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 22nd December 2016, 10:23 AM   #121
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh it is clear! It is also a transparently false summary of the argument actually presented.
How is it false? That is, if we disregard the fact that you want is to ignore the part of the discussion where you asserted the original statement was a tu quoque.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 22nd December 2016 at 10:26 AM.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:25 AM   #122
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You don't understand the definition. You are so caught up in the idea that you must be right, that you are unable to conceive that you might be wrong.

The argument is not Tu Quoque.
Another, "you don't understand" the definition with zero support.

C'mon fellas, this is skeptics site.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:25 AM   #123
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You don't understand the definition. You are so caught up in the idea that you must be right, that you are unable to conceive that you might be wrong.


This! A million times this!!
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:27 AM   #124
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Another, "you don't understand" the definition with zero support.

C'mon fellas, this is skeptics site.
You lack anything supporting for your 'arguments' other than 'NU UH! You WRONG!'.

This is a skeptics site. I've read the arguments from yourself, and Jay and others. I find their arguments and explanations compelling. Your false superiority because you say so, as well as your blatant condescension? Not compelling in the slightest.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:27 AM   #125
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post

B: Trump also did X. You are justifying not voting for Clinton because Clinton did X. How can you justify voting for Trump when Trump also did X?
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
How is it false? That is, if we disregard the fact that you want is to ignore the part of the discussion where you asserted the original statement was a tu quoque.
Here is "B's actual claim:

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

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.
Classic tu quoque.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:27 AM   #126
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You don't need a definition.

Yet you are claiming that I don't understand the definition....
I am claiming you don't understand the definition(s) you've presented. And I've supplied an argument in favor of that claim. So have many other posters. You seem to be sidestepping that argument with a distractionary appeal to some irrelevant "alternative definition." If you'd like to address the many explanations on the table for why the claimant's post differs materially from the definitions in play, that would be great.

Quote:
Say anytime you want to supply a definition that we can use, we will be much obliged, until then, I'll be discussing this with people with real arguments.
I recognize no need to supply an "alternative definition." The definitions that have been presented or cited work just fine. Your refusal to address the substance any of my post does not suddenly make their arguments in any way "unreal." But it seems you've concocted this new "requirement" for me to produce some irrelevant trifle as an excuse to ignore my posts. Good luck convincing anyone that's not just a flounce.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:28 AM   #127
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This! A million times this!!
There's a reason I accuse him of Illusory Superiority.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:29 AM   #128
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You lack anything supporting for your 'arguments' other than 'NU UH! You WRONG!'.

This is a skeptics site. I've read the arguments from yourself, and Jay and others. I find their arguments and explanations compelling. Your false superiority because you say so, as well as your blatant condescension? Not compelling in the slightest.
Oh dear... the proverbial rubber/glue rejoinder.

Type, "illusory superiority" again, that is your go to, no?
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:29 AM   #129
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Another, "you don't understand" the definition with zero support.

C'mon fellas, this is skeptics site.
"You don't understand" is not unskeptical when it is clear--as it is here--that the person being rolls they don't understand really doesn't understand.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:30 AM   #130
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Another, "you don't understand" the definition with zero support.
There's been a fair bit of support, you've just chosen to ignore that which gives the lie to your position.


Quote:
C'mon fellas, this is skeptics site.
Yes, full of lots of clever people and at least a couple with formal education in how formal logic works.

What I recommend you do, in a website full of skeptics, is find one person, with a demonstrated understanding of formal logic, who agrees with you. I think, currently, there is only you that holds your position and everyone else the contrary position although I am, as ever, up for being proved to be wrong.

Do you think we should have a poll?
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:30 AM   #131
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
There's a reason I accuse him of Illusory Superiority.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh dear... the proverbial rubber/glue rejoinder.

Type, "illusory superiority" again, that is your go to, no?
hahahahaha!!!!

Oh mercy.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:32 AM   #132
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
There's been a fair bit of support, you've just chosen to ignore that which gives the lie to your position.




Yes, full of lots of clever people and at least a couple with formal education in how formal logic works.

