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 23rd December 2016, 09:30 AM   #241
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You in the right thread?

Hey look, yet another post declaring I am wrong based on nothing and instead personalizing the argument.

Put that post in the win column for me.

Fantastic!
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You continue to exhibit illusory Superiority. I applaud you for the dedication to your craft. Too bad you don't have an argument. When you accept the facts, and admit defeat, I'll drop the accusation.
And again....

(Like shooting fish in a barrel).
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 09:30 AM   #242
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
In a thread about tu quoque, you claim that providing a definition of tu quoque is a "red herring."

Dios Mio.

Well, one of us is done.
No, your contrived demand that I produce one of my own is the red herring. No matter how frantically you try to derail the debate, you can't change the facts.
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 23rd December 2016, 09:35 AM   #243
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Asking for a definition is derailing the debate.

Jiminy pete.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 09:36 AM   #244
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
asked and answered.
I've run a search on the thread. It's not been answered. You lie.


I find it intriguing that you seem pathologically unable to admit to ever having been wrong.
__________________
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 23rd December 2016, 09:38 AM   #245
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,570
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That actually highlights the fact that it was a tu quoque folks! The thread was NOT about Bush/Cheney's email shenanigans and well whatever it was you claimed Trump's company did.
The thread was about why people voted for Trump instead of Clinton, including the thread starter himself.

Therefore, a charge of hypocrisy with regard to email is perfectly relevant, whether or not you agree with it, when I point out that the same people making their choice because of Clinton's email situation voted for someone who had his own record of email malfeasance. That is an inconsistent action; when coupled with the moral judgment these people used (untrustworthy, etc.), that is hypocritical.

I also pointed out that, by and large, these same people had no such problem with the email malfeasance of Messrs. Power, Bush, and Cheney. You acknowledged the hypocrisy, and sought to exempt yourself from the charge, when you rhetorically placed Clinton and Powell in the same jail cell. But you didn't answer the rest of the charge when questioned - neither the historical context with regard to Bush and Cheney, nor the specifically relevant question of why Trump gets a pass but Clinton doesn't.

At no point did I use the charge of hypocrisy as an attempt to whitewash Clinton, or to say she was trustworthy because of Trump's actions, or because people voted for Trump anyway. That, as a number of people have patiently explained to you, would have been a tu quoque fallacy. But I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and in fact I specifically took steps in the other direction.

Once again, the problem isn't that you're not citing the correct definition. It's that you're unable or unwilling to apply it to what I actually said. Instead, you keep mutating my argument to suit your needs, instead of addressing the actual problem. Posturing and diversion may make you happy, but it won't rescue your argument, and it does nothing to obscure the hypocrisy I pointed out in the first place.
sts60 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 23rd December 2016, 09:39 AM   #246
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,908
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And again....

(Like shooting fish in a barrel).
No. You shoot, and miss.
You are taking what is an argument, and saying :

"HEE HEE! ELL OH ELL!

You are all wrong! *blather pointless and wrong fallacies*

DROP MIC because I'M A BIG DOG! TEE HEE!"

Your posting style does not help any 'argument' you make. You try and place yourself above the rest of all with your sneers, and your condescending attitude. You feel you're smarter, and better than the rest of us. You aren't. Thus, the argument and claim of Illusory Superiority is valid.

If you want a discussion, then participate in it. If you want an argument, then read what people are saying, and make a valid retort.
__________________

"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 23rd December 2016, 09:40 AM   #247
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Asking for a definition is derailing the debate.

Jiminy pete.
Demanding your opponent produce something whose alleged need you simply made up is derailing the debate.
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 23rd December 2016, 09:41 AM   #248
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Demanding your opponent produce something whose alleged need you simply made up is derailing the "debate".
FTFY
__________________
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 23rd December 2016, 09:49 AM   #249
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,800
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You in the right thread?

Hey look, yet another post declaring I am wrong based on nothing and instead personalizing the argument.

Put that post in the win column for me.

