#logicalfallacy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mineofilms · 2 months ago

Text

Dissidentia

youtube

Being liberal generally, is ‘supposed’ to mean valuing progress, change, and individual freedoms. Liberals tend to support ideas like equal rights, social programs to help people in need, and government involvement in solving societal issues. They often advocate for personal freedoms, such as free speech and reproductive rights, and believe in policies that promote fairness and opportunity for everyone.

That is not how the last four years went from the side that label’s itself as liberal or progressive. We can even say to an extent the eight years before Trump’s first run at president, which now looks like Trump never really had the support within his own circle. In late 2024 that changed when Trump did something no presidential candidate in modern history has faced. Challenges galore—legal battles, media opposition, an assassination attempt, and years of political attacks—yet he still secured a decisive victory. While the numerical margin may not reflect a historic landslide, the circumstances surrounding the win make it one of the most significant political comebacks in US history.

Both liberal and conservative sides spin the narrative to fit their agenda—the right will exaggerate the margin to make the win seem even bigger, while the left will downplay it or twist the numbers. Significance on downplay and twist public opinion. The truth lies somewhere in between: Trump’s victory was decisive, not necessarily in sheer numbers, but on the concept of what the victory means for all of us. Drastic Change…

We know when we’re emotionally compromised (unhinged), which seems constant now, we cannot use our thinking brain, which also seems constant. The modern-day liberals, not the old-time lifers but this newer, younger breed of liberal doesn’t believe in literal progress. They say progress, progressive, but the actions actually lead us backward. How can a thing, anything, be moving forward, to, ‘progress in,’ if it is actually going backward? That one question explains about five thousand words of semantics from me, but since that question cannot be answered objectively and all we’ll get from either side is a subjective one, we must Trump forward with the five thousand-word breakdown here. This version of the liberals will never get it. That is why America is leaving them and their values behind.

Don't Want To Be Left Behind?

Stop following the dumb-dumbs off the bridge because they changed the definition of what a bed of spikes is. They now call it water...

It's not water... It’s a bed of fucking spikes you are about to land on. It always was a bed of spikes. The bed of spikes didn’t just change its nature cause you voted to change its name. You just blindly jumped off a bridge into spikes because some chick in that movie cried on social media and you want to be accepted by her soooooo badly...

Not sorry... You are left behind because nonsense like that. You no longer can be trusted, in any respect.

That's why people are ignoring you. Not because you stand for good over evil or right over wrong, but because you show no moral fiber in your daily routine. People can't trust you because you cannot be trusted with important concepts, but yet we're all the problem.

Get over yourselves. You are not a unique little snowflake. You're not that important to the Earth and mankind as a whole. You are important to your circle. After that, not a whole lot. The Earth and its people will do what they do regardless of your opinion of it. But don’t you dare attempt to fuck with mine or our peace. That is what we all try to do with all that hard work we all do. To make a peaceful life for ourselves. While you cheat, lie, take, abuse the system and when we wanna do an audit. You lose your goddamn mind about it, but have no problem giving money to foreign countries to wage war and feed their people while ours suffer and you get cash kickbacks labeled as gender studies in Central America in your account. It’s not cool. The country has had enough and now some of you wanna complain about that too. You will be left behind and you still don’t get why you are being left behind. That is your problem. Not all people will follow the delusional. In fact, most won’t.

People hear you. They considered it. You were weighed. You were measured and you were found, lacking… They voted the other way unanimously. What more do you need? You are alone and something about those that have nothing; they cannot fight for anything. They know nothing of what that means or entails. It's like trying to explain a sphere to a straight line. A straight line will never understand 3D in any respect. It's beyond its comprehension.

Personal character and behavior matter more than your unhinged pseudo-logic, based on; purely emotion and uncritical thinking, parading around as if it is critical thinking. Judging or hating someone or a group because you cannot articulate your thoughts is a sign of intolerance, narcissistic sociopathy, and close-mindedness. The core idea is that differences shouldn’t dictate personal relationships—what matters is how people conduct themselves, not who they support, and more importantly, why…

That is the part people get hung up on. Not all, but many cannot do this—articulate their perspective to others and have that perspective actually be logical. Most times, the logic is nowhere to be found, and these people cannot handle that due to their own fantasy of being more important to the world, in their own mind, than they actually are. Get a grip. Go outside and look at the sun. Go to a zoo, go to a lake or beach. Do something other than screaming nonsense in the hopes that someone will give more than their usual two shits and a fuck about you, your point of view, your voice, your input and just respect in general…

It's why my closed circle is both small and closed. I simply cannot trust you… With anything. And that is the only badge of merit one needs with me—it is also the easiest to lose and never get back. God forgives. So do I. I also do not forget and make my decisions based on that. A one-dimensional being will never comprehend a two-dimensional one or even a three-dimensional one. It is beyond them, and it shows…

Be careful how you present, display yourself, and your beliefs in this reality. If your intention or goal is to force others who do not share your insights on this reality we share; where the perspective of that reality we share differs from the person who doesn’t think like you or believe what you believe, regardless if your evidence is opinion-based or based on actual merited-fact—a fact that can be proven regardless if you believe it is real or not—(Objectivity) —if you attempt to force them to change without logically explaining your reasoning, and you get angry and push that person away because they do not see your perspective, and out of frustration you push them away because you cannot articulate your thoughts in a logical manner, those people won't come back to you. Those who truly care won't tolerate such treatment. They cannot trust you after such dismissive behavior, so why would they want to come back into your circle?

