Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72
  1. #41
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I'll move the relevant posts over soon. First, I want to see if he is up to the challenge. He made the claim, he has the affirmitive position. He has to support the argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #42
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    STOP IT, SKEPT!!

    GO TO THE THREAD I WORKED AND SLAVED OVER, YOU INGRATE!!!!



  3. #43
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Wrong. Your problem here, is that of equivocation. It isn't mere "belief" in Christ...for even Demons believe in Christ. It is believing in Christ, his philosophies, who he is, putting your faith in him (which results in Christ's emulation).
    Ironically YOU are commiting a falacy of equivocation here. You are pulling the bait and switch with usages of the word "belief". When a christian says "I believe in Jesus", they are not merely saying they believe a man named Jesus lived and was the son of God etc. They are saying they have faith in and a spiritual connection to Christ. It is the same usage as "I believe in the power of love" or "I believe in capital punishment".

    Also, Hitler DID put faith in christ. Your disagreement with him is in HOW he interpreted adn followed the 'message' and teachings. There are no "objective philosphjies" of Christ by which you can measure someone else's behaviors and say that they are/are not in accordnace. It is entirely subjective. If it were not then we would only have one type of christianity instead of the hundreds we now have.

    Now...in the new thread, when you can explain how Hitler was emulating Christ and his actions are supported through Christian doctrine and scripture...then and only then will you have supported that Hitler was a Christian.
    Wrong. I have already shown that Hitler was a christian here. YOU are cxommiting a logical fallacy and presenting THAT as if it were an argument. That is a no-no. The whole point of the 'No True Scotsman is that you cannot simply write off a member of a certain group as not being a 'Real' or 'true' member based upon a subjective difference of opinion about some behavioral detail(e.g. A Scotsman does not become a non-Scotsman because he drinks the 'wrong' beer). Hitler believed in/had faith in Christ , therefore he was a christian.

    He also followed the teachings of christ as much as most christians in America today do. Where he erred was in his crusade against jews which is comparable to Charlemagne's campaign of sword-point conversions or the witch-hunts.

    Again...CLAIMING it and SUPPORTING it are 2 different things. I await your SUPPORT in a new thread.
    Very well...where will this new thread be? The Religion forums?

  4. #44
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending
    If we use definition 1, we can say that Hitler was probably Christian. On the other hand, given definition 2, I don't think so. Here are some biased samples for further depth into the topic:
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
    http://www.jews-for-allah.org/messia...storywithjews/
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mis...ca_hitler.html
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...le.asp?ID=4127
    http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/Hitler.html
    http://liberalslikechrist.org/Cathol...lersFaith.html

    However, I really don't think it matters in the end what Hitler was. So, stop arguing over something that is not resolvable!
    Actually Hitler would be a christian by BOTH of those definitions. #2 is subjective adn every type of christian will interpret the "teachings" differently. Hitler was following the teachings of Christ as he saw them.

  5. #45
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    see post #40.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #46
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by Godlesspagan
    STOP IT, SKEPT!!

    GO TO THE THREAD I WORKED AND SLAVED OVER, YOU INGRATE!!!!


    I will look for it. COpuld you guys not have posted a link to the "new thread" here though?

  7. #47
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I did.

    Post 40.

  8. #48
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Sorry Pagan. When i view pages sometimes they do not load fully and I end up replying to what i think is the last post on the last page and not realizing I missed posts on the previous page.


    Your hard work is appreciated and for this you shall be rewarded by being privy to the utter destruction of Apok' by my hand in the new thread which you created.

    COME CHILDREN! Gather at the new thread and witness the glorious destruction of Apok'!! Anew age is upon us!!


    *Runs off to take medication

  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I have in one or two other threads - kicked to death the concept of the likes of Hitler being Christian. - Just because the jar looks like a jam/jello? jar and says so on the label, does not necessarily mean that what it contains is jam/jello. 'Beware of false claims and advertising hype. / Before you hostiles pounce on that one, it works both ways'. 'Ye nest of vipers/hypocrites'. 'Beware of false prophets' are all more fitting labels for the likes of Adolf et al. And yet the accusation that they are Christian still rises from the grave in Zombie-like fashion. (It is poor ammo to use against Christians and those of us who try to be, and fails to reach the target.)
    Last edited by FruitandNut; October 18th, 2004 at 12:14 AM.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  10. #50
    tlc
    Guest

    Thumbs up Re: Logical Fallacies

    Trying to get a better feel of fallacies. I know they all are different fallacies! I have attempted a couple. Can someone help me with these examples:

    1. Michael Jordan wore that brand, so those must to be the best basketball shoes.

    2. The difference in the outcome was Jefferson's missed field goal. If he had put it through, we'd be going to the Super Bowl.

