#Fallacious arguments

[a-very-tired-jew]

I've seen this particular quote trotted out by antisemites time and time again as a kind of "gotcha" against Zionism. "The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies." This is from Theodor Herzl's diary, which can be found on page 84. However, if you've been around the internet in any context for the past few decades then you would likely realize that a singular quote out of context is not as damning as someone wants you to think. In fact, this is actually a fallacious argument (quoting out of context) that lawyers will get warnings from judges about in their own arguments. You could also categorize it as a lie of omission as well.

Why?

Well let's look at the entire diary entry this particular quote is from.

In context this quote is about using antisemites that are respected in their community to assuage the fears that Jews leaving would not negatively impact the community and country. It pretty much talks about making sure the antisemitic conspiracy that Jews were puppet masters controlling these goyim to liquidate their assets did not also arise.

In short, the entry is about understanding how antisemitism and antisemites act and acting within that frame so as to not cause a negative response and thereby allow the Jews to leave in a peaceful manner.

Why?

Because Jews often enriched a country's economy and people benefited from our presence. There are multiple instances in history of Jews being expelled for antisemitic reasons by a monarch and then being invited back by a subsequent monarch after their economy essentially crashed from kicking us out because the jobs they relegated us too were essential and beneficial. But in every scenario Jews were seen as lesser but beneficial. They wanted us there, but wanted us gone. When we left and returned we were harmed in almost every instance and were accompanied by a host of conspiracies about us. Understanding that behavior and pattern and using it is what Herzl is detailing in this section.

But that's the thing with antisemites. They latch onto a singular sentence out of context and use that to further their narrative about "evil Zionist Jews". All the while they handwave away their own antisemitic rhetoric and bigotry and the actions of the violent antisemites they support in the name of "fighting evil Zionists".

[moistvonlipwig]

there's something interesting to me about how in s5-6 of bcs multiple characters go to kim instead of jimmy about something that is directly relevant to jimmy because they feel kim is the sensible/moral one while jimmy is too unreliable/too much of a fuckup to deal with directly. and if any of them had gone to jimmy instead then things would be so much different. howard going to kim is maybe the most understandable given how jimmy spoke to him when he did try to talk to him, although i think post-5x09 jimmy actually would've been more receptive to howard than kim was, but he still makes the #1 worst mistake you can make in better call saul which is being condescending to kim. suzanne erickson and mike, though, both have information that is deeply pertinent to jimmy, and yet both approach kim, because neither respects jimmy. but if suzanne had asked jimmy directly to turn on the cartel, there is a distinct possibility that he actually does. and if mike had told jimmy lalo was alive, howard never dies. everyone misreads the kim/jimmy dynamic and as a result tragedy occurs. the moral of the story therefore is that being a mcwexler understander saves lives

[t1sunfortunate]

I truly do think one of the largest pitfalls among the "media consumption is my passion" crowd is the tendency to treat characters as human beings with agency rather than narrative tools manipulated by the author

[electricalhuzzah]

the gen ai folks both online and at me school are legit pissing me off do i actually make a separate gen ai hate blog

[aropride]

god i just dont think that the term "grammar nazi" is used because people are quick to notice fascistic tendencies in their own beliefs and actions but rather is a (often self-given, always insensitive) term where "nazi" means "being strict about something." and like obviously languages dont have hard set rules in a lot of cases but i dont think the guy in the youtube comment section arguing about the oxford comma is Just Like The Thought Police From 1984. like people who are too picky about grammar can be annoying, or ableist/racist/etc at worst, but i really dont think that makes them About To Slip Into Fascism

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority." -- Booker T. Washington

[sophieinwonderland]

Pro-endos: Name a single doctor that has said you need a disorder or trauma to be plural. Anti-endos: *Lists off some random names* Pro-endos: Cool. Can you cite where they actually said that? Anti-endos: Now you want PROOF instead of just taking our word for it? How dare you move the goalposts by asking us to prove our claims? We gave you random names and now it's your responsibility to educate yourself by combing through literally everything these doctors have said through their whole lives until you either find something that proves us right or your mortal coil expires and rots away.

I get being annoyed by legitimate moving of goalposts. I often am myself because sysmeds love this as their go-to tactic. I'd be able to buy Twitter if I had a penny for every time a sysmed asked for evidence of a doctor being pro-endo, and then when given proof, makes up some stupid reason it doesn't count.

I've seen "Dr. Eric Yabrough doesn't count because he's an LGBT psychiatrist and doesn't specialize in dissociative disorders," "Dr. Colin Ross doesn't count because he's studied some weird things in addition to having 40 years of experience studying dissociative disorders," "these psychologists who conducted an fMRI study on tulpamancy don't count because the psychologists were talking about it on Reddit," "research on tulpamancy is irrelevant because people on the internet told me tulpamancy is an offensive word," "only .edu/.gov are valid sources," "sources older than ten/five/two/whatever-number-I-make-up years are expired and no longer count," and so many other ridiculous excuses to dismiss professional opinions on endogenic systems. Sysmeds love moving goalposts.

But... I feel that, when asked to name anti-endo doctors... being able to cite the specific quote should be the bare minimum. Providing evidence should be inherently implied as part of the assignment.

And if you're unable to do that and resort to an ad hominem, accusing the person asking of being ableist in order to shut them up, I'm going to assume that it's because you're lying.

