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 24th December 2016, 06:44 PM   #321
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
So are you interpreting The Big Dogs post to refer to negation elimination or de Morgan's laws?
The Big Dog seems to think that I balked at identifying NOT NOT Q with Q, but the issue is obviously that he did not apply de Morgan's law at all.
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 24th December 2016, 07:05 PM   #322
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
By the way, if I ask someone whether they went to the store but not the deli, and they say, no the opposite, that sure as hell does not mean they did not go to either!

Qed


The option you present is a negation of the entire statement.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 24th December 2016 at 07:06 PM.
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 24th December 2016, 07:12 PM   #323
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post


The option you present is a negation of the entire statement.
Evidence?
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 07:16 PM   #324
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Evidence?
Elementary logic...learn it!
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 24th December 2016, 07:33 PM   #325
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Elementary logic...learn it!
Ha!

There was no way you were going to support your claim. Anyhow, y'all have derailed the thread long enough.

Not that I blame you because the tu quoque discussion has been about as bad as I have ever seen for the TBD detractors.
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 07:35 PM   #326
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Mispost
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 24th December 2016, 07:39 PM   #327
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Ha!

There was no way you were going to support your claim.
Actually, there is, but no one has the patience to give you a crash course in elementary logic.
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 24th December 2016, 07:49 PM   #328
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
TBD

You do realize that "I went to the store but not the deli" is false if you did not go to the store or if you went to the deli--not just when you did not go to the store and went to the deli, right?
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 24th December 2016, 07:56 PM   #329
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
TBD

You do realize that "I went to the store but not the deli" is false if you did not go to the store or if you went to the deli--not just when you did not go to the store and went to the deli, right?


Yeah, I don't have the patience to give you a crash course in reading comprehension.
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 08:01 PM   #330
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post


Yeah, I don't have the patience to give you a crash course in reading comprehension.


That is why the negation of p∧段 isn't 殆∧q.
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 24th December 2016, 08:10 PM   #331
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post


That is why the negation of p∧段 isn't 殆∧q.
Oh cripes, someone want to explain what is wrong with his logic here?
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 08:16 PM   #332
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh cripes, someone want to explain what is wrong with his logic here?
Am I not addressing the argument that you made?

Or are you truly saying that p∧段 is equivalent to 殆∧q?
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 24th December 2016, 08:39 PM   #333
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Just joshing ya! Like I assume you are joshing all of this with that pedantic negation/equivalent nonsense.
Not at all pedantic, but fundamentally basic.

Quote:
By the way, if I ask someone whether they went to the store but not the deli, and they say, no the opposite, that sure as hell does not mean they did not go to either!

Qed
This is a rather new argument, one that doesn't hinge on double negation but instead suggests that the "opposite" of a conjunction of the form P & NOT Q is NOT P & Q. It's a novel idea, though it is not clear to me that it generalizes. Is the opposite of P & Q defined as NOT P & NOT Q? Is the opposite of P v Q defined to be NOT P v NOT Q? Is the opposite of P -> Q equivalent to NOT P -> NOT Q? Each of these strike me as dubious.

But let's think in plain English for a moment. Take the statement, "Although he is a democrat, he did not vote for Hillary." Suppose we ask for the "opposite" of that statement. Is it, "Although he is not a democrat, he voted for Hillary?" There is indeed a sense in which that is opposite, though not the negation. I think that people may sometimes speak that way, though purely in an ad hoc manner.

So, I'll admit there's a sense in which you may have given an informal, ad hoc opposite.

I do not agree that you have the foggiest notion of what a tu quoque is, but I will grant you that there's a different reading of "opposite" than I had in mind.
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 24th December 2016, 08:40 PM   #334
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh cripes, someone want to explain what is wrong with his logic here?
Nothing is wrong with what he wrote.
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 24th December 2016, 08:55 PM   #335
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Am I not addressing the argument that you made?

Or are you truly saying that p∧段 is equivalent to 殆∧q?
False, equivalent...

You are really all over the place. The opposite of (a, -b)is not (-a, -b)
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 09:10 PM   #336
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Not at all pedantic, but fundamentally basic.



