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, 02:14 PM   #281
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,589
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
First, allow me to apologize for not responding to your "masterful" post in the 44-minute interval allowed. I let family Christmastime activities intrude on my ISF posting obligations, a gross dereliction of duty if ever there was one.

Second, I have repeatedly pointed out how you have misstated my arguments, but you ignored those identifications as efficiently as you ignored the arguments themselves. Do you actually think you're fooling anybody into thinking that I haven't done so? And is there any reason I should expect the sixth or seventh - I'm losing count - time I point this out to obtain a different result?
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, 02:19 PM   #282
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That is not a claim that is a subjective denial.
No, that is a direct juxtaposition of what he said and what you said he said. Sts60 properly accused you of restating his post to indicate the opposite of what he said. The evidence is there in black and white that you did exactly that.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2016, 02:53 PM   #283
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
First, allow me to apologize for not responding to your "masterful" post in the 44-minute interval allowed. I let family Christmastime activities intrude on my ISF posting obligations, a gross dereliction of duty if ever there was one.

Second, I have repeatedly pointed out how you have misstated my arguments, but you ignored those identifications as efficiently as you ignored the arguments themselves. Do you actually think you're fooling anybody into thinking that I haven't done so? And is there any reason I should expect the sixth or seventh - I'm losing count - time I point this out to obtain a different result?
But you did respond.... You did not manage to say anything substantive.

A reason? Sure, I asked you to. You say I did address your point, I am more than delighted to do so, if only I knew what it is.

By the way, that was your sixth post in this thread including one about my lifting so...

Your point 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

Last edited by The Big Dog; 23rd December 2016 at 03:32 PM.
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 23rd December 2016, 02:54 PM   #284
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
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?
A tu quoque requires that one point out that his opponent acts inconsistently with his claim (for instance, eating hamburger after arguing that meat is murder) and concluding that his argument may be dismissed. It must be about the opponent's hypocrisy, and is characterized as a particular form of (non-abusive) ad hominem.
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 23rd December 2016, 02:54 PM   #285
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, that is a direct juxtaposition of what he said and what you said he said. Sts60 properly accused you of restating his post to indicate the opposite of what he said. The evidence is there in black and white that you did exactly that.
Wrong. Smfh
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2016, 02:55 PM   #286
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
A tu quoque requires that one point out that his opponent acts inconsistently with his claim (for instance, eating hamburger after arguing that meat is murder) and concluding that his argument may be dismissed. It must be about the opponent's hypocrisy, and is characterized as a particular form of (non-abusive) ad hominem.
Thanks for clarifying.
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, 03:04 PM   #287
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong. Smfh
Does this sort of frantic gaslighting ever work for you? Does it ever convince a single person that what you say is true, in contravention to what they can see for themselves? I have to ask, because sheer denial of a plainly visible fact is about as self-refuting an argument as can be had.
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, 03:22 PM   #288
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Does this sort of frantic gaslighting ever work for you? Does it ever convince a single person that what you say is true, in contravention to what they can see for themselves? I have to ask, because sheer denial of a plainly visible fact is about as self-refuting an argument as can be had.
Wrong, again.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2016, 03:46 PM   #289
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Does this sort of frantic gaslighting ever work for you? Does it ever convince a single person that what you say is true, in contravention to what they can see for themselves? I have to ask, because sheer denial of a plainly visible fact is about as self-refuting an argument as can be had.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong, again.
I think, Jay, that the Big Dog is saying that some of his arguments are even more self-refuting.
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 23rd December 2016, 03:46 PM   #290
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong, again.
That doesn't even make sense. Are you just quoting my posts and adding single-word knee-jerk responses?
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, 03:50 PM   #291
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That doesn't even make sense. Are you just quoting my posts and adding single-word knee-jerk responses?
No
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2016, 05:02 PM   #292
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,589
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That doesn't even make sense. Are you just quoting my posts and adding single-word knee-jerk responses?
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No
Pro tip: poop jokes are equally annoying to the grown-ups after a while, require no more thought than you have put into this thread, and would save you the effort of even pretending to pay attention to what people are saying.
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, 08:06 PM   #293
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Pro tip: poop jokes are equally annoying to the grown-ups after a while, require no more thought than you have put into this thread, and would save you the effort of even pretending to pay attention to what people are saying.
Hell I could post in this thread in my sleep, given the lack of serious responses to my posts.

Protip: get a really good source like I did that totally supports your position, and watch the opposition to your position melt away like butter on a hot plate.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2016, 08:51 PM   #294
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,067
Wow.
isissxn 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, 10:21 PM   #295
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hell I could post in this thread in my sleep, given the lack of serious responses to my posts.

Protip: get a really good source like I did that totally supports your position, and watch the opposition to your position melt away like butter on a hot plate.
False.

Drops mic.
__________________

"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 24th December 2016, 07:39 AM   #296
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,589
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
But you did respond....
My response in post 281 was directly, as in I quoted it, in response to your post 263, in which you complained I hadn't responded to your post 258, made 44 minutes earlier. So, no, I clearly hadn't responded at that point. Once again, are you unwilling, or merely unable, to pay attention to what is actually said?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You did not manage to say anything substantive.
Pot, kettle, black.

But to be clear, I referred to a series of earlier substantive replies you ignored, and replaced with straw man versions of your own. In other words, the substance was incorporated by reference, thus allowing you to ignore it more easily. You're welcome.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
A reason? Sure, I asked you to.
I didn't ask why I should answer. I asked why I should expect you to respond to what I said, rather than what you mutated my claims to. Your reply is an excellent case in point as to why I should expect no such thing.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You say I did address your point,
I said the exact opposite. Perhaps this is a typo, but given your history here, even odds it's a willful misrepresnetation.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am more than delighted to do so, if only I knew what it is.
Asked and answered. Many times. You don't think you're actually fooling anyone, do you?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
By the way, that was your sixth post in this thread including one about my lifting so...

Your point is......
Asked and answered. Many times. But, in this particular case, there is the additional point that given your remark about lifting, you don't have the excuse of being a twelve-year-old.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hell I could post in this thread in my sleep, given the lack of serious responses to my posts.
Again, do you actually think you're fooling anyone?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Protip: get a really good source like I did that totally supports your position, and watch the opposition to your position melt away like butter on a hot plate.
When you throw yourself that victory parade in your head, I recommend you pick something seasonal for the soundtrack, like "O Trolly Night".

All of this, of course, merely serves to divert from the original issue from which this thread was split, namely the hypocrisy of supporting Trump because of Clinton's email issues. You originally sought to exempt yourself from that charge, but never answered the followup question probing the consistency of your position. If "substantive" answers are important to you all of a sudden, you could try answering that question. Or you could just do the usual and answer some other question you made up.
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 24th December 2016, 08:56 AM   #297
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
My response in post 281 was directly, as in I quoted it, in response to your post 263, in which you complained I hadn't responded to your post 258, made 44 minutes earlier. So, no, I clearly hadn't responded at that point. Once again, are you unwilling, or merely unable, to pay attention to what is actually said?
You had not responded to the post but had cut out the substantive analysis of my post.

Particularly the part where I have expertly shown that you used the virtually identical tu quoque that is used to illustrate the rational wiki article on tu quoque, which: WOW

Given your refusal to show how I mistated your point or to explain what your point is, we must conclude I did not do so.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 10:16 AM   #298
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Particularly the part where I have expertly shown that you used the virtually identical tu quoque that is used to illustrate the rational wiki article on tu quoque...
Maybe that's what happened in your mind, but that's not what happened in real life. "Virtually" identical is not close enough. As you have been repeatedly instructed, there is a subtle but important difference between the claim that was made and the definition you posted. You are either unwilling or incapable of grasping that difference.
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 24th December 2016, 10:36 AM   #299
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Maybe that's what happened in your mind, but that's not what happened in real life. "Virtually" identical is not close enough. As you have been repeatedly instructed, there is a subtle but important difference between the claim that was made and the definition you posted. You are either unwilling or incapable of grasping that difference.
Are you kidding? The ONLY difference was that it was "Bill" Clinton and not "Hillary" Clinton in the illustration! I cannot believe you are attempting to make such a specious distinction.

fantastic!
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 10:41 AM   #300
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Are you kidding?
Not in the least.

Quote:
The ONLY difference...
Untrue. You have been told repeatedly what the important difference is. Eight pages of your creative denial doesn't change that.

Quote:
I cannot believe you are attempting to make such a specious distinction.
Again, has any of this desperate gaslighting ever resulted in your winning a debate in real life, as opposed to just in your mind?
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 24th December 2016, 10:49 AM   #301
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not in the least.



Untrue. You have been told repeatedly what the important difference is. Eight pages of your creative denial doesn't change that.



Again, has any of this desperate gaslighting ever resulted in your winning a debate in real life, as opposed to just in your mind?
Bare assertion.
Bare assertion.
Personalize the argument.

Say, any skeptics note that he cut out my explantion that the reason I typed virtually? That it was Bill Clinton and not Hillary? Of course you did.

By the way, every time you claim I do not understand something or it is only in my mind, an angel gets its wings.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 11:27 AM   #302
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Bare assertion.
Bare assertion.
Such a very easy accusation to hurl from a position of almost abject denial. Eight pages of thread make you a liar. Do you honestly think you can fool people out of seeing what they contain? That's a serious question. Do you honestly think people can't see what has been posted?

Quote:
Personalize the argument.
Pointing out that you are trying to gaslight your critics instead of addressing their remarks is attacking your argument, not you. If you don't want your gaslighting pointed out, don't substitute that in place of an argument.

Quote:
Say, any skeptics note that he cut out my explantion that the reason I typed virtually?
I didn't cut it out. I simply didn't quote the entirety of it, which can still plainly be seen in your post. But if all you have to say for yourself is quibbling over your critics' quotation habits, then I see the depths your claim has sunk to. You claimed the only difference was a certain thing. It absolutely does not matter what that certain thing is, because it wasn't the only difference between your diagnosis and the real world. I would ask whether you care to discuss that other difference, but eight pages of your ever-more-frantic denial has already answered that question for me.

Quote:
By the way, every time you claim I do not understand something or it is only in my mind, an angel gets its wings.
Then I say let the squadrons fly. You seem to think that trying to shame your critics away from pointing out the flaws in your understanding or your rampant denialism has a part in a reasoned debate. Your errors have been pointed out to you. Your denialism is overt and undisguised. These are not personal attacks; they are legitimately what is wrong with the argument you're making in this thread.
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 24th December 2016, 11:53 AM   #303
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Such a very easy accusation to hurl from a position of almost abject denial. Eight pages of thread make you a liar. Do you honestly think you can fool people out of seeing what they contain? That's a serious question. Do you honestly think people can't see what has been posted?



Pointing out that you are trying to gaslight your critics instead of addressing their remarks is attacking your argument, not you. If you don't want your gaslighting pointed out, don't substitute that in place of an argument.



I didn't cut it out. I simply didn't quote the entirety of it, which can still plainly be seen in your post. But if all you have to say for yourself is quibbling over your critics' quotation habits, then I see the depths your claim has sunk to. You claimed the only difference was a certain thing. It absolutely does not matter what that certain thing is, because it wasn't the only difference between your diagnosis and the real world. I would ask whether you care to discuss that other difference, but eight pages of your ever-more-frantic denial has already answered that question for me.



Then I say let the squadrons fly. You seem to think that trying to shame your critics away from pointing out the flaws in your understanding or your rampant denialism has a part in a reasoned debate. Your errors have been pointed out to you. Your denialism is overt and undisguised. These are not personal attacks; they are legitimately what is wrong with the argument you're making in this thread.
A literal frenzy of personalizations.

Heck you did not even bother to defend your specious Bill/Hillary claim (not that I blame you because: specious)
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 12:16 PM   #304
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
A literal frenzy of personalizations.
If so, then report it for moderation. Otherwise don't try to claim so for rhetorical effect.

Quote:
Heck you did not even bother to defend your specious Bill/Hillary claim (not that I blame you because: specious)
I made no claim about Bill or Hillary. I pointed out that you had identified a certain thing as the only difference between sts60's post and the wiki definition of tu quoque. That is patently false, as other things have been identified as differences -- important ones. Eight pages of preceding posts proves that. You have no answer, hence (I suspect) your ongoing denial and gaslighting.
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 24th December 2016, 01:00 PM   #305
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,589
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You had not responded to the post but had cut out the substantive analysis of my post.
The first part of your post, as I explained, was you saying something that I didn't say. The second part was you applying an arbitrary logic operation to something I didn't say. There's no need for me to quote you at length with regard to what I actually said, because your post had nothing to do with what I actually said.

The rest of your post here was just more of you pretending you haven't been told repeatedly what's happening, so no, I'm not feeding your trolling again.

The real issue, of course, remains the hypocrisy I pointed out in the original thread. Your refusal to address my actual claims is merely a sideshow.
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 24th December 2016, 02:13 PM   #306
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
The first part of your post, as I explained, was you saying something that I didn't say. The second part was you applying an arbitrary logic operation to something I didn't say. There's no need for me to quote you at length with regard to what I actually said, because your post had nothing to do with what I actually said.
Now, let's be fair. It was not a random logical operation. Here's what he said.

Quote:
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."
Now, let's work through this. Let P stand for "it is a tu quoque" and Q for "it is fallacious. Then

Although it is a tu quoque, it is not fallacious.
would be represented as

P & NOT Q
Now, the "opposite" of that presumably means the negation, i.e.,

NOT (P & NOT Q).
He rendered the opposite as "although it is not a tu quoque, it is fallacious," i.e., as

NOT P & Q.
As we can see, this is not a random logical operation. It is the sort of mistake we expect a not too bright second grader to make when asked about the negation of P & NOT Q.

Just to prevent a spurious reply, even if we decide that "opposite" does not mean "negation", there is no particular way to regard NOT P & Q as the opposite of P & NOT Q.
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 24th December 2016, 02:26 PM   #307
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
The first part of your post, as I explained, was you saying something that I didn't say. The second part was you applying an arbitrary logic operation to something I didn't say. There's no need for me to quote you at length with regard to what I actually said, because your post had nothing to do with what I actually said.

The rest of your post here was just more of you pretending you haven't been told repeatedly what's happening, so no, I'm not feeding your trolling again.

The real issue, of course, remains the hypocrisy I pointed out in the original thread. Your refusal to address my actual claims is merely a sideshow.
Speaking of being told repeatedly.

What you said:

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?
The actual illustration from the article:

Quote:
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.
And this?

Is me dropping the mic.

BOOM!
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 02:30 PM   #308
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Speaking of being told repeatedly.

What you said:



The actual illustration from the article:



And this?

Is me dropping the mic.

BOOM!
False. Wrong. Drops Mic.

Oh yes: Illusory Superiority.

BOOM. HEADSHOT.
__________________

"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 24th December 2016, 02:32 PM   #309
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Now, let's be fair. It was not a random logical operation. Here's what he said.



Now, let's work through this. Let P stand for "it is a tu quoque" and Q for "it is fallacious. Then

Although it is a tu quoque, it is not fallacious.
would be represented as

P & NOT Q
Now, the "opposite" of that presumably means the negation, i.e.,

NOT (P & NOT Q).
He rendered the opposite as "although it is not a tu quoque, it is fallacious," i.e., as

NOT P & Q.
As we can see, this is not a random logical operation. It is the sort of mistake we expect a not too bright second grader to make when asked about the negation of P & NOT Q.

Just to prevent a spurious reply, even if we decide that "opposite" does not mean "negation", there is no particular way to regard NOT P & Q as the opposite of P & NOT Q.
Golly, I hope your hypothetical not too bright second grader can recognize a "joke" when they see it. (by the way, y'all might to check your math, a negative times a negative is a positive.)

Fantastic
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 02:48 PM   #310
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And this?

Is me dropping the mic.

BOOM!
When you're finished patting yourself on the back for being so clever, perhaps you'd like to address the countless explanations for why that example isn't actually what the claimant's argument was.
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 24th December 2016, 02:50 PM   #311
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
by the way, y'all might to check your math...
You might want to look up Boolean algebra.
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 24th December 2016, 03:01 PM   #312
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
When you're finished patting yourself on the back for being so clever, perhaps you'd like to address the countless explanations for why that example isn't actually what the claimant's argument was.
Wait. What?

The actual *********** quote wasn't what the claimants argument was?

Oh. My. Stars.

Fantastic.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 03:07 PM   #313
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,589
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
What you said:
Oh, the extra heapin' helpin' of hypocrisy you're serving up.

You just got through lambasting me for not fully quoting a post of yours that purported to apply to my statements, even though you had made up what I said and were beating up that straw man. Now, here you are citing me, and leaving out the essential part that follows:

Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
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.
But you're not through practicing' what yer preaching' agin'.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The actual illustration from the article:
You quoted from the article, but left out another essential part. Stated several times in the article, here is the first citation:

Originally Posted by RationalWiki
The usual structure of the fallacy is:
Person A makes claim X about Person B.
Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A.
Therefore, X is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite.
Of course, as I explicitly pointed out, I am not claiming the highlighted part. You've been told that a lot, in very direct terms, but you somehow refuse to address the claim I actually made.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And this?...
... is you once again mutating an argument to suit your own rhetorical purposes. Do you really think you're fooling anybody?

I don't know whether you're unable or simply unwilling to honestly address what's being said, but, this being the season of forgiveness,... well, I can't really forgive you, as your offense is not against me. But Merry Christmas anyway.
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 24th December 2016, 03:17 PM   #314
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Oh, the extra heapin' helpin' of hypocrisy you're serving up.

You just got through lambasting me for not fully quoting a post of yours that purported to apply to my statements, even though you had made up what I said and were beating up that straw man. Now, here you are citing me, and leaving out the essential part that follows:



But you're not through practicing' what yer preaching' agin'.



You quoted from the article, but left out another essential part. Stated several times in the article, here is the first citation:



Of course, as I explicitly pointed out, I am not claiming the highlighted part. You've been told that a lot, in very direct terms, but you somehow refuse to address the claim I actually made.



... is you once again mutating an argument to suit your own rhetorical purposes. Do you really think you're fooling anybody?

I don't know whether you're unable or simply unwilling to honestly address what's being said, but, this being the season of forgiveness,... well, I can't really forgive you, as your offense is not against me. But Merry Christmas anyway.
Oh dear, then as I suggested before your entire point was to call him a hypocrite? Just an insult? Well as I suggested before, that is simply the most marvelously awful thing I have ever seen.

Fantastic.

In fact tho, what you are really doing is asserting that the argument that Clinton is dishonest is irrelevant because they are all dishonest. See your argument was not just bare name calling, it was just fallacious. Tu quoque in fact.

Just like tbd has been explaining.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 24th December 2016 at 03:20 PM.
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 24th December 2016, 03:18 PM   #315
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Golly, I hope your hypothetical not too bright second grader can recognize a "joke" when they see it. (by the way, y'all might to check your math, a negative times a negative is a positive.)

Fantastic
Son, I have a PhD in logic. Along the way, I gained a certain acquaintance with propositional logic. I assure you this included DeMorgan's law, a theorem which might do you some good.

You call it a joke, but you still seem to misunderstand where you went wrong. The negation of

P & NOT Q
is not equivalent to

NOT P & Q.
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 24th December 2016, 03:50 PM   #316
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Golly, I hope your hypothetical not too bright second grader can recognize a "joke" when they see it. (by the way, y'all might to check your math, a negative times a negative is a positive.)

Fantastic
Boolean logic is not necessarily equivalent to arithmetic on the 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 24th December 2016, 03:53 PM   #317
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Boolean logic is not necessarily equivalent to arithmetic on the integers.
No, but it is the case that NOT NOT P is equivalent to P in classical (non-intuitionistic) Boolean logic.
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 24th December 2016, 04:04 PM   #318
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
No, but it is the case that NOT NOT P is equivalent to P in classical (non-intuitionistic) Boolean logic.
So are you interpreting The Big Dogs post to refer to negation elimination or de Morgan's laws?
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, 04:20 PM   #319
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The actual *********** quote wasn't what the claimants argument was?
No, your "actual quote from the article" is not equivalent to the claimant's argument. Please calm down and pay attention. Your knee-jerk, itchy-trigger-finger responses are not your friend today.
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 24th December 2016, 05:35 PM   #320
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Son, I have a PhD in logic. Along the way, I gained a certain acquaintance with propositional logic. I assure you this included DeMorgan's law, a theorem which might do you some good.

You call it a joke, but you still seem to misunderstand where you went wrong. The negation of

P & NOT Q
is not equivalent to

NOT P & Q.
Son??

You have a Ph.D in logic? I had no idea, I have been meaning to ask someone with a Ph.d in logic a question for a long time:

Which is your best seller, cappuccino or espresso?

Just joshing ya! Like I assume you are joshing all of this with that pedantic negation/equivalent nonsense.

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
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 24th December 2016 at 06:09 PM.
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 10:24 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.