#logic and rhetoric

[thisiskatsblog]

"but the least you could do is show us respect.". How much respect does Louis owe you when larries harrased his dying mother for loving her first grandchild? How much respect do you deserve when the twins and Fizzy asked you not to bring their dead mother into you conspiracy theory? They said Jay had to delete Freddie's pictures because she was not there to delete those nasty comments under her posts to defend her grandchild? Ignore this ask, don't answer it and both me and Louis will know exactly how much respect do larries like you deserve. Marketing does demand that Louis "loves all his fans" and caters to all his fans but would you? If you were Louis? After everything those fans did to his mother and sister? To his family? He isn't as good as Harry at controlling his feelings and playing along for his job. Isnt as professional. As detached. Louis does have a mouth on him and a temper. No marketing can force him to love people who hurt his loved ones. Dead loves ones. 

I seriously don't know where to begin with analyzing the bad arguments in this one...

Shall I start with the strawman argument? "but the least you could do is show us respect" is not referring to anything I remember to have said on this blog recently - you're hastily generalizing from one perceived Larrie to all perceived Larries and just copy pasting this into any mailboxes that are not tired of your whining and still open. Not worthy of my time answering.

But perhaps you foresaw this, so you put in the manipulative "Ignore this ask, don't answer it and both me and Louis will know exactly how much respect do Larries like you deserve." This, ladies gents and non binary folks reading this blog, is an interesting combination of the manipulative argument from fear (trying to scare me into publishing with the argument that Louis otherwise will have no respect for me, but that doesn't make anything of what the anon says more valid) - and an argument from silence ("if you say nothing, it will mean I am right" - but again, silence means silence, it doesn't say anything about who is right or wrong).

A lot of generalizations and appeals to emotion here in the parts of the argument that could potentially have some merit. Again appeals to emotion are not good arguments. But, stripping those away, your argument seems to go something like :

"Anyone who believes that Louis and Harry are/were in a relationship deserves no respect because some people who believed that Louis and Harry were in a relationship were disrespectful towards Louis' family members (at a particular difficult time in their lives)." While there is some merit in the underlying assumption that respect is something that needs to be earned and implies some reciprocity, that's still a fallacy of composition or a hasty generalization, you assume that anything that's true of some people who believed that Louis and Harry were in a relationship, is true of all people that believe that Louise and Harry are/were in a relationship.

What's really interesting though, and the reason why, despite my great distaste for manipulations like yours ("if you don't answer this will mean I'm right" is one of those that usually gets an automatic delete from me) , I decided to answer this ask, is this:

In one part of your argument, you say that Jay felt she had to delete pictures of Freddie because she could not defend her grandson after her death. And you spend quite a bit of words on emphasizing that this hurts Louis' dead loved ones.

And in another part of your argument, you say the following things about Louis himself: "He isn't good at controlling his feelings and playing along for his job. He isn't as professional. He has a mouth on him. He has a temper."

So (some) Larries are bad, because they hurt Louis' loved ones by suggesting Freddie might not really be his son, but a means to hide that he is gay. This would have massively hurt his dead mother.

But you can call him unprofessional and say he has a mouth on him and is ill-tempered, and this wouldn't hurt Louis? Or his dead mother?

Double standards much?

[sorens-sickness]

I’ve got a masters in philosophy so I’ll give it my best shot.

A straw man fallacy is a kind of argument that sets up a weaker version of whatever is being argued against in order to more easily “knock it down”. Instead of arguing directly against a position, what someone committing a straw man fallacy will do is willfully misrepresent what is being claimed and then argue against that misrepresentation. Here’s an example:

Person A says: “Guns are extremely dangerous and their presence in a home greatly increases the risk of gun violence, injury, and death to the people living in that house. Therefore guns should be strictly regulated.”

Person B says: “A thinks that everyone who buys a gun is dumb and irresponsible and just leaves loaded weapons lying around for children to find. That’s ridiculous. Gun owners are some of the most cautious and responsible people there are. We shouldn’t regulate guns at all.”

Person B, in this example has committed a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting Person A’s argument in a much weaker form thus making it much easier to refute. Person A never said they thought gun owners were irresponsible, neglect, or dumb. Their claim was only that having a gun in the house statistically increases risk. But that’s hard to argue against, so Person B set up a weaker “straw man” version of A and “knocked them down” and claimed victory.

Hope that helps things make sense!

I’m in a curious mood,

What are the weirdest “strawman” moments you’ve seen or heard of?