Fantastic!
Hey- I only emphasized the issues that I believe are important to you in this discussion as a guide for the rest of us posting here. To do so I noted the connections between the views you have taken in this thread and the directly comparable and related views you have expressed in other threads. It is fine if you feel that your command of what you view as logical fallacies allows you to offer insights to the other posters here and I hope that you will continue to do so. Of course some others will disagree with your views, but that is the whole point of the forum, right?

If anything I avoided addressing you as a person, except that I complemented you as to what I see as your laudable goals in these types of debates (education and open discussion), and I recommended a pleasant and high-toned form of exchange for those (such as I) who have different views.

I never declared that you were wrong in this particular thread (I used the term "almost inevitably" generically and to allow for the possibility that you were correct). I did not and do not feel the need to add my own two-cents as to the current discussion, which has already been very well addressed by others.

Nonetheless, please carry on. I feel that I have little more to add to this thread.

Last edited by Giordano; 23rd December 2016 at 10:18 AM.
Giordano 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 23rd December 2016, 10:28 AM   #250
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
The thread was about why people voted for Trump instead of Clinton, including the thread starter himself.

Therefore, a charge of hypocrisy with regard to email is perfectly relevant, whether or not you agree with it, when I point out that the same people making their choice because of Clinton's email situation voted for someone who had his own record of email malfeasance. That is an inconsistent action; when coupled with the moral judgment these people used (untrustworthy, etc.), that is hypocritical.

I also pointed out that, by and large, these same people had no such problem with the email malfeasance of Messrs. Power, Bush, and Cheney. You acknowledged the hypocrisy, and sought to exempt yourself from the charge, when you rhetorically placed Clinton and Powell in the same jail cell. But you didn't answer the rest of the charge when questioned - neither the historical context with regard to Bush and Cheney, nor the specifically relevant question of why Trump gets a pass but Clinton doesn't.

At no point did I use the charge of hypocrisy as an attempt to whitewash Clinton, or to say she was trustworthy because of Trump's actions, or because people voted for Trump anyway. That, as a number of people have patiently explained to you, would have been a tu quoque fallacy. But I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and in fact I specifically took steps in the other direction.

Once again, the problem isn't that you're not citing the correct definition. It's that you're unable or unwilling to apply it to what I actually said. Instead, you keep mutating my argument to suit your needs, instead of addressing the actual problem. Posturing and diversion may make you happy, but it won't rescue your argument, and it does nothing to obscure the hypocrisy I pointed out in the first place.
Alrighty, an actual argument! Now this one is a wee bit different, asserting that although it is a tu quoque, it is not a fallacious.

Now, I always think it is interesting that you have used an argument that is virtually identical to the classic B-b-but Bush! illustration in the article I have linked, to wit:

This 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.

Really amazing stuff there! Classic tu quoque!

Next you have asserted that I have acknowledged the hypocrisy. In fact what I did was say that they both should be in jail, which highlights the extraordinary weakness of your "argument" and why arguments based on charges of hypocrisy are so terrible, because it does not falsify the poster's original reason for not voting for Clinton and in fact reinforces it.

Moreover, your charge of "hypocrisy" was unfounded because there was no showing that the poster in question ever acted inconsistently, which again highlights the quote above. (Among the numerous other faults in your argument was a clear case of false equivalence)

Again:

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. 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.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 23rd December 2016 at 10:30 AM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 11:01 AM   #251
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,777
"This apple is green"
"Well, so is that pear" is a tu quoque because it does not address the argument.

"I ate a pear because that apple was green"
"The pear is green too, so the color can't have been the reason you chose it" is not a tu quoque, it is just pointing out an inconsistency in an argument.

Last edited by Porpoise of Life; 23rd December 2016 at 11:04 AM.
Porpoise of Life 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 23rd December 2016, 11:27 AM   #252
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
"This apple is green"
"Well, so is that pear" is a tu quoque because it does not address the argument.