    I feel this is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because his result in missing the goal caused them not to go to the superbowl.

    3. Don't ignore the woman who gave you birth, raised you, loved you then, and loves you still. Remember your mom on Mother's Day.

    4. So what if I didn't claim all of the money I earned on my taxes? Lots of people underreport their income.

    I feel this is two wrongs because it is wrong to not claim all your money on your taxes and is wrong to underreport their income.

    5. That's gotta be a great line of clothes. Have you seen the prices and the people endorsing it?

  11. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    1) Appeal to Authority - The fact that Jordan approves of the shoe does not mean that the shoe is good.

    2) False dilemma - The missed field goal wasn't, presumably, the only mistake made in the game that contributed to the loss.

    "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after it, therefore because of it) is a fallacy meaning: X. Y. Therefore, X causes Y. Like, for instance, if a man got cancer after the Superbowl and thought the Superbowl caused it.

    3) Sweeping Generalization - Not all mothers 1) raised their children; 2) loved their children; 3) continue to love their children.

    4) Argumentum ad populem - Just because other people do it doesn't make it correct.

    5) Appeal to authority. The prices most likely do have something to do with how "great" the line of clothes is, depending on what is meant by "great".
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Orleans Diaspora
    Posts
    315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I am not sure what the name of the fallacy is but I see it a lot in our political discourse and on some message baords. Generally it is an appeal to the source's or speaker's bias. I suppose it is just another form of the ad hominem, but it generally goes like this:

    "You can't believe the American Psychiatric Association they have a liberal bias. Therefore, it is wrong to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder."

    "You can't believe Pat Buchanan, he has a conservative bias. Therefore, he must be wrong to say that the Pope opposes homosexuality."

    These statements do not speak to the general credibility of the source (which I feel is a fair critique of a source), but simply asks you not to believe the source because of its perceived or actual bias, regardless of the strengths of its arguments and its general credibility on the issues.

    I have said elsehwre:

    The truth is biased, and it rarely lends itself to all sides of an issue. If it is fair and balanced that you are looking for, then it isn't necessarily truth you are looking for; if it is truth you are looking for, then it isn't necessarily fair and balanced that you are looking for.

    I don't distrust Newsmax because it is biased against my views, but because it generally lacks credibility. I'll take the conservative presentation from the Economist on the otherhand (it generally has credibility).

    I don't generally trust the Nation because it is biased in favor of my beliefs but because it is generally credible. Likewise, I distrust Michael Moore despite the fact that he's biased in favor of my views: he generally lacks credibility.
    Last edited by RfrancisR; July 15th, 2006 at 01:12 PM.
    Mark Foley: Leaving No Child's Behind

    Once, at a congressional Christmas party at the White House, my ex-boyfriend Herb went up to Foley, who was with a female date, and said to him, "Why don't you get a real date?" — Barney Frank

  13. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by francis
    I'll take the conservative presentation from the Economist on the otherhand (it generally has credibility).
    That's a conservative source to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by francis
    I don't generally trust the Nation because it is biased in favor of my beliefs but because it is generally credible.
    I "trust" the Nation to present the facts and then their opinion of them; I don't trust that their opinion is correct.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Orleans Diaspora
    Posts
    315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    That's a conservative source to you?
    Yes. I do consider it conservative. How about the Wall Street Journal? Even if the Wall Street Journal does have the flaw of serious journalism in its news pages, we must admit that the op-ed page is conservative.



