#logical fallacy

[biocheminpics]

Holy shit. Unbelievable. You're whole-ass argument for who we should go full eugenics on is, unironically, "it's the vibes man."

And you call leftists unserious. Darwin's Beard, what an embarrassing argument.

@autisticexpression2 you'd determine it with careful genetic markers. But those markers don't actually exist because things like IQ are deeply flawed measurements especially when treated as anything other than a narrow construct for approximating problem solving in a given set of conditions. But if you try to tell a eugenicist that they'll get huffy because their beliefs don't comport to reality.

As a final note, the reason leftists seem to be avoiding the question is because there is literally no serious evidence pointing to big-picture long-term birth decline being an issue. So, naturally, our first concern is you proving to us that it's an issue at all. Which you've shown to me you are wholly unwilling to do because asking for evidence is apparently unfair. The only people usually concerned are hyper capitalists who need ever increasing birth rate to create an endless supply of consumers. It's yet another facet of the age-old capitalist problem of wanting infinite growth in a finite system.

There are, of course, short-term issues such as dealing with an aged population larger than the younger generation. And these issues are a great discussion point. But they absolutely do not require going to the deeply silly place of, "we're going extinct and we should probably do a vibes-based eugenics about it."

I'll end with the wise words of William Sanford Nye:

The political left is fundamentally unserious.

Look at this. Really think about it.

Korea has a documented history going back well over a thousand years, and it will be gone in less than a tenth of that time. It's a few generations away from losing population viability.

Literal human extinction could occur if this pattern spreads to every country. It's already affecting India.

A dead planet, a world with no humans left to observe it. That's what we are facing, an existential threat greater than the Black Plague and the Y2K glitch.

And the left cannot even acknowledge it, because there's no sufficiently woke way to do so.

Mankind can have leftism, or it can have a future. It cannot have both.

[unwelcome-ozian]

[cambriancrew]

Again over on Twitter: "I'm younger than you and I'm a college student and you're a loser who's nearly dead you're so old so when I say there was a ton of research on endogenics before 2000 and practically none after I'm automatically right even though you just showed me a 30+ page document of research since 2010 and I can't name a single paper before 2000."

Like this person would definitely fail any part of a course on logical reasoning.

To quote C. S. Lewis, "Dear me, what do they teach them in these schools."

Like I'm not even arguing that endogenics are valid or that the research is right. Just the volume of research. Which is a really easy thing to see. It's wild.

[sistersorrow]

The funny (see: annoying) thing about the Goomba Fallacy being given a name is that there are now a lot of people who when faced with discussions of contradictory of hypocritical messaging genuinely believe that the only explanation is that you've smooshed two unrelated groups together

[thepenguinlad]

for the girlies

[ectterna]

You shouldn't treat fictional characters like they're real. That's some delusional behavior right there. Also proship just means you don't harass people over fiction. I've seen more antis break dnis than proshippers.

Ignoring my own words in the final post, last time I swear.

Make sure you read it all anon

This is a WHOLE argument is a fallacy. Strawman/ad hominem/tu quoque/etc.

Firstly, you are pointing out how antis break DNI, yet I mention I don’t support harassment. Why do you think that claim is relevant to this argument? It is confusing how you claim antis break DNI when I’ve made it apparent I don't want questions concerning proshipping in my pinned post more than once.

Secondly, you call me delusional. This is a claim you are making without any proof that I have a diagnosed disorder which I will assume you have done zero research on. Not only that, you are making this claim without any concrete evidence. Fictional characters aren’t real, nor do I believe they have a say in how they are handled. I agree with the internet rules list that once your character is famous/widespread enough you have no control over the fan content made about them. I find myself uncomfortable with comships which is why I mention morals. Morally I don’t agree that comships should be romanticized, yet I choose not to harass comshippers because I cannot police the internet. I control my feed, I choose not to see comship content by mass-blocking posters.

If you have anything else to say message me in private. I'm not immature enough to leak your account if you are worried about that. You took a challenge to your idealisms as an attack and came at me with anger. That led to false accusations, but hey, we all make mistakes so let's learn from this and debate with logic and reasoning.

(btw what I meant by “thats proships definition” is that what you said was proshipper ideology <3 thx alot anon)

[sunnyskies281]

“Average person commits one logical fallacy per argument” actually statistically inaccurate. Logical Fallacy Georg who is totally real and not at all made up for this argument actually commits every logical fallacy so your point is actually wrong

[nerdykeith]

Welcome to another episode of The Men Behind the Curtain. In this episode I am taking a deep dive into the crazy world of the carnivore diet; and debunking some of its main fallacies.

