#Argumentation

[tobeabatman]

Two common logical fallacies (fat) activists constantly hear

Fatphobes LOVE red herring fallacies and strawman arguments. So let’s learn what they are together.

A red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where a person responds saying something that might at first glance seem related to the actual topic at hand, but you’ll soon realize it’s not actually related and is just meant to take attention away from the actual topic and switch the topic at hand.

An example:

”Ozempic is not meant to be a weight loss drug and using it might cause many side effects that might mess with someone’s health, such as constant back pain. People need to consider whether possible weight loss is worth the side effects, and also the possible long-term effects from ozempic misuse that we’ve yet to discover”

Red herring: ”Well, dying at age 40 at 300 lb will also ’mess with your health’”

A strawman argument on the other hand is when one person asserts something that attempts to misrepresent the original message

An example:

”I love my fat body!”

A strawman argument: ”Oh, so you hate thin people then?”

I know most people are familiar with strawman arguments but I hope you guys also familiarize yourselves with red herring fallacy as it is super commonly used as a response to fat activists. It is also used in a lot of arguments, I’d say it’s probably the most common logical fallacy used in all types of online arguments, (for some reason especially by men. It’s very prominent in men’s arguments against feminists), so it’s very important to learn to recognize it by name.

[arrowmoose]

Argumentative Essay Against AI for Artistic Purposes

Welp, I’m finally posting it.

I decided to post it as screenshots rather than just copy and paste, so apologies if you can’t see it.

I’m open to discussion and feedback, but please note that this has already been turned in and graded.

I got a 92, for anyone curious.

[worldtalking]

Free to discuss: AI

Tell me what you think about AI: Is it a privacy breach? Is it pirating? Is it the future? Is it our future? Is it just another tool, or something more? Do you care? Does it matter? Should there be more laws concerning it? Should more people be concerned about it? How useful is it? Are we ready? I'd love to hear about your opinions-- please don't start a war. Let's be rational and bring up actual arguments. Voice your opinion with a reason explaining it, and please-- don't try to insult people. Absolute, down to hell pessimism and morally black opinions are of course allowed; so is also the opposite, as long as you bring up logical arguments that people can follow.

[arguments-sophistry-truth]

Philosophy profs with undiagnosed autism, too, are among the best profs to have

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Fallacies

The philosophy of fallacies examines the nature, identification, and implications of errors in reasoning. Fallacies are deceptive or misleading arguments that can undermine the validity of reasoning processes. The study of fallacies is a crucial aspect of logic, critical thinking, and epistemology, as it helps individuals recognize and avoid faulty reasoning. Here’s a detailed exploration of the philosophy of fallacies:

1. Defining Fallacies

Nature of Fallacies: A fallacy is a flaw or error in reasoning that weakens an argument. Fallacies can be either formal, involving a structural flaw in deductive reasoning, or informal, involving errors in reasoning that are often more context-dependent and related to the content of the argument.

Types of Fallacies: Fallacies are broadly categorized into formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structure of an argument, while informal fallacies are more related to the content and context of the argument, including linguistic, psychological, and social aspects.

2. Formal Fallacies

Affirming the Consequent: This fallacy occurs when the form of the argument is: If P, then Q; Q; therefore, P. It incorrectly assumes that the converse of a true conditional statement is also true.

Denying the Antecedent: This fallacy occurs when the form of the argument is: If P, then Q; not P; therefore, not Q. It mistakenly assumes that the negation of the antecedent leads to the negation of the consequent.

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It essentially involves circular reasoning, where the argument’s premise relies on the truth of the conclusion.

3. Informal Fallacies

Ad Hominem: This fallacy involves attacking the character of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It diverts attention from the argument’s merit by focusing on the individual.

Straw Man: This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. The straw man argument is a distorted version that is easier to refute than the original.

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): This fallacy involves claiming that something is true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. It relies on a lack of evidence rather than positive proof.

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): This fallacy presents only two options or outcomes when, in reality, there are more possibilities. It forces a choice between two extremes while ignoring other viable alternatives.

Slippery Slope: This fallacy assumes that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, without sufficient evidence to support this inevitability.

4. The Role of Fallacies in Philosophy and Logic

Critical Thinking: Recognizing fallacies is a key aspect of critical thinking. By identifying and understanding fallacies, individuals can better evaluate the strength of arguments and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

Epistemology: The study of fallacies intersects with epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, as it involves understanding how reasoning can go wrong and what constitutes good evidence and justification for beliefs.

Ethics and Rhetoric: The use of fallacies in argumentation raises ethical questions about the fairness and honesty of persuasion. Philosophers examine the ethical implications of using fallacious reasoning in various contexts, such as politics, law, and everyday discourse.

5. Implications of Fallacies

Miscommunication and Misunderstanding: Fallacies can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding by distorting the truth and creating confusion. Recognizing fallacies helps improve clarity and accuracy in communication.

Manipulation and Deception: Fallacies are often used deliberately to manipulate and deceive. Understanding fallacies equips individuals to recognize and resist manipulative tactics in arguments.

