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 21st December 2016, 06:52 PM   #81
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
seems consistent to me. Take another look and ignore the bull **** I took out.
What odd behavior for someone who accuses others of changing his argument to suit their rebuttal. The part you elected to remove is, in fact, an important part of the rebuttal to your diagnosis. You now want to focus on the truth values of various propositions in the original claim, but they have no bearing on whether your diagnosis is correct. You won't prevail in your defense of your diagnosis by selectively dismissing the parts of the rebuttals that are uncomfortable for you.
JayUtah 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 21st December 2016, 07:07 PM   #82
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
seems consistent to me. Take another look and ignore the bull **** I took out.

You'll thank me
You deleted almost all of the argument. No wonder you are not following the discussion.
mijopaalmc 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 21st December 2016, 07:23 PM   #83
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
seems consistent to me. Take another look and ignore the bull **** I took out.

You'll thank me
Are you're withdrawing your claim that the assertion that Trump voters are being hypocrites when the justify not voting for Clinton because some specific actions that she took-- which were analogous to some specific across that Trump took--is a tu quoque?

If you are, you should stop derailing this thread, which was started explicitly to address that claim.
mijopaalmc 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 21st December 2016, 07:28 PM   #84
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
What odd behavior for someone who accuses others of changing his argument to suit their rebuttal. The part you elected to remove is, in fact, an important part of the rebuttal to your diagnosis. You now want to focus on the truth values of various propositions in the original claim, but they have no bearing on whether your diagnosis is correct. You won't prevail in your defense of your diagnosis by selectively dismissing the parts of the rebuttals that are uncomfortable for you.
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
You deleted almost all of the argument. No wonder you are not following the discussion.
Oh my stars.

Are you two kidding?

The "reasoning behind voting for Trump rather than Clinton appears to be inconsistent from the justification given" can only be determined by the response??? You kidding guys?

Hee hee!

You fellas SLAY me.

protip: if you think that a response to "I did not vote for X because Y," of "you are a hypocrite because B(ush) P(owell) and T(rump) did something you claim was similar to Y" ain't a tu quoque fallacy, I strongly suggest you spend some time with the "introductory" links I posted earlier.

TBD OUT!
__________________
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 21st December 2016, 07:32 PM   #85
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh my stars.
Most of your post was this vacuous nonsense and is therefore ignored.

Quote:
protip: if you think that a response to "I did not vote for X because Y," of "you are a hypocrite because B(ush) P(owell) and T(rump) did something you claim was similar to Y" ain't a tu quoque fallacy...
I have presented my argument, which you have largely ignored. Simply repeating yours doesn't fix that.
JayUtah 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 21st December 2016, 07:44 PM   #86
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Unhappy

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh my stars.

Are you two kidding?

The "reasoning behind voting for Trump rather than Clinton appears to be inconsistent from the justification given" can only be determined by the response??? You kidding guys?

Hee hee!

You fellas SLAY me.

protip: if you think that a response to "I did not vote for X because Y," of "you are a hypocrite because B(ush) P(owell) and T(rump) did something you claim was similar to Y" ain't a tu quoque fallacy, I strongly suggest you spend some time with the "introductory" links I posted earlier.

TBD OUT!
You still don't understand that tu quoque refers only to the arguer and the arguer's conclusion but neither the subject of the argument nor the arguer's justification.
mijopaalmc 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 22nd December 2016, 07:18 AM   #87
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Most of your post was this vacuous nonsense and is therefore ignored.



I have presented my argument, which you have largely ignored. Simply repeating yours doesn't fix that.
snerk!
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 07:43 AM   #88
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
This thread is brilliant!!!

I love it when someone who doesn't understand formal logic won't admit it.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 07:54 AM   #89
Daald
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 573
LOL, yeah.

Hey 2+2=5.

Umm no. Let me put it in another equivalent form.

2 is 1+1.

so we can rewrite is as 1+1+1+1 which equals 4 and not 5.