"I ate a pear because that apple was green"
"The pear is green too, so the color can't have been the reason you chose it" is not a tu quoque, it is just pointing out an inconsistency in an argument.
Actually if you look at your second example very closely, you will see that there is not an inconsistency in the two statements, and you have not indeed falsified the original statement.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 11:53 AM   #253
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Alrighty, an actual argument! Now this one is a wee bit different, asserting that although it is a tu quoque, it is not a fallacious.
It does no such thing, and it's the same argument you've received (and ignored) for the past seven pages. It amounts to

(1) You don't understand what it means to be a tu quoque fallacy. And no, that's not to say it must be defined differently than it has been. It's to say you patently don't understand the definitions you yourself are quoting; and

(2) You don't understand sts60's post.

And all you've done now is continue to illustrate the two points above.

Quote:
Now, I always think it is interesting that you have used an argument that is virtually identical to the classic...
Similar to, but notably and importantly different. You have been told what those differences are and what makes them important to your diagnosis. You simply disregarded them and mocked the attempts to bring them to your attention.
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 23rd December 2016, 12:01 PM   #254
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Actually if you look at your second example very closely, you will see that there is not an inconsistency in the two statements...
There's a very clear distinction. Well, clear to everyone except you. The distinction -- which we obviously have to belabor again for your benefit -- is that the second statement proffers a logical inference based on category, which then is shown not to hold consistently for the category. To point out such an inconsistency addresses the argument that was made, in this case the reason alleged for why the fruit was eaten. That's not a fallacy, no matter how much frantic gaslighting you employ to insist it is.

You seem intent on the same cargo-cult reasoning you've employed throughout this thread. You note similar words and concepts in sts60's post that you see in concise definitions of a fallacy, and then you just insinuate that's all you need in order to compete the diagnosis properly. You display no actual understanding of what makes arguments work or not work, and little ability to read plain language and understand its meaning.

Quote:
...and you have not indeed falsified the original statement.
Asked and answered. It does not have to be the fallacy you diagnosed in order to be otherwise rebuttable. The question in this thread is whether you have properly diagnosed a particular fallacy. You have not. You have been told exactly what's wrong with your diagnosis. You are unwilling to address any of those explanations; you simply repeat your claim and insist you're 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 23rd December 2016, 12:05 PM   #255
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,570
Originally Posted by TheBigDog
Now this one is a wee bit different, asserting that although it is a tu quoque, ...
Nope.

That's the fifth or sixth different time you have changed my argument to something I didn't say. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

Jay thinks you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm doubtful, because if this was the case, by now you should have accidentally addressed my actual claims, instead of changing them into strawmen and carrying on as if nobody noticed.
sts60 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 23rd December 2016, 12:10 PM   #256
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It does no such thing, and it's the same argument you've received (and ignored) for the past seven pages. It amounts to

(1) You don't understand what it means to be a tu quoque fallacy. And no, that's not to say it must be defined differently than it has been. It's to say you patently don't understand the definitions you yourself are quoting; and

(2) You don't understand sts60's post.

And all you've done now is continue to illustrate the two points above.



Similar to, but notably and importantly different. You have been told what those differences are and what makes them important to your diagnosis. You simply disregarded them and mocked the attempts to bring them to your attention.
Huh, what definition of tu quoque you using?

Just funning you, because as per usual your post is a substance free orgy of personal attacks. Type "you don't understand" again.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 12:15 PM   #257
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
snip
wrong.

Try again.

By the way? Not all people who like apples like green apples.

/cargo-cult reasoning! DRINK!
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 23rd December 2016 at 12:21 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 12:19 PM   #258
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Nope.

That's the fifth or sixth different time you have changed my argument to something I didn't say. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

Jay thinks you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm doubtful, because if this was the case, by now you should have accidentally addressed my actual claims, instead of changing them into strawmen and carrying on as if nobody noticed.
Oh the "opposite"

what I wrote:

Now this one is a wee bit different, asserting that although it is a tu quoque, it is not fallacious.

Put it through the opposite machine:

"asserting that although it is not a tu quoque, it is fallacious."

Fantastic!
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 23rd December 2016 at 12:24 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 12:21 PM   #259
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Huh, what definition of tu quoque you using?
Yours.

Quote:
Just funning you, because as per usual your post is a substance free orgy of personal attacks. Type "you don't understand" again.
You don't understand. Is that clear enough for you?

In no way is that a personal attack. It's the thing that's wrong with your argument. Your argument is based on your misunderstanding of what you have read, in the reading of both the definitions you are applying and the post to which you are applying them. If I were as mean-spirited as you are trying to paint me, I would accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting them in order not to have to concede the point. But instead I suppose the softer, less antagonistic approach and say that you don't understand what you read. The latter is redeemable. The former, had I made that argument, would mean you were a dishonest proponent and not worth serious attention.

But to claim that no one can appropriately challenge an argument on the basis that it misunderstands the source material is frankly daft.
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 23rd December 2016, 12:22 PM   #260
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Put it through the opposite machine:

"asserting that although it is not a tu quoque, it is fallacious."
Now it appears you're just brazenly trying to cram words in your opponent's mouth. Why don't you deal with what he actually said, instead of trying to rewrite or restate it to mean what you want it to mean?
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 23rd December 2016, 12:43 PM   #261
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Now it appears you're just brazenly trying to cram words in your opponent's mouth. Why don't you deal with what he actually said, instead of trying to rewrite or restate it to mean what you want it to mean?
Oh dear...

Pretty impressed you managed to get through an entire post without declaring "you don't understand" or typing hilariously smug stuff like "cargo-cult reasoning" tho.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 12:49 PM   #262
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh dear...

Pretty impressed you managed to get through an entire post without declaring "you don't understand" or typing hilariously smug stuff like "cargo-cult reasoning" tho.
You quoted my post but did not address the point it raised. Is there something preventing you from dealing with sts60's actual arguments? Is there a reason you're misrepresenting them? At this point it is not an option to stipulate that you are reproducing and summarizing your opponent's points accurately. So we have to look either to error on your part, or deliberate misrepresentation. Would you care to tell us which is the case?
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 23rd December 2016, 01:03 PM   #263
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You quoted my post but did not address the point it raised. Is there something preventing you from dealing with sts60's actual arguments? Is there a reason you're misrepresenting them? At this point it is not an option to stipulate that you are reproducing and summarizing your opponent's points accurately. So we have to look either to error on your part, or deliberate misrepresentation. Would you care to tell us which is the case?
Couple of points. First, it was a bit of a joke, second he did not deal with the actual masterful points in my post (neither did you, of course, because of course you didn't) third if he felt I was mistating his argument, he can and should have said how.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:07 PM   #264
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
"This apple is green"
"Well, so is that pear" is a tu quoque because it does not address the argument.
It's a fallacy of irrelevancy, perhaps, but it is not a tu quoque. A tu quoque must address an apparent hypocrisy of the other interlocutor.
phiwum is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:11 PM   #265
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
First, it was a bit of a joke
Nobody seems to be laughing. Maybe you should forsake attempts at humor and address your critics' actual claims. You often respond flippantly, and it seems that's meant as a distraction.

Quote:
second he did not deal with the actual masterful points in my post
He had previously.

Quote:
(neither did you, of course, because of course you didn't)
The "masterful" points in your post were dealt with by pointing out that they were based on straw-man misrepresentations of posts to which you were replying. Sts60 said so. I said so. At this point we're trying to determine why these misrepresentations are occurring so that they can be alleviated.

Quote:
third if he felt I was mistating his argument, he can and should have said how.
He did previously. We all have. You quote those posts where people tell you exactly in what way you're misrepresenting them, disregard the substance, and add a joke. This does not advance the debate.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd December 2016 at 01:17 PM.
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 23rd December 2016, 01:16 PM   #266
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
A tu quoque must address an apparent hypocrisy of the other interlocutor.
And I would argue it must address it in a particular way. That is, the accusation of hypocrisy -- whether speculative or substantiated -- must be the reason offered for why a conclusion should fail, instead of the line of reasoning proposed to support the conclusion. The crux of this thread is the difference between "He is hypocritical and therefore wrong" and "He is inconsistent, and his error makes him a hypocrite." This is why it is vital to parse the argument properly to determine which was meant.
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 23rd December 2016, 01:17 PM   #267
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Nobody seems to be laughing. Maybe you should forsake attempts at humor and address your critics' actual claims.



