/lit/ - Literature

Fallacies are reddit

>>18926519
Definitely this one due to how widely used and how slimy it is. It can be used to justify just about anything.

>>18926532
This. Also if someone doesn't address me with a baseline amount of respect the conversation will not proceed. I reserve the right to end the conversation whenever I feel like it, and for whatever reason. It's not about who's right or wrong.

>>18926693
gay

>>18926702
Fuck you too faggot.

>>18926693
are you a woman or a troll?

>>18926666
Murder is okay because its natural, you just dont want to deal with the consequences of that. NOT MUH HECKIN NATURAL SELECTION

>>18926693
>This. Also if someone doesn't address me with a baseline amount of respect the conversation will not proceed. I reserve the right to end the conversation whenever I feel like it, and for whatever reason. It's not about who's right or wrong.

whataboutism and strawmanning are always classics
obviously in low intellectual discussions, such as those on 4chan, ad hominems are enough

>>18926519
>It's pretty much Reddit incarnate.
I really don't like the way you phrased this. It's very passive-aggressive. And don't look at me like that.
>>18926666
Yeah, this one's obnoxious. "Weed can't be bad for you man, cuz like, it's from natural herbs!" So's hemlock. "Dude, like, dogs sometimes do gay stuff, so like, doing gay stuff must be totally awesome." Dogs also eat shit.

>>18926532
Except appeal to authority, which Reddit does every day.

>>18926519
I have a general disdain for fallacies in general because, while I think it is important to be logically rigorous and consistent to build a true argument, the mere mention of a fallacy annoys me because it detracts from the spirit of the argument. In other words, fallacies are annoying because they are too much about the letter rather than the spirit. Generally I dislike when nitpicks are made even though what is intended and meant is clear.
>>18926666
Checked. I agree, I think this is certainly a dangerous and annoying one.

>>18926693
What a faggot lel

The problem with logical fallacies is that, most of times, whoever is using them will simply ignore you if you point out the fallacious nature of their claims. No one cares about facts or whether their arguments are made in bad faith, only about feeling good/right.
Frankly, this behavior exhausts me to the point I either ignore or pretend to believe whichever deranged nonsense is spouted in regular conversation.

>>18926666
I'd say appeal to authority is way worse. At least with nature you can bring up rape being natural but appeal to authority has credibility behind it "Oh, so you're saying that you're smarter than a harvard graduate? I'd like to see your credentials."

Moving goalposts is the least favorite.
Admit defeat, dipshit. Grow some balls. There is a thick line between refuting the faults of a source and straight up retreating once a source is presented.
They probably don't even read them, too.

>>18926851
This is why the only debates worth anything are those between people with similar ideological backgrounds. Or about a very specific topic that's not strictly determined by their ideology.

Otherwise you get either a complete shitshow, or something polite but completely nonsensical like Zizek v. Peterson.

>>18927139
Sounds like an echo chamber.

>>18926532
Disagree. Fallacies are so common in arguments that it's better to teach them rather than the opposite, even though there are situations where what seems like a fallacy is not actually a fallacy but rather part of the argument. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

IDK the name for it (I've seen it called a "Kafka trap", which I like), but the way you can frame the very fact that the opponent is counterarguing or defending themself as an admission of error or guilt. It doesn't happen much in real debates or good-faith discussion but normies fucking love it, you see it on social media constantly.
>say some idiotic/inflammatory bullshit
>people criticize and refute you
>"Yikes, looks like I touched a nerve! The fact that you're jumping to argue with this says a lot!"

Feel like my telomeres are being destroyed every time I witness it and people keep trying to "win" against someone who isn't even playing the game.

>Source?

>>18927227
this kills the greek

>>18927188
There will probably never be a name for it because of how niche and new it is. I'd say its a mixture of kafka trap and abusive ad hominem.

This is meta, but the fallacy-fallacy; "you have X fallacy, therefore you are wrong".
Like if I wrote a page countering some op ed, and then at the end called the author an idiot then a fallacy-fallacy would be disregarding it because I used an ad hominem. Alternatively maybe one point of the text was fallacious, but the argument still held up so you'd be incorrect to debunk the whole thing just based on that.

>>18927157
>>18926519
disagree. the term falacy is gross and letter of the law, point to what was wrong, you dont need to give it a name. its myopic. instad, teach logic and say why x is not logical or why that pov may be flawed rather than going
>erm thats a ___ fallacy
then you are not necissarily adressing the argument in particular (even if its shit), but instead conforming a debate to a pre established list of concrete no goes wwhich themelves may be too myopic depending on cercumstance.

fallacy I generally fell, are expressely non philosophical in their very nature, as they do not try to get to a core of an argument, but simply nit pic a pre-defined gestalt point. for example, while >>18926666 appeal to nature could be an invalid point, it does not necissarily have to be, if you disect the idea of good and come to the conclusion its essence is nature, what then? this doesnt even say what capitol G Good is to begin with. It does not give an epistomological definition of the good a priori, and depending on how ones epistomology might play out, or their ontology, or their meaning in the term "Nature" its variable.

instead of going to a basic epistological standpoint to see what the dispute it, a fallacy jumps orders of magnitude of logic past that to neat tidy boxes of assumed meaning. thus it inspires letter of the law thinking.

>>18926519
>tone policing
I think thats circumstantially totally ok though. especially when you are discussing with a snide little disingenuous cunt.

>>18926784
You can easily feel when people are not honestly engaging the argument. No need for fancy words for it, it's clear from talking.
Fallacies is just the analization of the methods, maybe if you argue a lot it can be a tool to spot twists and roundabouts in your opponents.

>>18927188
It's just tone criticism
>Oh you're sad? Did I touch a soft spot?
>Angry, eh? Must be livid about being wrong.

>>18927367
That's just self respect. You can refuse to argue with someone who does not respect you - it is not a fallacy, simply refusing to participate. If you used his tone to turn the conversation around it's a fallacy.

>>18926731
>"Dude, like, dogs sometimes do gay stuff, so like, doing gay stuff must be totally awesome."
Honestly this is not how I usually hear this argument. People say that homosexual acts are "against nature" (which is itself an appeal to nature fallacy) but they're just factually wrong.

>>18926851
>>18927139
I avoid all this by not arguing with people.

>>18927350
despite the dubious spelling (maybe you're under the influence, or dyslexic), i completely agree with you as well as this >>18926784 anon. it
more often than not kills the purpose of the debate and is quite reductive, by bogging things down into rigid technicalities. i understand why people concentrate on them for the sake of healthy argumentation, but they're grossly misused and overvalued.

>>18927410
Even using the divide as 'man made = artificial' homosexuality is a evolutionary trait in social animals.

>>18926666
Leave it to Mega Satan to hate nature.

>>18927415
>>18927350
Sorry for shitty spelling. Typed fast, and really should have edited, but thanks.