What I recommend you do, in a website full of skeptics, is find one person, with a demonstrated understanding of formal logic, who agrees with you. I think, currently, there is only you that holds your position and everyone else the contrary position although I am, as ever, up for being proved to be wrong.

Do you think we should have a poll?


An argumentum ad populum!

That is magnificent!
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:32 AM   #133
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh dear... the proverbial rubber/glue rejoinder.

Type, "illusory superiority" again, that is your go to, no?
Oh dear. You appear to suffer from Illusory Superiority. It fits. Want me to drop it? Then stop with the attitude, drop the condescension, and address the argument with personalizing it.

Again, you appear to be caught up in the idea that you MUST be right, you can't understand that you might be wrong.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:32 AM   #134
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Another, "you don't understand" the definition with zero support.
You are ignoring the support. That's not the same as there not being any. And no, you do not understand the difference between the definitions you're using and the post to which you're applying it. You simply latch onto certain words in the post and find the same words in the definition(s) of tu quoque and assume that's all you need. That's a cargo-cult approach to logical analysis.

Quote:
C'mon fellas, this is skeptics site.
Rational skepticism relies heavily on formal logic (and also informal logic that is still more rigorously formulated than free prose). You were given a proper logical analysis of the argument. You were unwilling to address it and simply pooh-poohed the fact that it was made at all. It is rather disingenous of you to request a higher form of debate when you have already rejected it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:34 AM   #135
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
SNIP
No definition?
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:34 AM   #136
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Here is "B's actual claim:



Classic tu quoque.
Nope, "B" doesn't say that it was wrong to vote for Trump because Temp voters are hypocrites. "B" said Trump voters are hypocrites because they justify not voting for Clinton by referencing Clinton's actions while overlooking the same types of actions taken by Trump.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:35 AM   #137
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post


An argumentum ad populum!

That is magnificent!

Oh dear.

That last sentence was a question. You can tell because t had a curly piece of punctuation at the end.


Oh, and, just for the record, just from your response there I suspect you misunderstand argument ad populum too, but let's not go down that rabbit hole.



Tell me, when was the last time you were wrong?
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:37 AM   #138
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
An argumentum ad populum!
No. That is when it is argued that a proposition asserted on logical grounds must be true because many people believe it. The reason it's a fallacy is because it doesn't consider the reasons why any of the people believe it. As such, it disconnects the proffered support from the necessary support.

However, when the populus is a group of people to whom the logical argument for a proposition has been presented, and which offer logical analysis and rebuttal to the argument that stands largely unopposed, their rejection of the proposition is not fallacious.

Last edited by JayUtah; 22nd December 2016 at 10:48 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:40 AM   #139
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No definition?
Asked and answered. You haven't explained why an "alternative definition" is necessary, therefore your refusal to proceed without one likely has a different motive. I predict it is further likely you will answer all my posts with this stonewalling approach, such that it seems you have an excuse for not addressing the substance of anything I may say from here on out. If you stipulate that this is your plan, will you also stipulate that I will just as likely not cow-tow to your irrelevant demands and it would carry on indefinitely like that. And under those stipulations, I would say your ongoing refusal to address your critics is a fair admission of defeat.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:40 AM   #140
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Nope, "B" doesn't say that it was wrong to vote for Trump because Temp voters are hypocrites. "B" said Trump voters are hypocrites because they justify not voting for Clinton by referencing Clinton's actions while overlooking the same types of actions taken by Trump.
Quote:
The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. This is a fallacy regardless of whether you really did it or not, but it helps if you really didn't do it.
BINGO.

(although maybe he is arguing it is just an insult, which again, why bother?)
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:43 AM   #141
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Oh dear.

That last sentence was a question. You can tell because t had a curly piece of punctuation at the end.

Oh, and, just for the record, just from your response there I suspect you misunderstand argument ad populum too, but let's not go down that rabbit hole.

Tell me, when was the last time you were wrong?
Certainly not in this thread!

"the last sentence" huh? Ignore all that appeal to popularity that comes before it folks!

Hee hee!
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:43 AM   #142
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No definition?
You provided the definitions that he accepts; you just don't understand those definitions.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:44 AM   #143
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
BINGO.