WRONG. You changed my argument! QED!
Daald 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 22nd December 2016, 07:58 AM   #90
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This thread is brilliant!!!

I love it when someone who doesn't understand formal logic won't admit it.
I know it has been a hoot.

I mean I gave them a link to a pretty straightfoward definition and examples but what ya gonna do?

When I called you a hypocrite I was referring to your reasoning!

Lolz. Do you believe that stuff.

Good times.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 08:01 AM   #91
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I know it has been a hoot.

I mean I gave them a link to a pretty straightfoward definition and examples but what ya gonna do?

When I called you a hypocrite I was referring to your reasoning!

Lolz. Do you believe that stuff.

Good times.

I suspect you misapprehend me, however, it's important to take from life that which makes you happy, so you carry on chap
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 08:05 AM   #92
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,283
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
snerk!
It's too bad your posts exhibit such willful ignorance. If you'd drop the attitude and learn, it could help you across the board, so to speak, as I have frequently observed you wrongly calling out logical fallacies.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 22nd December 2016, 08:08 AM   #93
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh my stars.

Are you two kidding?

The "reasoning behind voting for Trump rather than Clinton appears to be inconsistent from the justification given" can only be determined by the response??? You kidding guys?

Hee hee!

You fellas SLAY me.

protip: if you think that a response to "I did not vote for X because Y," of "you are a hypocrite because B(ush) P(owell) and T(rump) did something you claim was similar to Y" ain't a tu quoque fallacy, I strongly suggest you spend some time with the "introductory" links I posted earlier.

TBD OUT!

You're treading back into your illusory superiority again. it doesn't help your 'argument'. All you're doing is dismissing the argument others have put forward simply because you disagree with it, and because you think you know better.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 22nd December 2016, 08:16 AM   #94
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,433
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I mean I gave them a link to a pretty straightfoward definition and examples but what ya gonna do?

The examples posted did not match what was quoted in the OP. A tu quoque fallacy follows a very specific line of argumentation, and failure in logic, which wasn't what was demonstrated in the link from the OP.

What was done in the link was an incorrect dismissal of a line of argumentation based on a misappropriation of a logical fallacy. It is similar to the way people dismiss arguments using ad hominem regularly, when all that was presented was a point of discussion and an insult.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 22nd December 2016, 08:45 AM   #95
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
The examples posted did not match what was quoted in the OP. A tu quoque fallacy follows a very specific line of argumentation, and failure in logic, which wasn't what was demonstrated in the link from the OP.

What was done in the link was an incorrect dismissal of a line of argumentation based on a misappropriation of a logical fallacy. It is similar to the way people dismiss arguments using ad hominem regularly, when all that was presented was a point of discussion and an insult.
And there you have it folks, the very best reason that was presented in favor of why it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy of the tu quoque variety was that it was an "insult" and a "point of discussion." The so-called "point of discussion" being "these other guys did it too" which, as I have so expertly pointed out does not at all falsify the original point, and is a complete derail.

And hey, lets go back to an actual link that actually illuminates the issue:

The tu quoque fallacy is very frequently paired with the guilt by association fallacy, so that the person engaging in the fallacy need not even show that the other person's actions are inconsistent with their position; rather, it is merely shown that the actions of some other person somehow associated with that person did something inconsistent with that person's position. For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.

Wow, just like I have been explaining all the time.

Now of course if y'all want to stick to the claim that it was just an insult, so be it. We folks that appreciate formal logic call that Level 0, Name Calling But if that is the best ya got, why didn't you say so.

Now on a related point? You notice how TBD cited external sources to support his various points, and my critics tend to rely on claims like "your posts exhibit such willful ignorance," "I can refer you to an introductory textbook"? Now perhaps those are just "insults" which Hat's Off to One and All...