Intellectual Honesty: Avoiding fallacies is crucial for intellectual honesty and integrity. It ensures that arguments are based on sound reasoning and evidence rather than on misleading tactics.

The philosophy of fallacies is a critical field that enhances our understanding of reasoning and argumentation. By studying fallacies, we learn to identify common errors in reasoning, improve our critical thinking skills, and promote intellectual honesty in our discussions. Understanding fallacies is essential for effective communication, sound decision-making, and ethical argumentation.

[cyberlabe]

La hiérarchie des arguments de Paul Graham

[al-jadwal]

Leaving off Arguing

(The Messenger) ﷺ said: “Whoever abandons arguing while he is wrong, Allah will build a house for him at the edge of Paradise. وقد قال عليه الصلاة والسلام «من ترك المِراء وهو مبطل بنى الله له بيتا في ربض الجنة، Whoever abandons arguing while he is right, Allah will build a house for him in the highest part of Paradise.” ومن ترك المراء وهو محق بنى الله له بيتا في أعلى الجنة» Ṣāliḥ b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl ʿl-Shaykh, Muḥaḍarāt wa Durūs 145/20 صالح بن عبد العزيز آل الشيخ، محاضرات ودروس ١٤٥/٢٠ https://old.shamela.ws/rep.php/book/3266 Telegram: https://t.me/aljadwal Tumblr: https://al-jadwal.tumblr.com

[tobeabatman]

People be like ”I’m fat and I don’t agree with you!”

And it’s like bro, I don’t care whether you are thin or fat. Your minorities don’t make you educated on oppression. I see many queer people who are right-wing sympathizers and use their queerness as a counter-argument to anything leftist queer people say about oppression towards queer people, and that doesn’t mean their points are any more valid.

Your minority is never what makes you educated on social justice issues. Your minority is not a counter-argument in an argument on oppression. Regardless of whether you think fat people or other minorities are oppressed or not, you have to give examples other than just ”well, I’m fat, so…”That’s just proper argumentation skills!

I hate it when people in arguments are like ”well, I’m queer, disabled, autistic, blah blah” because they think that that gives them more ground to speak on oppression or they think that that’s a proper counter-argument. But your minorities mean sh*t if you aren’t educated. (Many queer autistic people have pulled this sh*t on me in arguments because they think their queerness and autism give them more ground to speak on e.g fat liberation. As a fat queer person with ADHD, no, it doesn’t. Especially if you aren’t fat, like someone who started listing off their minorities to me in this way wasn’t).

Minorities mean sh*t if you don’t educate yourself, and minorities aren’t an argument. Someone gives you multiple examples on why something is an issue and you respond with a list of your minorities and nothing else? That’s not proper argumentation, bro.

[noodle-shenaniganery]

I hate how often some (typically abled) people will go “well, if you can’t [get a specific support], then what?” when it comes to disabilities. As if it’s a “gotcha” moment. And then act like you’re exaggerating when you answer that question honestly.

Disabled people often die from a lack of support. A lot of disability aids are not a luxury, but a basic need in order to live.

“Well what happens if—” people die. People hurt themselves. People hurt others. Disabled people don’t magically become abled if our needs aren’t met.

If a bedbound quadriplegic is caught in a housefire, and there’s nobody there to save them, they’ll probably die. They won’t magically become able-bodied out of sheer will.

If a nonspeaking/nonverbal autistic is denied access to alternative methods of communication, they’ll suffer in silence. They won’t spontaneously become capable of speech.

Disabled people are disabled all the time. Our disabilities don’t go away just because they’re inconvenient, or if we’re in danger.

[dramatic-dolphin]

most cartoonishly evil pro-life talking point i've ever seen was "oh so you think minors should be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent?" wait. wait so you think a parent should be allowed to veto a minor's abortion? you think parents should be allowed to force a 12 year old to give birth? against their will? you think it should be allowed and legal to do that? you think it's a problem that parents are not allowed to force a literal child to give birth?

[yaknowlikenyah]

We need to bring back the bait fish because sometimes it feels like yall can't tell when someone is trolling you

Look at him! He's so cute and he knows that someone posting stupid, brain dead or offensive comments is just trying to get you mad, and you should make fun of them for that.

We as a website need him back in our lives

[veryconfusedviking]

Currently working on trying to always have a steel man argument

[sartoriusoftheabyss]

I am the DM for both of these paladins, watching them fight it out and genuinely (and in-lore) supporting both of their theological cases.

[unsung-idiot]

don't show him modern technology; it won't end well

bonus under the cut:

[specialagentartemis]

Saw a post pointing out that the idea of a Saturday-Sunday weekend is in itself cultural Christianity being applied to the whole “secular” world, that in Israel the weekend is Friday-Saturday and in some Muslim-majority countries the weekend is Thursday-Friday or only Friday (in others it’s Friday-Saturday as well.)

Anyway to make a truly secular and inclusive world I propose a Monday-Wednesday work-week and a Thursday-Sunday weekend. I think anyone of any or no religion could all get behind this.