Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Interesting way to reduce the back and forth arguing that occurs on forums . . . and in real life
Cryomatrix
Member EpicPosts: 3,223
Basically,
Here is a list of common fallacies that are most numerous.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic and Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
One of my favorite things to do is to go on news websites and look at the comments from people, so i go to CNN, Yahoo, and then Breitbart. I spend most time looking at comments from Breitbart (right wing) website and I look at the arguments made. A lot of times, I'm like, it is just fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. It is on both sides of the media, left and right and everything.
For example, NFL players who are kneeling during the anthem:
Conclusion = they are kneeling and therefore disrespecting the flag therefore they hate america.
Fallacy type: Affirming the Consequent:
The premise/condition is not sufficient to prove the conclusion
Premise/condition = kneeling during national anthem
Conclusion 1 = disrespecting the flag (This conclusion is very debatable as a fallacy)
Conclusion 2 = they hate america (This conclusion is definitely a fallacy)
so because you are kneeling as a sign of protest to bring light to a perceived injustice therefore you hate the country you are in . . . seriously.
Doesn't really make sense when you put it that way.
So here's my idea, read the webpage, and then see if you are making these logical fallacies. I look back at some of the arguments i've had with people before and I know for sure I've fallen into the fallacy traps. Now read these on the webpage, and look at comments section on these forums and everywhere else, I'm sure they will turn up everywhere.
It's also why I can't watch any politician talk or campaign, all they're doing is using fallacy after fallacy to make a point. It is also why I very rarely will get into an argument with people on these forums, the reality is, I don't care for one (main reason), but also it is very subjective, but also, it would likely end up being one person or both spewing forth fallacy after fallacy. Furthermore, it won't change anything in a meaningful way. Yay, now you agree about a definition of MMO, yay, progress . ..
I do usually discuss history and politics with colleagues, so I need to be more aware of fallacies that I could be using unintentionally. What are some other fallacies I missed?
Cryomatrix
Here is a list of common fallacies that are most numerous.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic and Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
One of my favorite things to do is to go on news websites and look at the comments from people, so i go to CNN, Yahoo, and then Breitbart. I spend most time looking at comments from Breitbart (right wing) website and I look at the arguments made. A lot of times, I'm like, it is just fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. It is on both sides of the media, left and right and everything.
For example, NFL players who are kneeling during the anthem:
Conclusion = they are kneeling and therefore disrespecting the flag therefore they hate america.
Fallacy type: Affirming the Consequent:
The premise/condition is not sufficient to prove the conclusion
Premise/condition = kneeling during national anthem
Conclusion 1 = disrespecting the flag (This conclusion is very debatable as a fallacy)
Conclusion 2 = they hate america (This conclusion is definitely a fallacy)
so because you are kneeling as a sign of protest to bring light to a perceived injustice therefore you hate the country you are in . . . seriously.
Doesn't really make sense when you put it that way.
So here's my idea, read the webpage, and then see if you are making these logical fallacies. I look back at some of the arguments i've had with people before and I know for sure I've fallen into the fallacy traps. Now read these on the webpage, and look at comments section on these forums and everywhere else, I'm sure they will turn up everywhere.
It's also why I can't watch any politician talk or campaign, all they're doing is using fallacy after fallacy to make a point. It is also why I very rarely will get into an argument with people on these forums, the reality is, I don't care for one (main reason), but also it is very subjective, but also, it would likely end up being one person or both spewing forth fallacy after fallacy. Furthermore, it won't change anything in a meaningful way. Yay, now you agree about a definition of MMO, yay, progress . ..
I do usually discuss history and politics with colleagues, so I need to be more aware of fallacies that I could be using unintentionally. What are some other fallacies I missed?
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If I'm really in the mood to shorten an argument one of my favorite one-liners is "you could be right".
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
this is an example of why people can't have faith in game developers.
http://twitch.tv/woetothevanquished
If you are going to write about fallacies do not use one. Politics, philosophy, and cultural topics are all based on perception, current belief systems, and current political thought. All those things can change on a whim and to think that you can have one set of reasoning that changes from group to group is idiocy. All those topics are about challenging conceptions and accepted dogmas to invalidate them, but the truth is that you can not invalidate then because they are fluid topics. His example is about perception of another's actions. You can not invalidate someone's perceptions of a perceived event. Everyone has different backgrounds and frames of reference. You burn a flag infront of a veteran that saw a buddy die in combat and that vet might not care what you are protesting you are an American hating piece of crap. You can not invalidate that person's belief as a fallacy.
He's also oversimplifying and making assumptions about other peoples' thought processes which I starting writing a post about but then decided to reduce arguing by not writing it.
And I think all of us have some blind spots, even if proven otherwise it is hard to do a 180 and often takes time. And we are far likelier to accept things that support our view then oppose it.
And when 2 people have the same blind spot but opposite views we often get forum PvP.
There isn't much of a solution for it either but independent fact checking can help as well as accepting that we all are wrong now and then. It will not help to win the discussion but at least it can stop something possibly embarassing.
The social media possibility to focus on news that are in our own world view makes the problem worse and it is often a good idea to read something from both views.
While logic would dictate otherwise, this persons beliefs that Trump is the hardest working president ever can simply not be changed with logic. It is the same with games here. People who like a game will find any reason to shoot down its shortcomings while people who dislike a game will come up with silly reasons to dislike it.