But if y'all want to float my boat, knock off the arguments by bare assertion because TBD is at the finish line and most of you are at the starting gates.
__________________
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; 22nd December 2016 at 08:53 AM.
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 22nd December 2016, 09:07 AM   #96
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And there you have it folks, the very best reason that was presented in favor of why it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy of the tu quoque variety was that it was an "insult" and a "point of discussion." The so-called "point of discussion" being "these other guys did it too" which, as I have so expertly pointed out does not at all falsify the original point, and is a complete derail.
Except, as has been explained to you multiple times, that's not the entirety of the argument.

The complete argument is:

"You reasoned X when A did M and you reasoned ~X when B did M. Why is your reasoning different for A than B?"
mijopaalmc 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 22nd December 2016, 09:10 AM   #97
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The so-called "point of discussion" being "these other guys did it too" which, as I have so expertly pointed out does not at all falsify the original point, and is a complete derail.
No, that's not the whole argument. This is not the first time you've tried to rail-split the post you diagnosed. Phiwum pointed out the subtle difference between the argument that was presented and what would have constituted a tu quoque. I take it you didn't address his explanation because you were unable to. And, as has been belabored, the point of this thread is not whether the claimant in question falsified the original point with his post, but whether you correctly diagnosed the fallacy.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 09:22 AM   #98
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Except, as has been explained to you multiple times, that's not the entirety of the argument.

The complete argument is:

"You reasoned X when A did M and you reasoned ~X when B did M. Why is your reasoning different for A than B?"
Wrong, here is the actual assertion under discussion again:

Quote:
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.
Once again:

Quote:
The tu quoque fallacy is very frequently paired with the guilt by association fallacy, so that the person engaging in the fallacy need not even show that the other person's actions are inconsistent with their position; rather, it is merely shown that the actions of some other person somehow associated with that person did something inconsistent with that person's position. For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 09:29 AM   #99
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Yeah, you're competition ignoring the fact that it is the stated justification for voting for Trump over Clinton that is being called inconsistent based on Trump's and Clinton's respective actions.
mijopaalmc 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 22nd December 2016, 09:31 AM   #100
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong, here is the actual assertion under discussion again
Note the last line of the post, where the decision to vote is identified as the consequent of the antecedent that is alleged to apply to both candidates. That is a finding of logical inconsistency, and that is the part of the claimant's post that makes it not tu quoque. We went through all this yesterday, and I have no intention of spending all today as well trying to make you acknowledge what you refuse to see.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 09:39 AM   #101
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
[quoting external source], "For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty."
And if the goal were to distract from a possibly legitimate argument of Candidate A's dishonesty by citing another person's (irrelevant) dishonesty, that would be tu quoque. However, if the argument is (stipulating that both Candidate A and Candidate B both are dishonest) that a certain proposition follows from dishonesty but is held differently for A than for B, then it is not tu quoque.

You keep selectively restating the claimant's post to make it look like tu quoque. You omit or disregard where it's clearly a logical analysis of a contradictory position. And then you get bogged down in the fact that the claimant has additionally rendered an opinion of the hypocrisy that would result from holding a logically contradictory position.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 09:41 AM   #102
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Note the last line of the post, where the decision to vote is identified as the consequent of the antecedent that is alleged to apply to both candidates. That is a finding of logical inconsistency, and that is the part of the claimant's post that makes it not tu quoque. We went through all this yesterday, and I have no intention of spending all today as well trying to make you acknowledge what you refuse to see.
To clarify the dialog:

A: I did not vote for Clinton because she did X which made her untrustworthy enough for me not to vote for her.

B: Trump also did X. You are justifying not voting for Clinton because Clinton did X. How can you justify voting for Trump when Trump also did X?

A: Tu quoque!!!