Because in theory, if you knew where these doctors had said the things you're claiming they said, you would be able to cite it.

In the end, moving goalposts is typically about demanding new evidence when the initial standards of evidence set by the discussion are met. If an anti-endo asks for a doctor that has said you can be plural without trauma, and you provide one with a citation, you've satisfied those goalposts with evidence.

If a pro-endo asks for you to name a doctor who has said you can't be plural without trauma, and you drop names with no citations, you still have no evidence. You're making an Argument By Assertion. Commonly known on the internet as a "trust me bro."

And expecting the person asking the questions to comb through the massive bibliographies of the doctors you named just to find where they said what you claim they said is shifting the burden of proof.

I can't see these sorts of tactics by anti-endos as anything more than bad faith attempts at shutting down discussions.

[thepersonalwords]

It does bear emphasis that slippery-slope arguments are notoriously invalid.

Jerry A. Fodor

[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.

[ask-the-perihelion]

"There is no court-admissable evidence" so you agree there IS evidence... Interesting...

This is an excellent example of the proof fallacy. The proof fallacy occurs when a person assumes that something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false or vice versa. In this instance, Anonymous assumes that because I didn’t say that there is no evidence, I am saying that there is evidence. This is simply untrue, as just because I haven’t said “there is no evidence” outright doesn’t mean that there is evidence.

[rileys-battlecats]

resisting the urge to get into an argument in a youtube comment section and im being SO brave about it

[lilacandladybugs]

i LOVE women and im a christian and sometimes reading commentaries on the Bible makes me feel fucking crazy stay safe out there girls

[asthedeathoflight]

I do think one of the logical fallacies that plagues our times is the tendency to believe that a poorly articulated argument from your opponent is evidence of the validity of your stance. This makes online discourse mostly a scramble from both sides to find their dumbest opponents and then present their bad takes as proof of their own sides' primacy, instead of actually debating people who are on equal footing with them. This isnt like a "waaah people dont talk to each other" thing im not saying you gotta tolerate sealioning from republicans online. But like, screenshotting a random maga guy off twitter with an incoherent political ideology is not proof of why right wing ideology is wrong any more than terfs screenshotting some teenager off amino is proof of trans rights being a woke lie. The strength of your argument is based on YOUR argument. It is going to be upsetting to find well-reasoned, logically sound arguments against basic human rights. Its much more reassuring to think your opponents are only blathering idiots. But if you're going to really hold a belief you need to be able to see a counterargument to it which isn't inflammatory, which has no obvious hypocrisy or circular logic, and still be able to say "I dont agree."

[jmtorres]

you have GOT to stop telling people it's unreasonable to check whether your take is sane or extreme when extreme takes are all over the internet!!

"if your first reaction to [y] is to ask whether i think [x] you're the problem" no i've just seen plenty of ppl who think both [y] AND [x].

"[a] doesn't mean [b]!! it is bad faith to think [a] implies [b]! you're just assuming and projecting!" no i've literally seen people suggest [b] as if it were an absolutely rational and obvious extension of [a]!

like maybe x is not connected to y and a is not connected to b in YOUR personal argument but if other people are promoting that connection then it's not unreasonable to wonder if you think it and are just not saying it out loud! like the question isn't coming out of nowhere buddy, it's coming up because either you're unknowingly quoting extremists (or knowingly trying to pick and choose which parts of an extremist position you think are reasonable without understanding how the whole argument is fouled by extremist logic) or else extremists are knowingly co-opting your terminology!

i would dearly like to quote the actual examples but i don't want to have any of those actual arguments in my inbox for my own mental health. just know that while this has been genericized none of it is hypothetical

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

--

Q: What are the three most compelling arguments for the existence of gods - concise answer, name it if it has a formal name. And what are the most straightforward refutations of these arguments - concise answer.

Grok: Arguments for the Existence of Gods:

1. Cosmological Argument:

Description: The argument posits that everything that exists has a cause, and there must be a first cause or "uncaused cause" which is God.

Refutation: The universe might be eternal, negating the need for a first cause, or the cause could be an impersonal force rather than a personal deity.

2. Teleological Argument (or Design Argument):

Description: The complexity and apparent design of the universe suggest a designer, akin to how a watch implies a watchmaker.

Refutation: Complex structures can emerge from natural processes (evolution by natural selection), and the universe might not be precisely "designed" for life, considering most of the cosmos is hostile to it.

3. Ontological Argument:

Description: Proposed by Anselm, it argues that God is the greatest conceivable being; existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, hence God must exist.

Refutation: Existence isn't necessarily a property that can be predicated in this manner; the argument might commit the fallacy of assuming that because something can be thought, it must exist.

Straightforward Refutations:

Cosmological: Challenges the necessity of a personal first cause by suggesting naturalistic explanations like the Big Bang or an eternal universe.

Teleological: Points out that apparent design can result from natural selection and physical laws without a designer.

Ontological: Criticizes the logic by arguing that "existence" isn't a property like "redness" or "largeness" that can be part of a definition.

These arguments and their refutations highlight the ongoing philosophical debate about the existence of deities, showing that each argument has its strengths but also faces significant challenges.

==

This is the best they've got.

[thanksmrbernke]

Just realized the "problem of Susan" criticism of Narnia for being insufficiently feminist was started by Neil Gaiman so I can accuse anyone who says bad things about the books I like of being pro-rape in bad faith