    I "trust" the Nation to present the facts...
    Well, they call themselves an opinion journal. So, the second part is obvious. But you seem to be in agreement about the facts part here (and that's what makes them credible or not). They are a credible source for the facts, even if we don't like or agree with their particular extrapolation of them.
    Mark Foley: Leaving No Child's Behind

    Once, at a congressional Christmas party at the White House, my ex-boyfriend Herb went up to Foley, who was with a female date, and said to him, "Why don't you get a real date?" — Barney Frank

  15. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by RfrancisR
    I am not sure what the name of the fallacy is but I see it a lot in our political discourse and on some message baords. Generally it is an appeal to the source's or speaker's bias.
    We've actually already had a thread about this.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  16. #56
    repboy
    Guest

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I comletely agree with you and want to aplaude you for making a logical an practical argument.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Great Job Keep It Up.
    Last edited by repboy; January 1st, 2007 at 09:30 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  17. #57
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Here are just a few of my favourites:

    FAKING THE FACTS
    1. False attribution: an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. For example, Republicans citing Fox, Drudge, Newsmax, Worldnetdaily.....
    2. Cherry picking: using only the data that supports your position, while ignoring the rest. For example – looking only at the polls which showed McCain leading Obama in Pennsylvania, and ignoring Obama’s good polls.
    3. Quoting out of context: speaks for itself.
    4. Bare assertion fallacy: favored of Christian evangelicals – the Bible says it’s true, and we say the Bible is infallible, therefore it really must be infallible.
    5. Appeal to authority or tradition: the president (or my father) says it, it must be true.

    GOING FOR EMOTION
    6. Appeal to emotion: fear, hope, anger....
    7. Special pleading: using an emotional appeal to change the rules of the argument. I was poor longer than you, so my policies on poverty and jobs must be better.
    8. Appeal to consequences: rejecting inconvenient facts. Democrats say Bush’s tax cuts are a bad idea, but if we repeal them I must pay more, so they must be wrong.
    9. Appeal to novelty: my idea is better because it’s new. Converse of the appeal to tradition.
    10. Appeal to poverty, or wealth. He must be honest because he’s poor. She must be smart because she’s rich.

    SHOOT THE MESSENGER STRATEGIES
    11. Poisoning the well: smearing your target so that anything he says will be ignored.
    12. Straw man: misrepresenting the other guys’ argument – putting words in his mouth.
    13. Association fallacy: you must be wrong because you hang out with people I don’t like.
    14. Ad hominem: attacking your opponent instead of his argument. Often answered by the “tu quoque” argument, literally “you too!”
    15. Appeal to ridicule: dishonestly re-stating your opponent’s argument in a ridiculous way. See “straw man”.
    16. Burden of proof: insisting that your opponent meet an unnaturally high level of proof. “Barack Obama didn’t personally deliver to me the original of his birth certificate, and his parent’s birth certificates, with background investigations of everyone who was in the delivery room when he was born...”

    SHOUTING YOUR ENEMY DOWN
    17. Proof by verbosity: burying your opponent in too many words, even if they don’t really prove your premise.
    18. Ad nauseam: literally, repeating a lie or bad logic over and over until your opponent throws up. Very popular among Republicans: “Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist! Hillary’s a socialist!”

    EVASIONS AND IRRELEVANCIES
    19. *Ignoratio elenchi: making a statement which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. For instance, refuting facts about Bush’s crimes with statements about Clinton and Monica.
    20. *Red herring: an irrelevant, evasive response to an argument.

    OUTRIGHT LIES
    21. Bovis fimus, outright lies: technically dishonesty is not a logical fallacy – just a lie. But as it is a favourite tactic I included it on the list. Also...
    22. Fallacious question: a question which is based on a dishonest premise