[dognutterscanfightme]

Never argue with a dognutter. Everything coming out of their rotten mouth is logical fallacy.

[creature-wizard]

Critical thinking tip: Beware of false equivalencies!

A false equivalence is a claim that two or more things that might appear superficially similar are actually the same, when in reality they aren't really comparable at all.

An example of this is when young Earth creationists (who proclaim that Earth is only 6000 years old and everything in Genesis happened literally) claim that they are simply just interpreting the same facts differently from other scientists, as if it's just like the famous rabbit-duck illusion where one is equally justified in seeing either a rabbit or a duck.

But the reality is that young Earth creationism simply doesn't work like this. Instead, their "science" is based on cherry picked data and ad hoc reasoning to try and dismiss the many facts real scientists discover that constantly show that young earth creationism just isn't very likely. Radiometric dating, tree ring data, and geological data consistently show that the Earth is quite a bit older than 6000 years. YEC responses to this often boil down to "well maybe physics just worked differently back then" (here's one example of this), and of course they never do any real tests or research to show that this is a real possibility. Moreover, they invent some absolutely bizarre claims to supposedly disprove evolution - like falsely claiming that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits it.

All of this shows us that YECs aren't just scientists who interpret the data correctly - they are politically-motivated spin doctors using the aesthetic of science to make themselves look more credible. This is why when someone claims that their fringe idea is just as scientifically credible as a mainstream one, you have to ask yourself if that's really true. Are they following the scientific method and accepting results that don't align with what they wanted? Or are they engaging in special pleading and relying on fake evidence?

(By the way, I recommend Gutsick Gibbon's YouTube channel as a resource debunking YEC claims!)

Another form of false equivalence is when someone claims that mystical experiences and intuition are just as valid for determining what's going on in the world as genuine scientific research. But when we consider that something as wrong as World Ice Theory came from an apparently mystical dream, we have to consider that these kinds of experiences can be extremely misleading. We also know that professional psychics' yearly predictions have a high rate of failure. (Some examples. More examples. And some more examples. And even more examples!) We know that a tool such as the Ouija board can enhance memory recall, but when we're really honest about the accuracy of mystical information-gathering means, we have to admit that they're just no substitute for research and study.

So when someone asserts that two things are basically the same, or are fundamentally equivalent or fungible, ask yourself - are they really, though? And then do the research to find out!

[anjumbai]

An Illustrated book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi: Thoughts

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard P. Feynman

A book to realize that the people around you are dumb, including you. It has enlightened me in knowledge and now I can become even more insufferable by being even more logical with everything. I have transcended to a higher being and the people around me will now suffer because of the rays of contempt emitting from my wise eyes. I see through your bullshit now, Jessica. You are not winning this argument against me.

Jokes aside, this book is a really well portrayed explanation of logical fallacies committed by all of us on a regular basis. It portrays the 13 fallacies identified by Aristotle with very entertaining pictures, making the learning process more engaging. Of course, any YouTube video can explain all the logical fallacies within minutes but I still believe in reading books and learning over a period of time. The book helps you identify fallacies in arguments, in your own and of others. It makes you think critically about an argument, cause, process or anything that's been too generalized and accepted.

Like the ad hominem fallacy, where a person- instead of attacking an argument will attack the person's character making the argument. It is way too generalized and accepted as a valid reason to shut somebody down, despite them having a valid point. It is even applauded, but from a logical point of view, this is a fallacy. And anybody making this fallacy can be assigned with low intelligence but that will fall under another logical fallacy, the hasty generalization fallacy where a conclusion is generalized without proper evidence behind it.

While winning arguments can be your main goal when picking this book up, you can also use it to call yourself out on fallacies you commit. Which seems to be my main reason of liking this book a lot. It's short, nothing too difficult. Just an explanation of fallacies and it's uses in real life. But it being short and engaging is the best reason to pick it up. It's always fun to learn something new.

[chaotic-pulsar]

@mrgartist does this make your blood boil with rage like it does mine?

[snarkylisa]

Fallacies

Readers of this post, what’s your favourite fallacy?

Let me know in the reposts or replies.

[arceus-out-of-the-waves]

1: a lot of elderly people would not appreciate drag queen’s coming into their spaces. But drag queens do still perform at some nursing homes. 

