us instead ask him where it was that sts60 claimed that Hillary's dishonesty was irrelevant. If we can find that, then we may ask whether or not the bulk of sts60's (completely implicit) argument would be fallacious. (Hint: the whole bagel digression was to point out that it might not be fallacious.)

In any case, the ball is in The Big Dog's court. Let's see whether he can indeed give any evidence that sts60 actually claimed that Hillary's dishonesty was irrelevant.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 09:49 AM   #497
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
It's like he doesn't realize that people are capable of cordially expressing and exploring their disagreements. He can't get out of pro-wrestling mode.
amen.

Say I answered your question a couple of pages ago.

Are you in the group that believes the original post was an attempt to make a point, albeit fallacious, or the group that thinks it was merely venting/insult?

Or something else.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 09:58 AM   #498
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,042
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
amen.

Say I answered your question a couple of pages ago.

Are you in the group that believes the original post was an attempt to make a point, albeit fallacious, or the group that thinks it was merely venting/insult?

Or something else.
I think it's a little bit of both. There was obvious venting and making a point about inconsistency in reasoning.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 10:20 AM   #499
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I think it's a little bit of both. There was obvious venting and making a point about inconsistency in reasoning.
"inconsistency in reasoning."

Say, now we can talk about the myriad reasons why it is fallacious. I have already covered the fact that the response does not falsify the original reason for not voting for Candidate A.

But another reason is, of course, is that the response leads to a derail, in this case in particular, because one may be tempted to address the response. Let us use a hypothetical:

A: I did not vote for Candidate X because she is dishonest.
B: But you voted for Candidate Z and he is dishonest too!
A:I don't think Z is dishonest.
B: but Z is, here is an article...
A: that article is biased and the situation involving Z is totally different.....
extensive derail proceeds.

The original point is forgotten (which certainly was one of the purposes of the original fallacious response)

You will also note that the fact that B thinks Z is dishonest tells us nothing about whether A's reasoning is inconsistent.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:06 AM   #500
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"inconsistency in reasoning."

Say, now we can talk about the myriad reasons why it is fallacious. I have already covered the fact that the response does not falsify the original reason for not voting for Candidate A.

But another reason is, of course, is that the response leads to a derail, in this case in particular, because one may be tempted to address the response. Let us use a hypothetical:

A: I did not vote for Candidate X because she is dishonest.
B: But you voted for Candidate Z and he is dishonest too!
A:I don't think Z is dishonest.
B: but Z is, here is an article...
A: that article is biased and the situation involving Z is totally different.....
extensive derail proceeds.

The original point is forgotten (which certainly was one of the purposes of the original fallacious response)

You will also note that the fact that B thinks Z is dishonest tells us nothing about whether A's reasoning is inconsistent.
I don't see anything here about tu quoque. Are you abandoning that position in favor of hypothetical distractions?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:28 AM   #501
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Wow.

Some of the most disengenuous posts I have ever seen in my life in this thread.

Pathetic.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:47 AM   #502
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wow.

Some of the most disengenuous posts I have ever seen in my life in this thread.

Pathetic.
If you were perhaps to support your claims that sts60 dismissed Clinton's dishonesty as irrelevant, you would be on better ground. As it is, it appears that there is some disingenuity here, but it is not on my side of the conversation.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:57 AM   #503
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,042
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Some of the most disengenuous posts I have ever seen in my life in this thread.

Pathetic.
On the contrary: Proofreading your posts is a good habit.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 12:06 PM   #504
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
On the contrary: Proofreading your posts is a good habit.
I have machines that do that for me.

__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 31st December 2016 at 12:11 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 12:09 PM   #505
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I have machines that do that for me.
That's nice. Have you decided to focus on such irrelevancies rather than support your claim about sts60's point? Do you intend to show where he said Hillary's dishonesty was irrelevant, or perhaps how you inferred it from a post which made no such explicit claim?

Thanks much. Always eager to hear your latest deep thoughts.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 01:09 PM   #506
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wow.

Some of the most disengenuous posts I have ever seen in my life in this thread.

Pathetic.
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
On the contrary: Proofreading your posts is a good habit.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I have machines that do that for me.

It appears your machines have failed you. I wonder if your previous attitude about other posters not proofreading their posts might be a reason to proofread your own (especially given an apparent inability to admit error).

The word you want is "disingenuous"
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 01:17 PM   #507
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
here's a pretty good website that includes basic definitions that are consistent with my previous links and my explanations.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Interestingly, you will see that tu quoque is identified as an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, which ties in directly with the links I posted above.

You know the B-b-bu-But Bush example from rational wiki.

Good stuff, better support for my explanations.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 31st December 2016 at 01:18 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 01:21 PM   #508
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
here's a pretty good website that includes basic definitions that are consistent with my previous links and my explanations.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Interestingly, you will see that tu quoque is identified as an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, which ties in directly with the links I posted above.

