Fallacy

[Dixon Carter Lee]

This is a Wiki entry about Fallacies people use when arguing. Which one is used most often at Lit?

I like this one:

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).


Fallacy

 

[IndieSnob]

Are you trying to say that you're nominating yourself to write out truth tables for every argument on the GB?

The logging industry is going to love you.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Are you trying to say that you're nominating yourself to write out truth tables for every argument on the GB?

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. You meddling kids.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

This is a Wiki entry about Fallacies people use when arguing. Which one is used most often at Lit?

I like this one:

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).


Fallacy

Silly me--here I thought personal attacks were the standard for argument at Lit.

 

[KRCummings]

The thing is anyone who's ever taken a speech or debate class knows what type of arguments to avoid whenever possible and the biggest mouths on Lit use every single of them as often as they can. When they do decide to spout something like "straw man" or "slippery slope" half the time they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[CHNOPS]

The thing is anyone who's ever taken a speech or debate class knows what type of arguments to avoid whenever possible and the biggest mouths on Lit use every single of them as often as they can. When they do decide to spout something like "straw man" or "slippery slope" half the time they don't know what they're talking about.

You know who else once said what you just said?

Hitler!

 

[KRCummings]

You know who else once said what you just said?

Hitler!

It's not that often I truly LOL. Well played, sir.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The thing is anyone who's ever taken a speech or debate class knows what type of arguments to avoid whenever possible and the biggest mouths on Lit use every single of them as often as they can. When they do decide to spout something like "straw man" or "slippery slope" half the time they don't know what they're talking about.

As a whole, the General board is a hotbed of logical fallacies, particularly in the political threads. We're fortunate to have a number of self-taught experts in the field of logic (*coughEllieTalbot*cough4est_4est_Gump) lecture us there on a semi-regular basis.

Hell, AJ is renowned for creating his very own custom logical fallacy, the infamous "Ad Hominem By Class": "If you ridicule any concept I believe in, it's a personal attack on me and others like me who believe in it"

 

[VoteForMe]

This is a Wiki entry about Fallacies people use when arguing. Which one is used most often at Lit?

I like this one:

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).


Fallacy

I don't get it. Why is this a problem?

 

[Loring2]

You know who else once said what you just said?

Hitler!

Bullshit!

 

[sweepthefloor]

Context is dead.