[rynli]

Harry works on his resume

[wardinespurrit]

redid my hms designs. i go on a ramble in the tags beware

[daily-dubois]

Day 126

[mrtequilasunset]

Okay ! here they are ! The last batch of Harry's clowns. I didn't forget :) They just took me a while because of my own indecisiveness.

[phys | psyche | mot]

[arttitude130]

disco in my brain

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Do you think it is possible for the other trolls to gaslight Eridan into do the murder for the right cause? E.g. not like the murderstuck in the canon but guiding his murderous direction to align with the purpose, using him as a disposable glass cannon and a cannon fodder to take down enemies? but not easily disposable due to seadweller's physical strength and his fighting skills. Not the optimal way to handle him but given that he needs some presence of others how will this scenario go?

no because i believe eridan is the specific type of idiot that you can't actually manipulate because he doesn't listen to people. god bless 🫡

[stil-lindigo]

when people talk about educating yourself on the origins of ideologies like zionism, it isn’t to ask for sympathy but to show that fascism always hinges on the same rules - dehumanisation and other-ing of scapegoat populations in the pursuit of power.

fascism is, at the end of the day, uncreative and there is value in recognising the signs. When an entire ideology is dependent on the inherent depravity of a certain identity, it is worth some scrutiny.

[phospadparadscha]

A little late but here's my gift for the @palestaticexchange for @delphionix of their prompt, Harry interacting with the Pale / the Skills! It was hard to decide what to do for this piece but I think i'm very proud of how it turned out in the end. The wonderful @presentablemichael helped me with making this piece happen finally. Happy gift exchange!

[wpmz]

other people have prob made this comparison before i did but how did flavor foley release static, the most tenna deltarune coded song, like a week and a half before chapter 3 came out. one of the lyrics is literally "don't touch the dial." like if i didn't know it came out first i'd wonder if it was inspired. planets aligning type of moment for both of these things to have come out around the same time

[volivolition]

DAY 3: RHETORIC - You – against the atom, the charm and the spin. Where the whole world failed – matter failed to bend to human will; human will failed to get out of bed and tie its laces – you alone, single-handedly, will rebuild the dreams of the working class. You are The Last Communist.

[g0at0ad]

some skills shenanigans from my fic

[rederiss]

Hi, gonna get serious for a moment.

I’ve seen people on here and Twitter talking about how they are worried that Nora will release The Perfect Court before the The Broken Cage. I want to discuss how the writing process works and why I believe she won’t be doing that (along with how Prequels typically work in a series).

Most believe that the writing process is linear, when it reality it’s extremely non-linear. You will have one idea, then need to pivot, then erase whole plot lines and so on and so forth until you have a cohesive story that does eventually become linear for the audience. All Nora is most likely doing is pivoting a huge task. WE all discussed how Nora needs to cover so much in the third (sixth?) book, and I am positive Nora bumped into that road multiple of times that fed into her decision to create this duology so that she can properly create this story. I bet that she is only sketching out plans for TPC and TQG so she can get a more clear idea on TBC (actually, she did say this on her post btw). Therefore, she will most likely be finishing out Jerejean’s trilogy before moving onto the next two books. It would only make logical sense.

Now, for the prequel, since this is an indie published series, typical rules dont apply. However, let’s just say it does. Prequels normally come out AFTER the story is already told. This is why with the Hunger games, we are just now getting Snow’s and Haymitch’s stories after the conclusion. We need to see the story unfold before we read how the story starts, if that make sense? It’s just how the literary world works. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if she releases the Perfect Court after the Queen’s Game. I bet she is using the Queen’s Game to bring in a true conclusion to AFTG and using Kevin for the prequel since “this starts and ends with Kevin.” Logically speaking, for us as an audience, it would make sense for the Perfect Court to come after the Queen’s Game rather than before either TBC or TQG just because we need the conclusion first. However, this is indie published, so its possible she will do TPC before TQG (and either way, it works out, but I don’t think it would work for TPC to come out before TBC)

[plead-au]

a compilation of recent PLE:AD AU-related drawings. sorted by oldest to latest

[disco-archetypes]

LOGIC - Still nothing -- but that's okay. This doesn't have to turn into some kind of meltdown. You're just a cop taking your time to present a theory.

RHETORIC - Why does Puzzle Face get to *not* melt down? You and I melted down like crazy, remember?

AUTHORITY - Right. Puzzle Face shouldn't be the cool guy when he fails. *I* was supposed to be that.

LOGIC - Shush. I'm just more level headed than you. That's my thing. Let's look at this as a learning experience. What are the components you need to implicate Ruby?