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.
Reply
Old 20th May 2018, 07:59 AM   #1
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 389
Just stating facts

So I noticed a debating tactic where a person with use a fact that may be true or uncontroversial but they will use to to justify horrible or wrong beliefs and when called out on it they fall back on "but I'm just stating facts".

For example:

Person 1: There are Jewish elites who are harming our country.
Person 2: Hey that's anti-semitic.
Person 1: No it isn't. Are you denying that some elites are Jewish?

Is there a name for this type of arguing?
Jerrymander 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 20th May 2018, 08:41 AM   #2
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,443
Person one is making a faulty generalization and/or begging the question.

Yes, there are Jewish people who are big bankers. But not all bankers are Jewish and there is no real evidence of a conspiracy amongst Jewish bankers.
The statement just assumes that this “Jewish Elite” conspiracy is fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th May 2018, 10:17 AM   #3
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,411
Or a Texas Sharpshooter variant. It suggests Jews and elites are a more well defined and generally acknowledged group than they are.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal 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 May 2018, 03:59 AM   #4
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,233
There's a simple Non Sequitur there: from the veracity of the claim does not follow the conclusion.
Also Special Pleading: there are also christian or atheist or latino or whatever elites, but only the jewish is picked out as worrisome.

I see a similar fallacious type of argument in US Politics these days, where one poster likes to google and quote statues and court decisions, and then declares victory because the others (actual legal professionals among them) don't. The problems: 1. He does not necessarily understand what he quotes, or it doesn't apply to what's discussed (non sequitur); 2. He may fail to consider statues or precedent that point the other way
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 May 2018, 04:52 AM   #5
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'
Posts: 13,925
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
So I noticed a debating tactic where a person with use a fact that may be true or uncontroversial but they will use to to justify horrible or wrong beliefs and when called out on it they fall back on "but I'm just stating facts".

For example:

Person 1: There are Jewish elites who are harming our country.
Person 2: Hey that's anti-semitic.
Person 1: No it isn't. Are you denying that some elites are Jewish?

Is there a name for this type of arguing?
Causal or post hoc. The issue is people harming the country. Being Jewish does't cause harm to the country. Neither does being an elite, nor being Jewish and Elite. The suggestion is that one causes the other.
Lothian 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 May 2018, 04:55 AM   #6
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,794
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
So I noticed a debating tactic where a person with use a fact that may be true or uncontroversial but they will use to to justify horrible or wrong beliefs and when called out on it they fall back on "but I'm just stating facts".

For example:

Person 1: There are Jewish elites who are harming our country.
Person 2: Hey that's anti-semitic.
Person 1: No it isn't. Are you denying that some elites are Jewish?

Is there a name for this type of arguing?

There are a huge number of suppressed premises there - that Jews are a monolithic group; that Jews coordinate their actions for some goal; that Jews are a large enough portion of the "elites" to make a difference; that "elites" are a monolithic group with some coordinated goal; etc.

And then when called on the racism implicit in the suppressed argument, Person 1 changes the meanings of "Jewish" and "elites" to undo his own argument (for as long as you put pressure on him).
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 May 2018, 07:01 AM   #7
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,068
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
So I noticed a debating tactic where a person with use a fact that may be true or uncontroversial but they will use to to justify horrible or wrong beliefs and when called out on it they fall back on "but I'm just stating facts".

For example:

Person 1: There are Jewish elites who are harming our country.
Person 2: Hey that's anti-semitic.
Person 1: No it isn't. Are you denying that some elites are Jewish?

Is there a name for this type of arguing?
That type of arguing is known as lying.

Of course there are some Jewish elites that are harming our county.

Just like there are some Christian elites that are harming our country.
Just like there are some Muslim elites that are harming our country.
Just like there are some Hindu elites that are harming our country.
Just like there are some Jewish non-elites that are harming our country.
Just like there are some Christian non-elites that are harming our country.

And so on.

There is always going to be some people who are harming our country regardless of their religion and/or elite status.
__________________
On 28 JUN 2018 'yuno44907' said: "I am god and you have to help me."
On 03 JUL 2018 'yuno44907' got banned from the Forum.

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 May 2018, 07:09 AM   #8
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,711
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
So I noticed a debating tactic where a person with use a fact that may be true or uncontroversial but they will use to to justify horrible or wrong beliefs and when called out on it they fall back on "but I'm just stating facts".

For example:

Person 1: There are Jewish elites who are harming our country.
Person 2: Hey that's anti-semitic.
Person 1: No it isn't. Are you denying that some elites are Jewish?

Is there a name for this type of arguing?
For a start, it's a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and there's also a bare assertion involved if you pick it apart. And finally, there's an element of poisoning the well. In the example you give, the only fact that one can't seriously dispute is that there are some powerful people who are also Jewish; but it's then asserted without proof that some of these people are harming the country, and it's implied that they are harming the country because they are Jewish, in order to give the impression that all Jewish people are therefore harmful. It's as much about what's deliberately implied as about what's actually stated.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 May 2018, 06:57 PM   #9
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
So I noticed a debating tactic where a person with use a fact that may be true or uncontroversial but they will use to to justify horrible or wrong beliefs and when called out on it they fall back on "but I'm just stating facts".

For example:

Person 1: There are Jewish elites who are harming our country.
Person 2: Hey that's anti-semitic.
Person 1: No it isn't. Are you denying that some elites are Jewish?

Is there a name for this type of arguing?
This is such a contrived framing. It seems like the topic should be what YOU are up to here, not what is going on in the fake "debate".

You wouldn't need to make up, to fabricate an example, if it is an actual example. Just quote the example verbatim. A real exchange is not going to be three lines with no context whatsoever.

You've claimed that the person used a fact to justify horrible beliefs, but this exchange does not satisfy your claim.

What is the horrible belief, exactly? You seem to want us criticizing a conspiracy theory he has not actually articulated in this exchange.

You can state with equal truism that Jewish Elites are helping this country. In fact there are Jewish bankers helping the country just by being good bankers.

But I haven't said that Jewish bankers are the key to our nation's future. You need me to actually say that in order to call me a pro-Jewish bigot.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 12:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.