This is a rather new argument, one that doesn't hinge on double negation but instead suggests that the "opposite" of a conjunction of the form P & NOT Q is NOT P & Q. It's a novel idea, though it is not clear to me that it generalizes. Is the opposite of P & Q defined as NOT P & NOT Q? Is the opposite of P v Q defined to be NOT P v NOT Q? Is the opposite of P -> Q equivalent to NOT P -> NOT Q? Each of these strike me as dubious.

But let's think in plain English for a moment. Take the statement, "Although he is a democrat, he did not vote for Hillary." Suppose we ask for the "opposite" of that statement. Is it, "Although he is not a democrat, he voted for Hillary?" There is indeed a sense in which that is opposite, though not the negation. I think that people may sometimes speak that way, though purely in an ad hoc manner.

So, I'll admit there's a sense in which you may have given an informal, ad hoc opposite.

I do not agree that you have the foggiest notion of what a tu quoque is, but I will grant you that there's a different reading of "opposite" than I had in mind.
You are damn right, I don't have the foggiest notion, I have the most crystal clear absolutely brilliant understanding of what it is.

By the way? Next time you want to visualize the opposite of something, use a Cartesian coordinate system.
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 09:27 PM   #337
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
False, equivalent...

You are really all over the place. The opposite of (a, -b)is not (-a, -b)
You are incoherent.

We're speaking about P & NOT Q. He said, correctly, that the negation of this is NOT P v Q. (The v stands for "or".) Your comment involving ordered pairs is just wildly off-point.
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 24th December 2016, 09:32 PM   #338
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You are incoherent.

We're speaking about P & NOT Q. He said, correctly, that the negation of this is NOT P v Q. (The v stands for "or".) Your comment involving ordered pairs is just wildly off-point.
Wrong. You have been off on this since the beginning, take another look at post 333.
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 10:15 PM   #339
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong. You have been off on this since the beginning, take another look at post 333.
Let me instead refresh your memory.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post


That is why the negation of p∧段 isn't 殆∧q.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh cripes, someone want to explain what is wrong with his logic here?
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Nothing is wrong with what he wrote.
Insofar as Mijo is saying that the negation of P & NOT Q isn't NOT P & Q, he is absolutely right.

Let's talk more about your notion of opposite. From what you've said, if this notion is not entirely ad hoc, we may deduce the following:

Opp(P) = NOT P
Opp(NOT Phi) = NOT Opp(Phi)
Opp(Phi & Psi) = Opp(Phi) & Opp(Psi)

And, of course, allow us to abuse notation and write Opp(Phi) = Psi whenever Psi is equivalent to Opp(Phi).

From this, it is easy to see that Opp(Phi v Psi) = Opp(Phi) v Opp(Psi). In particular, Opp(P v Q) = NOT P v NOT Q. Do you agree that this is a consequence of the above? And do you agree with the above properties of your notion of opposite?

Now, we see the rub. We are in a situation in which both a statement and its opposite may be true. After all, if P is true and Q is false, then both P v Q and NOT P v NOT Q are true. It is a funny notion of opposite that allows both a statement and its opposite to be true.

The only way out is to say that this notion of opposite works for conjunctions, but not for negations of conjunctions (P v Q is equivalent to NOT (NOT P & NOT Q)). Hence, the only way out is to admit that this is an utterly ad hoc notion of opposite -- or that sometimes, both a statement and its opposite are true.
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 24th December 2016, 10:28 PM   #340
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Oh vey.

Did you go to the store and skip the deli?
No the opposite: I went to the deli but not the store.

Look just I just went Nobel prize ad hoc reasoning, yo!

Slap some "negation "equations" on that, I'll be halfway through my victory cigar before realize where you went wrong.
__________________
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 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 24th December 2016, 10:35 PM   #341
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
If your definition of "opposite" is not ad hoc, then it follows that the opposite of

"The book is an autobiography or it is not written in English."
is

"The book is not an autobiography or it is written in English."
If the book is an English biography, then both the first statement and its "opposite" are true.

Do you agree that the second statement is the "opposite" of the first. (Hint: I don't.)
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 25th December 2016, 12:37 AM   #342
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
The other issue here is how logical binary operations function versus how arithmetic binary operations function.

Most simply you can factor in rearrange:

(-a-b) to (-1-1)(a莁) to 1(a莁) to a莁

but you can't factor and rearrange:

殆∧段 to 洵(p∧q) to p∧q
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 25th December 2016, 07:54 AM   #343
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
The other issue here is how logical binary operations function versus how arithmetic binary operations function.

Most simply you can factor in rearrange:

(-a-b) to (-1-1)(a莁) to 1(a莁) to a莁

but you can't factor and rearrange:

殆∧段 to 洵(p∧q) to p∧q
Yes, but to be fair, TBD was originally speaking of "opposite". It is natural to think this means negation, and that's how I took it, but I'm not sure that this is what he meant.

To be sure, it is not at all clear what he means. If one takes away all the self-congratulations and gloating over his intellectual superiority, we are left with the repetition of the flimsiest of arguments, a single example involving a deli.
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 25th December 2016, 08:11 AM   #344
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes, but to be fair, TBD was originally speaking of "opposite". It is natural to think this means negation, and that's how I took it, but I'm not sure that this is what he meant.

To be sure, it is not at all clear what he means. If one takes away all the self-congratulations and gloating over his intellectual superiority, we are left with the repetition of the flimsiest of arguments, a single example involving a deli.
TBD also made reference to the fact that a negative times a negative equals a positive, and my reference to the multiplication of integers.
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 25th December 2016, 08:17 AM   #345
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
TBD also showed the original statement was a tu quoque fallacy.

Just getting us back on track fellas on this most joyous of Holidays!
__________________
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 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 25th December 2016, 08:45 AM   #346
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
TBD also showed the original statement was a tu quoque fallacy.

Just getting us back on track fellas on this most joyous of Holidays!
No, TBD merely asserted that "the original statement was a tu quoque fallacy". However, the original statement was not a tu quoque most obviously because Trump boats weren't being accused of acting similarly to Clinton, Trump himself was being accused of acting similarly Clinton.
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 25th December 2016, 09:03 AM   #347
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
No, TBD merely asserted that "the original statement was a tu quoque fallacy". However, the original statement was not a tu quoque most obviously because Trump boats weren't being accused of acting similarly to Clinton, Trump himself was being accused of acting similarly Clinton.
Trump.... boats??
__________________
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 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 25th December 2016, 09:04 AM   #348
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Trump.... boats??
Voters
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 25th December 2016, 09:12 AM   #349
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Voters
It was a tu quoque because the Trump voter was being accused of being a hypocrite because Trump allegedly did the same thing as Clinton.
__________________
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 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 25th December 2016, 09:17 AM   #350
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It was a tu quoque because the Trump voter was being accused of being a hypocrite because Trump allegedly did the same thing as Clinton.
That's simply not a tu quoque. The behavior in question was not that of the Trump voter but that of Trump versus that of Clinton. In order for it to be a tu quoque, the behavior has to be the head of the Trump voter.b you really need to look at the definitions you posted and the accompanying examples.
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 25th December 2016, 09:40 AM   #351
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
That's simply not a tu quoque. The behavior in question was not that of the Trump voter but that of Trump versus that of Clinton. In order for it to be a tu quoque, the behavior has to be the head of the Trump voter.b you really need to look at the definitions you posted and the accompanying examples.
The post in question called the trump voter a hypocrite!

Come on 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 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 25th December 2016, 10:01 AM   #352
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The post in question called the trump voter a hypocrite!

Come on man.....
Calling someone a hypocrite is not necessarily a tu quoque fallacy, as you've been told many times before. In exactly the same way, insulting one's interlocutor is not necessarily an ad hominem.

Of course, you will ignore this very obvious fact and pretend that you've won the argument. It is a fairly popular rhetorical strategy this year and in some settings appears to be successful (in the sense of convincing third parties).
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 25th December 2016, 10:06 AM   #353
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The post in question called the trump voter a hypocrite!

Come on man.....
Look at the definitions you posted. They require that the action for which the arguer is called a hypocrite be take by the arguer themselves.
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 25th December 2016, 10:07 AM   #354
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Calling someone a hypocrite is not necessarily a tu quoque fallacy, as you've been told many times before. In exactly the same way, insulting one's interlocutor is not necessarily an ad hominem.

Of course, you will ignore this very obvious fact and pretend that you've won the argument. It is a fairly popular rhetorical strategy this year and in some settings appears to be successful (in the sense of convincing third parties).
I have repeatedly, repeatedly, said in this very thread that if the claim in question is merely an insult, merely level zero name calling, then what is the point?