    BAD LOGIC
    23. False analogies
    24. Base rate fallacy: because a particular tool, such as polls, didn’t work on one occasion, all polls are wrong.
    25. False dilemma: posing two options as the only alternatives, even though other options exist.
    26. Nirvana fallacy: if a proposal isn’t a perfect solution to the problem, it must be scrapped. For example – because ObamaCare doesn’t cover everyone immediately, it is junk.
    27. Negative proof fallacy: because we can’t prove it true, it must be false.
    28. Argumentum ad populum: everyone believes it so it must be true. Everyone believed Saddam had nukes in 2003.
    29. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: 911 happened after Bush’s election, therefore Bush caused 911.
    30. Syllogistical fallacies: there are so many they need their own link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogisms
    31. Loki’s wager: if you can’t define it, you can’t discuss it. Used by evangelicals to refute arguments about “God”.
    32. Argument from ignorance: it must be true because it hasn’t been proved false. Used often by Republicans to “prove” that Bush didn’t commit impeachable offenses.
    33. The “sunk cost” fallacy: because we have invested effort into something, we must stick with it no matter what, so the costs we sunk into it aren’t wasted. See “Iraq”.
    34. Converse accident: applying the exception to the rule. If we let rape victims have abortions, we’re condoning it for everyone else.
    35. Slippery slope: first we allow abortions, and then they will demand that we kill retarded children and old people....
    36. The appeal to probability: because Hillary could be a lesbian, she must be a lesbian.
    37. Argument from fallacy: because Congressman Henry Waxman failed to prove on 20 January that Bush is a criminal, Bush cannot be a criminal.
    38. Denying the correlative: pretending that non-existent options exist. “Either Fido is a dog or he isn’t a dog.” “But what if he’s only a dog on weekends?”
    39. If by whiskey: trying to evade the rules by using emotionally-loaded words to argue.
    40. Naturalistic fallacy: what is good in nature must be good in human ethics.
    41. Package-deal fallacy: because people who like low taxes often oppose abortion, all opponents of high taxes oppose abortion.
    42. Affirming the consequent, or illicit conversion: backwards logic. If all al-Qaida terrorists were Muslims, then all Muslims must be terrorists.
    43. Denying the antecedent: all al-Qaida terrorists are Muslims. You’re not al-Qaida, therefore you’re not a Muslim.
    44. Proof by example: Muhammad Atta is a terrorist, therefore all Muslims are terrorists.
    45. Begging the question: using circular logic, trying to prove the conclusion with the original assertion.
    46. Circular cause and consequence: claiming the result of a phenomenon actually caused the phenomenon in the first place.
    47. Continuum fallacy: everything is relative.
    48. Equivocation: Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?
    49. Fallacy of division: 747’s can fly, 747 engines are part of 747’s, therefore 747 engines can fly.
    50. Ecological fallacy: if 70 percent of Alabama blacks support Obama, then if you pull a black guy off the street he will be an Obama fan.
    51. Fallacy of the single cause: assuming there is only one cause for a phenomenon.
    52. Historian’s fallacy: assuming that people in the past saw the world the same way we do.
    53. False compromise: the middle choice is always best.
    54. Monte Carlo fallacy: the coin came up tails ten times in a row, so heads must be next.
    55. Regression fallacy: a number of phenomena consist of behaviour that oscillates across a median – i.e. back in January, Hillary’s national polls bounce up and down but generally return to the 40-percent level. If she wins Nevada and bounces from 37 up to 40, that doesn’t mean Nevada got her up there – she was probably going to bounce back anyway.
    56. Retrospective determinism: Martin Luther King was murdered by racists...but it was bound to happen.
    57. Fallacy of accident: ignoring exceptions. Cutting people with a knife is a crime. Therefore surgeons are criminals. See also -- Dicto simpliciter.
    58. Misleading vividness: applying a specific example to an entire pattern. Dang, Tejada got a hit off us – we should pitch around him every time after this, or he’ll hit it every time!
    59. Spotlight fallacy: individuals in a particular group will act like the most visible members of that group. Because Bjork wore a swan costume to the Oscars, everyone in Iceland dresses that way. Brr!
    60. Thought-terminating cliché: ignoring facts which violate a popular cliché.
    61. Texas sharpshooter fallacy: implying a pattern that is invalid. For example – a Texas sharpshooter shoots a his barn with a rifle, draws a circle around the bullet hole, and says “hit it!”

  18. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Zaragoza, Spain
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I have found an interesting taxonomy of logical fallacies, and I wanted to share it with you:

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

    The site is also nice, in my opinion.

  19. #59
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    That is very cool, thanks for the link. I am familiar with fallacyfiles.org already, but wasn't aware they made a map of them like they have. They are one of the sites that ODN has permission to copy content from into our own database of fallacies.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Sorry. I can't resist...

    Quote Originally Posted by Emanuel View Post
    I have found an interesting taxonomy of logical fallacies, and I wanted to share it with you:

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

    The site is also nice, in my opinion.


    Cool link, bro.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •