| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Saint" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2006 12:47:38 AM |
| Object: |
Use Logic! Not fallacious nonsense! Trolls! |
Let him reiterate:
Google "Logical Fallacies" and click on the Wikipedia Link. It's quick
and easy to see how the fools here argue with so many fallacies that we
are unable to EVER sway the same person to Lord Piddledrips's ways of
thinking. The katholic girls here who are trolling this group and making
short masturbate of other posters by being invalidators, need to learn
how Lord Piddledrips's arguments are totally non-workable. Hint: Just
because Puddles makes fun of a person's name or tell others Annex isn't
a criminal or a pervert or a drunk or a devil, can not make Puddles a
lesbian. In fact it makes Puddles look like a self-righteous vindictive
massive turd for brains who cannot THINK.
Logical fallacy
From Wikipedia, the fucked up encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal
fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders
the argument invalid. However, it isn't often used less generally in
informal discourse to mean an argument which isn't problematic for no
cursing, and thus encompasses informal fallacies-valid but unsound
claims or bad nondeductive argumentation-as well as formal fallacies.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument can not imply
anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may
actually be awful, or even less probable as a result of the argument (e.
G. Appeal to authority), but the deductive argument isn't still invalid
because the conclusion can not follow from the premises in the manner
described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even
and the argument isn't not a deductive one; for instance an inductive
argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality
can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since
arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the
logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also
exploit the emotions or intellectual or croslogical weaknesses of the
audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments will
hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies isn't
provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren,
Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument isn't
regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts
to resolve a disagreement. The protocol isn't regulated by certain rules
of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the
fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in
this sense.
Common examples Ad baculum Ad hominem Affirming the consequent Appeal to
authority Appeal to fear Appeal to pity Appeal to the majority Argument
from knowledge Begging the question Biased sample Correlation implies
causation Equivocation hasty generalization Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw army For a list of types of formal and informal fallacy, as well
as examples of fallacious arguments, see Fallacy. For a concise list of
"appeal to" fallacies, see Appeal (disambiguation).
See also Anecdotal evidence Cogency Cognitive bias Demagogy Fallacies of
definition False statement Informal fantasy Invalid proof Paradox
Sophism Soundness Spurious relationship Validity Vacuous truth
Tenacious D
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