I have expertly explained that the accusation of hypocrisy is designed to challenge the relevance of the fact the Clinton is dishonest, which is why it is a tu quoque fallacy.

Of course, if your claim is that it is just an insult, just say so, and I will spike the ball in the end zone.
__________________
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 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 25th December 2016, 10:28 AM   #355
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I have expertly explained that the accusation of hypocrisy is designed to challenge the relevance of the fact the Clinton is dishonest, which is why it is a tu quoque fallacy.
You have done no such thing, because the accusation of hypocrisy wasn't intended "to challenge the relevance of the fact that Clinton is dishonest". In other words, you have argued fallaciously by creating a straw man.
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 25th December 2016, 11:03 AM   #356
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
You have done no such thing, because the accusation of hypocrisy wasn't intended "to challenge the relevance of the fact that Clinton is dishonest". In other words, you have argued fallaciously by creating a straw man.
Then lets bring this to an end shall we?

What was the purpose of the accusation of hypocrisy?

TBD's position is that it is an attempt to make a substantive, albeit fallacious argument.

Your position 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 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 25th December 2016, 02:11 PM   #357
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I have repeatedly, repeatedly, said in this very thread that if the claim in question is merely an insult, merely level zero name calling, then what is the point?

I have expertly explained that the accusation of hypocrisy is designed to challenge the relevance of the fact the Clinton is dishonest, which is why it is a tu quoque fallacy.

Of course, if your claim is that it is just an insult, just say so, and I will spike the ball in the end zone.
If one is inconsistent in his reasoning, it is not a tu quoque to point this out. To do so is to criticize one's reasoning.

If one does not behave consistently with his claim, and we attempt to dismiss the claim by pointing this out, then we are guilty of a tu quoque.

Let us look again at the original snippet.

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person A: Tu quoque!!!

Person B did not say that person A was acting inconsistently with his claim and thereby dismiss it. In fact, he is talking about the inconsistency of the actions of Trump voters with respect to the claimed reason they voted for Clinton. The proper way to view B's response is that it casts doubt on A's claimed reason that Trump voters voted the way they did.

Not a tu quoque nor an insult. Indeed, there is no explicit claim of hypocrisy at all.
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 25th December 2016, 02:15 PM   #358
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Then lets bring this to an end shall we?

What was the purpose of the accusation of hypocrisy?

TBD's position is that it is an attempt to make a substantive, albeit fallacious argument.

Your position is:????
It is not fallacious to point out that is hypocritical to justify not voting for Clinton due to some action that she took while voting for Trump despite the fact that he perform the same action. Not every notation of hypocrisy is a tu quoque. In fact, when the hypocrisy plays directly into the final conclusion of the argument, noting it is a valid refutation of the argument.
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 25th December 2016, 09:27 PM   #359
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If one is inconsistent in his reasoning, it is not a tu quoque to point this out. To do so is to criticize one's reasoning.

If one does not behave consistently with his claim, and we attempt to dismiss the claim by pointing this out, then we are guilty of a tu quoque.

Let us look again at the original snippet.

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person A: Tu quoque!!!

Person B did not say that person A was acting inconsistently with his claim and thereby dismiss it. In fact, he is talking about the inconsistency of the actions of Trump voters with respect to the claimed reason they voted for Clinton. The proper way to view B's response is that it casts doubt on A's claimed reason that Trump voters voted the way they did.

Not a tu quoque nor an insult. Indeed, there is no explicit claim of hypocrisy at all.
Total fraud. Who in the **** do you think you are kidding, Ph.D.?

Do you think that people do not know that the claim at issue was a blatant claim of hypocrisy?

Damn.
__________________
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 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 25th December 2016, 09:29 PM   #360
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,671
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
It is not fallacious to point out that is hypocritical to justify not voting for Clinton due to some action that she took while voting for Trump despite the fact that he perform the same action. Not every notation of hypocrisy is a tu quoque. In fact, when the hypocrisy plays directly into the final conclusion of the argument, noting it is a valid refutation of the argument.
Snerk.

Can not answer the question?

Anyone doubt the big dog?

Spikes the *********** football.
__________________
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 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 06:53 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.