(although maybe he is arguing it is just an insult, which again, why bother?)

Hang on, so now we're at:

"If I'd said what he said I said it would have been a logical fallacy but I didn't say what he said I said but rather than point that out in the beginning what I've been doing is arguing that what he said I said isn't a fallacy even though I'm now saying it is but I'm still not saying I said it.


Is that about right?
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:46 AM   #144
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
BINGO.
No, that's just more cargo-cult word matching. The essence of tu quoque is that the proponent's (putatively logical) argument for some proposition is invalid because the proponent is hypocritical about the proposition. That is not the case here. In the claimant's post, the actors in question are unnamed third parties who have been shown to reason inconsistently. That inconsistent reasoning by third parties can result in those third parties being labeled hypocrites, but that hypocrisy does not play the same role in the claimant's post as hypocrisy does in the structure of tu quoque.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:46 AM   #145
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Certainly not in this thread!

"the last sentence" huh? Ignore all that appeal to popularity that comes before it folks!

Hee hee!

As has been pointed out, you don't actually understand the fallacy you accused me of.

Tell me, how do you know carbon has six electrons?
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:47 AM   #146
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Ignore all that appeal to popularity that comes before it folks!
It was explained to you why his post does not constitute such a fallacy. You seem to rely heavily on dismissing lines of reasoning by shouting your (largely wrong) diagnoses of fallacy at them and leaving it at that without further elaboration.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:48 AM   #147
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Asked and answered. You haven't explained why an "alternative definition" is necessary, therefore your refusal to proceed without one likely has a different motive. I predict it is further likely you will answer all my posts with this stonewalling approach, such that it seems you have an excuse for not addressing the substance of anything I may say from here on out. If you stipulate that this is your plan, will you also stipulate that I will just as likely not cow-tow to your irrelevant demands and it would carry on indefinitely like that. And under those stipulations, I would say your ongoing refusal to address your critics is a fair admission of defeat.
No definition huh?

Hey, by the way, look at that "refusal to address your critics is a fair admission of defeat."

Golly gee, where have I seen that before?

Oh right:

Fallacy by bare assertion: "A repeated argument by assertion can also take the form of non sequitur that requires little effort to make and is therefore often used to fatigue people who make actual arguments - sometimes combined with the infamous Gish Gallop. They will then bow out of the debate, usually exhausted, having lost faith in humanity and muttering "how the hell do you reason with these people?!?!" through grinding teeth - at which point the individual making the assertive argument simply declares victory."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

(remember when I mention argument by bare assertion this morning? That folks is what we call seeding the forest, know that at some point someone would declare victory and I would roll this bad boy out!)

Fantastic!
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:51 AM   #148
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No definition huh?

Hey, by the way, look at that "refusal to address your critics is a fair admission of defeat."

Golly gee, where have I seen that before?

Oh right:

Fallacy by bare assertion: "A repeated argument by assertion can also take the form of non sequitur that requires little effort to make and is therefore often used to fatigue people who make actual arguments - sometimes combined with the infamous Gish Gallop. They will then bow out of the debate, usually exhausted, having lost faith in humanity and muttering "how the hell do you reason with these people?!?!" through grinding teeth - at which point the individual making the assertive argument simply declares victory."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

(remember when I mention argument by bare assertion this morning? That folks is what we call seeding the forest, know that at some point someone would declare victory and I would roll this bad boy out!)

Fantastic!
And yet you don't address the argument. Illusory Superiority in a nutshell. Classic example.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:51 AM   #149
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
As has been pointed out, you don't actually understand the fallacy you accused me of.

Tell me, how do you know carbon has six electrons?
Another "I don't understand" claim!

DRINK.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:53 AM   #150
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It was explained to you why his post does not constitute such a fallacy. You seem to rely heavily on dismissing lines of reasoning by shouting your (largely wrong) diagnoses of fallacy at them and leaving it at that without further elaboration.

It's something one often finds when people discover logical fallacies for the first time, they're all new and exciting and only half (half may be generous) understood by the new student. They've all got flash sounding, Latin names and Sheldon uses them on TBBT so they definitely sound clever.