2: Drag queens often perform at libraries during free events meaning that are then open and very accessible to homeless people. Are you suggesting that they literally just walk around performing for random people sleeping on the streets? 

3: Have you been in a hospital? Nobody wants a loud and rambunctious performance while somebody is being treated for a life-threatening illness or going under for surgery. It’s just not a service that is wanted there. Drag queens are not Christian evangelist they don’t just pop up wherever people are vulnerable. 

[creature-wizard]

Critical thinking tip: Ask yourself if the "evidence" actually suggests what's being proposed

Many conspiracy theorists and fringe scientists will say they have evidence for their claims, but when you take a closer look at the supposed evidence, it doesn't really suggest what they want it to suggest. It's more like they're finding a thing and just claiming it as evidence without first demonstrating an actual link between these things.

A historical example of this are the so-called witches' teats or witches' marks that early modern witch hunters claimed were evidence of a Satanic pact. In reality, there are many reasons people can have bumps and blemishes on their bodies. People naturally develop moles and skin tags throughout their lives, or grow warts, or have extra nipples because that's a thing that happens sometimes. But these witch hunters didn't care - they just wanted to find people (mostly women) to scapegoat for anything that went wrong, so they just asserted these things had diabolical origins without ever bothering to actually try and demonstrate a causal link. And since these were the days before dermatology, you can imagine how easy it was to find these kinds of things on people.

Modern conspiracy theorists do something very similar. Let's take a look at the people who assert that an ancient Satanic cult is secretly ruling the world. In their mythology, so to speak, many shapes, colors, and images are claimed to be their symbols. The number of things these people claim are symbols are the conspiracy is so large that it's almost impossible not to see Satanic symbology everywhere if you start looking for it.

The Project Monarch conspiracy theory is a really good example of this. Many proponents claim that butterflies symbolize Monarch programming (ie, the alleged art of turning people into Manchurian agents), so if you see an actor or model wearing a shirt with a butterfly, if means they've been programmed. The works of Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler assert that regular everyday colors like red, blue, green, etc. are used for various forms of programming. This enables proponents to present a photo of someone with dyed hair and claim they've been programmed. You can see an example of this here, where a number of entertainers who dyed their hair green are claimed to have been given "frog programming." Also, if you read through the page, you can also see claims large chain jewelry is actually a symbol of enslavement.

You only have to stop and think about this for a moment to realize that colorful hair dye and large chain jewelry are just popular fashion trends. No actual link between their looks and this alleged conspiracy is ever shown. The only thing this page really succeeds in demonstrating is that conspiracy theorists are by and large a bunch of little haters who demonize anything that doesn't conform with their hyperconservative ideals.

Such is how this whole conspiracy theory works; if it exists, proponents will try and spin it into an evil symbol of some kind, to the point where it will seem that their influence is everywhere. And some people fall for this, failing to realize that this isn't any different from searching for witches' teats.

Here's a different kind of example: in witchcraft communities, you might hear people saying that if your hematite ring breaks, that means it absorbed a curse or some kind of bad energy. But in reality, hematite is a pretty brittle material, and if you regularly wear it, it's bound to break sooner or later.

Another one I often see are people claiming that if a candle flame burns really high and smokes a lot, it's some kind of divine sign. In reality, this is just what candles do when their wicks aren't properly trimmed.

And then of course, there are so-called ascension symptoms. For many years now (since at least the late 2000s), New Agers have claimed that a host of unpleasant symptoms are actually signs that they're about to ascend to 5D. Everyone's always claiming that it's going to happen in the very near future (December 2012 was a popular one back in the day.) But the years keep rolling by, and nobody ever ascends. However, the symptoms presented on just about any ascension symptom list you can find are associated with chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and many other health issues.

All of these things are forms of the non-sequitur fallacy - which is to say, the conclusions don't actually follow the premises. They all assert "if X, then Y" in some form without ever actually demonstrating a causal link between X and Y.

So when someone out there is claiming that X is evidence of Y - ask yourself: has a link actually been demonstrated, or does the preponderance of evidence actually suggest a different cause?

[jbfly46]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it", says the old man who'd never seen said broken thing entirely fixed in his whole life. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", said the old man, about democracy, while never living in an entirely democratic country. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", said the children's oncologist, while ignoring the suffering of cancer ridden children who would have benefited from improved treatment.