Neither side can be persuaded by logic, that only works on the planet Vulcan.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hold my beer, craftsman about to go to work.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Basically, i've seen people on forums conclude that those that protest hate america. My example was that it is a fallacy to come to the conclusion that because you kneeled down during the anthem that you hate america.
I'm sorry, but the conclusion cannot be made from the premise. I was giving an example, knowing that there are many different interpretations of the event at hand. Peaceful protest of the national anthem does not mean you hate america.
Now burning a flag is known as a sign of hatred for something, usually if you burn a flag it directly means you hate the country. In all cases it doesn't mean that, perhaps a someone was burning the flag to piss off the veteran. But in general, I think if someone burned a flag that it directly means you hate the country as it is a direct sign of hating a country.
Yes, I did make an assumption here:
so because you are kneeling as a sign of protest to bring light to a perceived injustice therefore you hate the country you are in . . . seriously.
and yes many things are about perception, but there's truth and perception, and knowing the fallacies does allow you to differentiate between truth and perception.
After re-reading your comment a bunch of times, I actually think you can invalidate the perception of an event when the perception in real time is based on faulty logic and fallacies or in most cases pure ignorance.
TL:DR . . .
Here's an example: A colleague said more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason.
I told him that was 100% false . . . and I proved it.
His belief was based on what you said, perception, belief, and current political thought. I then went and invalidated his conclusion with evidence. His perception is flawed, his beliefs are faulty. There is evidence, and evidence that is presented well without fallacies, will beat out perception.
First I defined as killed in god's name as inspired by religion. (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Crusades, Inquisition, etc). Using religion as a categorical divider doesn't count, it is about killing in god's name. It is using some sort of scripture to justify the war.
He agreed.
The actual number of deaths in god's name (even though we can never truly know) it is only the written history that we have, is actually a very low %, it is 2% based on Axelrod's encyclopedia of war which catalogued 1700+ wars and their reasons and overall numbers.
I wasn't surprised by this, I think many people look at ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all this bombing and crap and be like OMG, they are killing so many people in the name of religion, when it is a few hundred people every time it happens (which is awful, and not minimizing) and then you turn around and say.
Okay:
- WW2 killed tens of millions of people that had nothing to do with religion
- The japanese when they raped Nan-King killed upwards of 200k for no reason
- The Nazi's . . . enough said
- All the bombing and collateral damage
- Then you go back to another example of a war in the name of religion, and it is the Crusades, and I saw a number of 3 million dead, that's a lot, but it is easily dwarfed by the numbers in WWI or WW2. (on steam there is a game that allows you to play as the crusaders)
- Ming vs Qing dynasty in China, Napolean, The Mongols, the Vikings, etc , forgot about Vietnam, WWI, the american civil war, all the other civil wars everywhere.
and the number just isn't even close. Hence, it is a very low %. Therefore, I am invalidating a belief because the evidence doesn't backup the assertion even though it is based on perception, belief system, and current political climate. The other issue I have how is a person so wrong on a subject that the % isn't even close to "most of". It's like saying most people in the US have hepatitis C when the incidence is only 1-2%. How the hell can you be that wrong? It's like when my wife says, i'll be home in 30 minutes and comes 2.5 hours later. I'm like WTF, how can you be off by 400%.
Sorry for the long post and seriously, I do understand I'm being 100% hypocritical by getting into an argument. Apologies, I couldn't help myself. I'll stop, please flame me with good creativity and a few choice words. PM too if you need.
My whole OP was written because I can't stand how people fall for the political BS that is given to them from both sides. Both left and right are absurd and BS and provide false narratives. It is the people that get sucked up into it and don't realize that bothers me. Yes, I've probably been like that when I was younger. But at the tender old age of 36, I wouldn't stand for that crap.
Cryomatrix
p.s. After all this, I think I finally understood what the poster was saying that I can't invalidate the way someone reacts to a way they perceive the situation. You're right, i won't argue with a person who gets super mad at the NFL athletes for doing that or is offended, or wants to go cry or thinks they are ungrateful, I will argue with the next step which is a conclusion that they hate America.
Their belief is they are offended and i can't change that, but the conclusion of the other person is not logical and hence a fallacy.
If you want to get into another argument with me via PM, I truly think that NFL players are grossly UNDERPAID.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Most people do emotional arguments, not logical. There are no judges here to score you on debating.
Just my opinion but people that kneel during the anthem sure love themselves a whole lot. The NFL and and NFL players and other professional athletes all make a lot of money every year. I find it hard to believe that a bunch of wealthy people cannot find other ways to promote their beliefs, ones that do not require kneeling during the national anthem. So kneeling during the anthem does not equate that they hate their country just that they are arrogant, self centered, self-righteous, and that because they know that they are in the right they feel justified in showing disrespect to anyone and anything as long as its for their cause.
Religion and Politics
As much as I love to see isolated white people bring up the anthem and flag, when just the other day they were defending the confederate flag... please keep in mind law enforcement have been executing unarmed people with impunity. Now they're executed mentally disturbed people as well.
I think that's a little more important than some trucker hats idea of patriotism.
This is why we all need to shut the fuck up in regard to politics and focus on video games. I didn't want to have to type this.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