B is not saying that A is wrong for voting for Trump instead of Clinton. B is just questioning how A can justify voting for Trump when A's stated reason for not voting for Clinton would preclude A from voting for Trump as well.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 22nd December 2016 at 09:44 AM.
mijopaalmc 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 22nd December 2016, 09:41 AM   #103
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That is a finding of logical inconsistency, and that is the part of the claimant's post that makes it not tu quoque.
FALSE:

1. a "finding"? Absurd, it is a claim. and I remind you again from the article I have cited:

Quote:
For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.
On all fours.

2. As I have pointed out before:

Quote:
The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. This is a fallacy regardless of whether you really did it or not, but it helps if you really didn't do it.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 09:51 AM   #104
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Oh dear.


To all those that have tried, in the face of overwhelming opposition, to educate, my greatest respect.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 09:51 AM   #105
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
a "finding"? Absurd, it is a claim.
You may disagree with the result of the analysis, but that does not make it absurd. The claimant phrased his argument as a logical analysis. It can be reduced to one of the normal syllogistic forms, in this case one of the validating forms. I have done that work for you, to illustrate the structure of the argument in the claimant's post. His attempt at logical analysis, regardless of whether the analysis results in falsifying the original claim, is what sets his post apart from the examples of tu quoque you have attempted to apply. Again, the truth values in the syllogism or the ultimate success of the rebuttal is irrelevant. It is the structure of the claimant's rebuttal that defeats your diagnosis.

You continue to ignore the important but subtle difference between the examples to which you refer and the post you attempted to diagnose. Now you're just hurling out quotations, cargo-cult fashion, hoping they somehow cure your selective approach. As I said, I have no desire to spend the rest of today trying to make you see something you are increasingly adamant to avoid.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 09:53 AM   #106
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You keep selectively restating the claimant's post to make it look like tu quoque. You omit or disregard where it's clearly a logical analysis of a contradictory position. And then you get bogged down in the fact that the claimant has additionally rendered an opinion of the hypocrisy that would result from holding a logically contradictory position.
I selectively restated the post? By quoting the whole thing? Nonsense.

Quote:
You omit or disregard where it's clearly a logical analysis of a contradictory position.
False, it is a tu quoque:

Quote:
Tu quoque (pronounced "too kwoh-kway"), is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it.
If you want to go ahead and provide an alternative definition of tu quoque, be my guest. Until then, maybe take a gander at argument by bare assertion?
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 09:55 AM   #107
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You may disagree with the result of the analysis, but that does not make it absurd. The claimant phrased his argument as a logical analysis. It can be reduced to one of the normal syllogistic forms, in this case one of the validating forms. I have done that work for you, to illustrate the structure of the argument in the claimant's post. His attempt at logical analysis, regardless of whether the analysis results in falsifying the original claim, is what sets his post apart from the examples of tu quoque you have attempted to apply. Again, the truth values in the syllogism or the ultimate success of the rebuttal is irrelevant. It is the structure of the claimant's rebuttal that defeats your diagnosis.

You continue to ignore the important but subtle difference between the examples to which you refer and the post you attempted to diagnose. Now you're just hurling out quotations, cargo-cult fashion, hoping they somehow cure your selective approach. As I said, I have no desire to spend the rest of today trying to make you see something you are increasingly adamant to avoid.
False. You got a definition of tu quoque for us?

/"cargo-cult fashion" is today's introductory textbook nonsense, I guess.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 09:56 AM   #108
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Oh dear.


To all those that have tried, in the face of overwhelming opposition, to educate, my greatest respect.
Thanks man.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 09:58 AM   #109
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I selectively restated the post? By quoting the whole thing? Nonsense.
I have repeatedly directed your attention to the portion of it that you are disregarding. Quoting the entire post and then commenting selectively upon it does not cure your error.

Quote:
False, it is a tu quoque:
I have repeatedly shown otherwise by showing how the elements of the post map to the syllogism that represents the structure of the argument. You simply disdain that form of analysis for no reason.