He had previously.



The "masterful" points in your post were dealt with by pointing out that they were based on straw-man misrepresentations of posts to which you were replying. Sts60 said so. I said so. At this point we're trying to determine why these misrepresentations are occurring so that they can be alleviated.



He did previously. We all have. You quote those posts where people tell you exactly in what way you're misrepresenting them, disregard the substance, and add a joke. This does not advance the debate.
False, false, false, false

by the way, what is this we stuff? Ya got a mouse in your pocket?
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:19 PM   #268
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And I would argue it must address it in a particular way. That is, the accusation of hypocrisy -- whether speculative or substantiated -- must be the reason offered for why a conclusion should fail, instead of the line of reasoning proposed to support the conclusion. The crux of this thread is the difference between "He is hypocritical and therefore wrong" and "He is inconsistent, and his error makes him a hypocrite." This is why it is vital to parse the argument properly to determine which was meant.
Sure, absolutely. I obviously should have been more explicit in this thread, since there is a poster here who is mighty confused about the nature of a tu quoque.

But, to be sure, I stated a necessary but not sufficient condition for a rebuttal to be a tu quoque fallacy.
phiwum is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:25 PM   #269
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
False, false, false, false
Bare assertions are not a valid argument.

This thread is about whether you have properly diagnosed the tu quoque fallacy in a particular post. Your argument in favor of that diagnosis misunderstands the vital elements of the tu quoque fallacy. It also misrepresents or outright contradicts elements of the subject post. All that has been explained and demonstrated to you at length. You have no substantive answer for those explanations. You simply mock them, disregard them, then repeat your original argument and gaslight your opponents furiously.

Now I repeat my question. Is there something preventing you from addressing sts60's statements as he has written them? Is the misrepresentation deliberate or accidental? Once we have identified the source of this problem, it can be alleviated. And then we can continue examining your diagnosis with the proper representations and understanding in place.
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 23rd December 2016, 01:31 PM   #270
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And I would argue it must address it in a particular way. That is, the accusation of hypocrisy -- whether speculative or substantiated -- must be the reason offered for why a conclusion should fail, instead of the line of reasoning proposed to support the conclusion. The crux of this thread is the difference between "He is hypocritical and therefore wrong" and "He is inconsistent, and his error makes him a hypocrite." This is why it is vital to parse the argument properly to determine which was meant.
And now you have made it clear that you do not understand a tu quoque.

Being "inconsistent" is not an "error."
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:37 PM   #271
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
It's a fallacy of irrelevancy, perhaps, but it is not a tu quoque. A tu quoque must address an apparent hypocrisy of the other interlocutor.
Does a tu quoque have to address a property of the arguer themselves? Or can it just not that too subjects of the argument share a relevant property what are being treated differently with respect to that property?
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 23rd December 2016, 01:38 PM   #272
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And now you have made it clear that you do not understand a tu quoque.
According to whose judgment have you made that assessment?

Quote:
Being "inconsistent" is not an "error."
Then suggest a word you like better. The nugget of the argument is that it matters in which direction you write the inference. One way is a fallacy. The other is not. You simply note that the inference in the subject post contains the same elements as a particular definition and feel your work is done. You don't look at the structure of the actual argument to see whether those elements are being used correctly or fallaciously.

Now instead of quibbling over diction, try to address the substance of the post.
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 23rd December 2016, 01:39 PM   #273
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And now you have made it clear that you do not understand a tu quoque.