You know the B-b-bu-But Bush example from rational wiki.

Good stuff, better support for my explanations.
You seem to have utterly failed to respond to any of the questions I raised in this post, for instance. Shall we address that?

Again, ignoring the fact that your current claim has ****-all to do with tu quoque, why not show how sts60 ever suggested that Clinton's dishonesty was irrelevant. That's a good lad.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 03:56 PM   #509
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
You'll note in that link I posted that a tu quoque is categorized as a fallacy of relevance, as are all types of ad hominem fallacies.

Good stuff.

Putting the education back into this web site.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 04:03 PM   #510
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You'll note in that link I posted that a tu quoque is categorized as a fallacy of relevance, as are all types of ad hominem fallacies.

Good stuff.

Putting the education back into this web site.
Yes, a tu quoque is a fallacy of relevance. That is because one's apparent hypocrisy is irrelevant to the validity/strength of one's argument. It is not because the tu quoque asserts that an argument is irrelevant.

Don't you understand the classification of fallacies?

ETA: I still invite you to illustrate where sts60 claimed that Clinton's dishonesty was irrelevant. Do you plan to do so?

Last edited by phiwum; 31st December 2016 at 04:05 PM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 04:39 PM   #511
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You'll note in that link I posted that a tu quoque is categorized as a fallacy of relevance, as are all types of ad hominem fallacies.

Good stuff.

Putting the education back into this web site.
Quote:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

another good discussion why tu quoque fallacies are such bad arguments. In fact, what we see is that the post in question actually concedes the original point that Candidate A was dishonest but suggests that it is irrelevant because all the Candidates were dishonest. Notably, although the tu quoque fallacy is one of relevance, not all tu quoque fallacies dismiss the argument on the basis that it is irrelevant such as we have seen here.

That is presumably because there is in fact no dispute that Candidate A was dishonest and wanted to employee the tu quoque as a diversionary tactic, as explained above.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 04:47 PM   #512
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,042
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
suggests that it is irrelevant
Sts60 didn't do this.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 05:18 PM   #513
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sts60 didn't do this.
Yes, actually he did, although I note that I have been significantly more generous than others who accuse the post in question merely of venting.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 05:30 PM   #514
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

another good discussion why tu quoque fallacies are such bad arguments. In fact, what we see is that the post in question actually concedes the original point that Candidate A was dishonest but suggests that it is irrelevant because all the Candidates were dishonest. Notably, although the tu quoque fallacy is one of relevance, not all tu quoque fallacies dismiss the argument on the basis that it is irrelevant such as we have seen here.

That is presumably because there is in fact no dispute that Candidate A was dishonest and wanted to employee the tu quoque as a diversionary tactic, as explained above.
Let's be clear: we are not discussing whether or not "Candidate A" is dishonest. That is a point of fact that has nothing to do with whether or not sts60's post was an example of tu quoque.

Now that this is explicit, let's return to your utterly bizarre interpretation. For now, I won't challenge your addled notion of tu quoque. Rather, you say once again that sts60 has dismissed Clinton's dishonesty as irrelevant. Again, I'd like for you to indicate where he did that in those two short paragraphs.

If you cannot show how sts60 dismissed Clinton's dishonesty as irrelevant then basic intellectual honesty requires that you give up this claim.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 05:32 PM   #515
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yes, actually he did, although I note that I have been significantly more generous than others who accuse the post in question merely of venting.
Go ahead. Show us where sts60 said any such thing.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 06:44 PM   #516
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The bagel example is the clearest example I have ever seen that people do not know what a tu quoque fallacy is.
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Do tell. Explain the error in my reasoning, dear boy. Show me how the bagel example is a tu quoque fallacy or how it differs from your misreading of sts60's post.
Kind sir, you alleged that I didn't know what a tu quoque fallacy is. I asked for some explanation, but you didn't give it.

I'll ask again. Do educate me, dear learned (two syllables, naturally) master.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:06 PM   #517
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Kind sir, you alleged that I didn't know what a tu quoque fallacy is. I asked for some explanation, but you didn't give it.

I'll ask again. Do educate me, dear learned (two syllables, naturally) master.
I wouldn't expect anything very learnèd from TBD in this matter. He's obviously wrong, and he'll never admit it.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Last edited by eerok; 31st December 2016 at 11:07 PM.
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:47 PM   #518
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
I wouldn't expect anything very learnèd from TBD in this matter. He's obviously wrong, and he'll never admit it.
Yeah I suppose all those links I posted are obviously wrong too.

Another fallacy, argument by assertion, Another day ending in y around here.

Blow my skirts up, eerok, address anything about that link I just posted.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:47 PM   #519
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Can this thread last all of 2017. Please.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 12:18 AM   #520
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,721
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Can this thread last all of 2017. Please.
Oh gosh, I would not think so.

I mean at some point the weight of external, compelling links such as have been posted already should impress themselves upon skeptics, don't you agree?
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.