Me, I gave up using them when I realised that, in an adversarial argument, if one is not well versed in formal logic, they're more trouble than they're worth.

In any debate in which there is utmost good faith they're very useful, however.
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.

Last edited by 3point14; 22nd December 2016 at 10:56 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:54 AM   #151
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
BINGO.

(although maybe he is arguing it is just an insult, which again, why bother?)
Protip: Calling someone a hypocrite is not in and of itself a tu quoque.

And just so we're clear:

  • This is a tu quoque
    Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
    [i]t was wrong to vote for Trump because T[rump] voters are hypocrites.
  • This is not a tu quoque
    Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
    Trump voters are hypocrites because they justify not voting for Clinton by referencing Clinton's actions while overlooking the same types of actions taken by Trump.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:56 AM   #152
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Another "I don't understand" claim!

DRINK.

Yeah, I know. I'd take the time and trouble to explain the why of it to you, in fact, someone already did, but I'm not a big fan of beating my head against an only slightly metaphorical brick wall so I'm really not going to bother to argue with you, it would be an act of insanity.

I would, however, encourage you to try to find at least one person who agrees with you, for your own benefit.
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:56 AM   #153
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yes, full of lots of clever people and at least a couple with formal education in how formal logic works.
I tried not to be so pedantic, but this is the second time you used the term "formal logic". The fallacy we're talking about is an informal fallacy and part of informal logic/critical thinking, not formal logic.

Sorry, can't help but correct this minor error.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:58 AM   #154
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, I know. I'd take the time and trouble to explain the why of it to you, in fact, someone already did, but I'm not a big fan of beating my head against an only slightly metaphorical brick wall so I'm really not going to bother to argue with you, it would be an act of insanity.

I would, however, encourage you to try to find at least one person who agrees with you, for your own benefit.
Oh Golly! You mean actually citing a definition and then applying the definition?

But it is ever so much easier to just claim that one does not understand, is it not.

Of course it is.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:59 AM   #155
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I tried not to be so pedantic, but this is the second time you used the term "formal logic". The fallacy we're talking about is an informal fallacy and part of informal logic/critical thinking, not formal logic.

Sorry, can't help but correct this minor error.
Naming and classifying fallacies is a type of "formalization", especially if one learns to recognize fallacies by their form.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 10:59 AM   #156
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I tried not to be so pedantic, but this is the second time you used the term "formal logic". The fallacy we're talking about is an informal fallacy and part of informal logic/critical thinking, not formal logic.

Sorry, can't help but correct this minor error.

Thank you.

I try to avoid using formal/informal and 'inductive/deductive as I don't really have a grasp on all of it. It's one of those things I've promised myself I'll look at one day.

Please feel free to educate me further, I promise not to be an arse about it
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:00 AM   #157
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Naming and classifying fallacies is a type of "formalization", especially if one learns to recognize fallacies by their form.
That is not at all how the term is used by logicians. Informal fallacies are not a part of formal logic, as the term is commonly understood.

Honest, I really do know a thing or two about these things.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:01 AM   #158
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh Golly! You mean actually citing a definition and then applying the definition?

But it is ever so much easier to just claim that one does not understand, is it not.

Of course it is.
The way you (mis)applied the definition is evidence that you don't understand the definition.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:01 AM   #159
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh Golly! You mean actually citing a definition and then applying the definition?

But it is ever so much easier to just claim that one does not understand, is it not.

Of course it is.

Christ, with you, yes! Have you read the thread? Someone citing a definition and sticking to it is what's got us to here. You think I'm going to do all of that all over again only to have you , again, metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and proclaim that you're right because you really, really believe you are and cannot conceive of a universe in which you are wrong.


Again, when was the last time you were wrong?
__________________
We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:02 AM   #160
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Protip: Calling someone a hypocrite is not in and of itself a tu quoque.

And just so we're clear:

  • This is a tu quoque
  • This is not a tu quoque
Cripes, once again:

Quote:
The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. This is a fallacy regardless of whether you really did it or not, but it helps if you really didn't do it.
If you are claiming it was merely an insult, then just say it for pete's sake.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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