Quote:
If you want to go ahead and provide an alternative definition of tu quoque, be my guest. Until then, maybe take a gander at argument by bare assertion?
I don't require a private definition of tu quoque. You are simply disregarding the subtle but important difference between the elements of the fallacy and the claimant's actual argument. Nor am I arguing by bare assertion. I have presented lines of reasoning to support all my points. You respond to those lines of reasoning with single-word dismissals, and now you're insinuating they were never provided.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 09:58 AM   #110
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I selectively restated the post? By quoting the whole thing? Nonsense.



False, it is a tu quoque:



If you want to go ahead and provide an alternative definition of tu quoque, be my guest. Until then, maybe take a gander at argument by bare assertion?
Classic Illusory Superiority.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 22nd December 2016, 09:59 AM   #111
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Thanks man.

Again, you misapprehend me, sir, but, as I have previously mentioned, it's important to take from life that which makes you happy, so you carry on, chap.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 10:00 AM   #112
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"cargo-cult fashion" is today's introductory textbook nonsense, I guess.
I'm not sure to what "textbook nonsense" you're referring. The phrase "cargo cult" refers to the attempt to apply input without a clear understanding of the connection between input and desired results. You are quoting external sources that you suggest support your diagnosis, without addressing the many explanations you were given for why your quoted examples and definitions differ materially from the post in question.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 10:04 AM   #113
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
snip

I don't require a private definition of tu quoque.
I did not say anything about "private" definition. I asked you for a definition.

I have supplied one together with an article that you have ignored.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 10:09 AM   #114
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I did not say anything about "private" definition. I asked you for a definition.
You asked me if I wanted to supply an alternative definition. I do not, nor do I need to in order for my argument to succeed. My argument is that you do not understand the definitions that have been provided, or the difference between them and the claimant's post.

Quote:
I have supplied one together with an article that you have ignored.
You have supplied several definitions, as have many other posters. They have not been ignored. They have been followed up by precise explanations of how the post in question does not fit that definition. You have ignored those explanations, and have now devolved largely into repetitiously repeating those definitions and insisting that you must be right.
JayUtah 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 22nd December 2016, 10:11 AM   #115
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You have supplied several definitions, as have many other posters. They have not been ignored. They have been followed up by precise explanations of how the post in question does not fit that definition. You have ignored those explanations, and have now devolved largely into repetitiously repeating those definitions and insisting that you must be right.


Oddly, something similar worked for the President Elect...
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 10:13 AM   #116
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Is what I have been saying about justification clear to everyone else other that The Big Dog?
mijopaalmc 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 22nd December 2016, 10:16 AM   #117
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You asked me if I wanted to supply an alternative definition. I do not, nor do I need to in order for my argument to succeed. My argument is that you do not understand the definitions that have been provided, or the difference between them and the claimant's post.
You don't need a definition.

Yet you are claiming that I don't understand the definition....

It is at times like this I am reminded of Antony's speech:

Quote:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
So they are all, all honorable men.

Say anytime you want to supply a definition that we can use, we will be much obliged, until then, I'll be discussing this with people with real arguments.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 10:17 AM   #118
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Is what I have been saying about justification clear to everyone else other that The Big Dog?
Oh it is clear! It is also a transparently false summary of the argument actually presented.
__________________
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 22nd December 2016, 10:19 AM   #119
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You don't need a definition.

Yet you are claiming that I don't understand the definition....

It is at times like this I am reminded of Antony's speech:



So they are all, all honorable men.

Say anytime you want to supply a definition that we can use, we will be much obliged, until then, I'll be discussing this with people with real arguments.
You don't understand the definition. You are so caught up in the idea that you must be right, that you are unable to conceive that you might be wrong.

The argument is not Tu Quoque.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 22nd December 2016, 10:20 AM   #120
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Is what I have been saying about justification clear to everyone else other that The Big Dog?
Yes, it is the same concept that I have expressed using the terminology of antecedents and consequents. Rest assured the gaslighting to the contrary is ineffectual.
JayUtah 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 02:02 PM.
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.