Being "inconsistent" is not an "error."
Since when is reasoning to a contradiction in a logical system that does not permit contradictions not an error?
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 23rd December 2016, 01:41 PM   #274
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Since when is reasoning to a contradiction in a logical system that does not permit contradictions not an error?
Specifically, the error would be in continuing to proffer an inconsistent system as if it were consistent. That dissonance is what sounds in hypocrisy.
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 23rd December 2016, 01:43 PM   #275
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,570
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh the "opposite"

what I wrote:...
What you wrote was a claim that I said a particular thing. I explicitly did not say that thing. Therefore, whatever random logical operation you perform on your strawman version is meaningless.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog
Put it through the opposite machine:...
...gives you the sixth or seventh version of something you said, not what I said. Are you unable, or merely unwilling, to address my actual claim?
sts60 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 23rd December 2016, 01:43 PM   #276
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Bare assertions are not a valid argument.

This thread is about whether you have properly diagnosed the tu quoque fallacy in a particular post. Your argument in favor of that diagnosis misunderstands the vital elements of the tu quoque fallacy. It also misrepresents or outright contradicts elements of the subject post. All that has been explained and demonstrated to you at length. You have no substantive answer for those explanations. You simply mock them, disregard them, then repeat your original argument and gaslight your opponents furiously.

Now I repeat my question. Is there something preventing you from addressing sts60's statements as he has written them? Is the misrepresentation deliberate or accidental? Once we have identified the source of this problem, it can be alleviated. And then we can continue examining your diagnosis with the proper representations and understanding in place.
Bare assertions are not a valid argument (the same thing I have been saying for pages)... and then you fill your post with bare assertions.

Fantastic!

according to rational wiki STS's comment was not just a tu quoque it was the quintessential example of a tu quoque.

Feel free to address that because from where we sit, this thread has been an absolute walk in the park for TBD.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:44 PM   #277
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
What you wrote was a claim that I said a particular thing. I explicitly did not say that thing. Therefore, whatever random logical operation you perform on your strawman version is meaningless.



...gives you the sixth or seventh version of something you said, not what I said. Are you unable, or merely unwilling, to address my actual claim?
Delighted to my good man!

STS "actual claim" is:



(this space provided for you to state your actual claim)
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 23rd December 2016 at 01:45 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 23rd December 2016, 01:49 PM   #278
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Feel free to address that...
I have. See the preceding half-dozen pages where it has been addressed several times at length.

To summarize (for the umpteenth time), your diagnosis overlooks a subtle but important difference between the wiki definition and what was actually said in the post. Further, your diagnosis misstates (deliberately or accidentally) elements of the original post to make them seem closer to the definition. These rebuttals are not bare assertions. Your specific errors along those lines have been brought several times to your attention over the past six or seven pages.

As I pointed out a few posts above, you are assiduously unwilling to address those errors. Your argument now, such as it is, is as you have done in this post: restate your original claim and insist that you must be right. When you are able to break that cycle, we will begin to make progress.
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 23rd December 2016, 01:56 PM   #279
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
STS "actual claim" is:
What he said:
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
At no point did I use the charge of hypocrisy as an attempt to whitewash Clinton, or to say she was trustworthy because of Trump's actions, or because people voted for Trump anyway. That, as a number of people have patiently explained to you, would have been a tu quoque fallacy. But I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and in fact I specifically took steps in the other direction.
What you say he said:
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Alrighty, an actual argument! Now this one is a wee bit different, asserting that although it is a tu quoque, it is not a fallacious.
In no way does sts60's post assert any such thing. However you did manage to phrase your summary as a complex proposition, sneaking in the mandatory premise "...although it is a tu quoque..." That insinuation was expressly repudiated in the post you are attempting to summarize.
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 23rd December 2016, 02:10 PM   #280
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
What he said:
What you say he said:
In no way does sts60's post assert any such thing. However you did manage to phrase your summary as a complex proposition, sneaking in the mandatory premise "...although it is a tu quoque..." That insinuation was expressly repudiated in the post you are attempting to summarize.
That is not a claim that is a subjective denial.

Come on man.
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is online now   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 03:46 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.