My take is a little different but in the same boat.

I say if one looks up at the sky and another person from a "other" side says; "why are you looking down?" You look at them puzzled-like, "what do you mean, down? This is up..."

Other side says "’up’ is the new down.” This isn't a debate over different beliefs. It’s a debate over if this person is delusional or not. How can I trust people, any one person or even a group of people that believe delusions are real things? I can't... It’s easier to leave them be, where I found them, in the gutter and not look back.

I have not removed my family or friends or even acquaintances, but I no longer listen to what they have to say. About anything. Its peanuts-mother-talk now. Just noise in the background, that still screams loudly but incoherently, so no one is listening. Or at the very least I am not.

It’s all about trust. I cannot trust people that think down is the new up or backward is progress (ive).It’s not a healthy situation at all; nor is it a winning philosophy. It’s a winning philosophy if you get rich off other people's misery and act like that is good and nothing is wrong.

This "other" side has not learned anything and apparently they cannot do simple, basic math either. They were out voted, drastically, it wasn't close, not at all. It wasn’t a landslide like the right-media is saying, but it wasn’t very close either. They don't like facts so they make up their own under the "pseudo-logic" classification.

Again, for me it comes down to trust, critical thinking, logic and common sense. This "other side" has not been able to do that and not been able to do that for a pretty long time. These voices are minority, minor and they are finally being ignored...

At one time this "other side" stood for something, now it stands for itself. It is like that crazy person that talks about how everyone else being crazy, but come to find out, no, it is them and has been them the whole time. This is called self-projection, where a person or group talks about another but is really talking about themselves. I see it all the time in the world and in even darker places like social media and the sites from the dark web (websites not indexed by google, not necessarily bad or evil places but you will find such things there.)

I had a friend who used to talk about crazy sick shit about girls, come to find out it was him that did these things to these girls. He wanted me to know it was him without me directly knowing it was him. You have people like that on social media and you have them next door to you and they are your elected officials as well. They watch your kids. Patrol your streets and even give you mail. In some cases steal your mail. You will know because they will always give you a very weird vibe about themselves, but one cannot put their foot on it as to what and why they feel that way, they just do… Flash-forward some time later and you find out this person is into some very weird, sick and illegal shit. Trust that feeling. It is usually always right…

Politically it doesn't matter which side you choose. It’s one snake, with a head at each end. The body is hidden from them. The heads face one another believing each head is its own separate enemy. The reality is it’s the same snake... Easter egg from Conan the Barbarian (1982).

I don't support our government interfering with the ability of the American people (only citizens) to live

their lives at any capacity at the federal, state, and local level. I support the bare minimum because it is us that make the machine go boom, not the bureaucrats. Politicians shouldn’t even exist. We should be self-sufficient to where we do not need them. Like lawyers. We should never need them.

Why Lawyers and Politicians Shouldn’t Exist (But Do Anyway):

If life were a well-written script, we wouldn’t need lawyers. Or politicians. Or any of the suits and madmen who exist solely to convert the incomprehensible into the barely manageable. In a rational world, laws would be written like IKEA manuals—simple, pictographic, and, at worst, requiring a single confused phone call to an uncle who once built a shelf. Instead, we live in a world where every law is drafted in the linguistic equivalent of Lovecraftian horror, a writhing mess of clauses, sub-clauses, and references to obscure precedents buried in the depths of legal archives. It’s absurd, really. We have “laws” that are supposed to guide us, yet we require trained interpreters—lawyers—who charge by the hour just to translate these cryptic texts into something resembling human language. If we need an elite caste of semantic wizards to decipher our own rules, have we not already lost the game? The very existence of a legal profession implies that the law is fundamentally unintelligible to the people it governs. And therein lies the great cosmic joke: we are governed by words we cannot read.

This is, of course, by design. Politicians, the other necessary-unnecessaries, have mastered the art of building systems that require them to exist. They are the overpaid cancers of civilization—tinkering with things just enough to justify their salaries while ensuring that nothing ever works without their continued intervention. Like the great bureaucratic serpent or dragon eating its own tail, they create problems to fix problems, all while convincing us that without them, the world would collapse into Mad Maxian chaos. Just watch the news. It is all you see coming from the libRats, but consider this: if government were so essential, why does everything feel like it’s held together with duct tape and wishful thinking? Roads still crack, infrastructure still crumbles, and Social Security still doesn’t answer its god damn phone. It’s as if every system was designed by someone who was actively betting against its success. The sheer inefficiency of it all borders on performance art.

Laws are meant to be universal, yet they are written in an exclusionary dialect spoken fluently only by the legally ordained smart people who tend to prove they are not so smart once they are in control over something bigger than themselves. We even have people with law degrees that cannot speak the language of law at all. People like Kamala Harris and her very insulting word salads of nonsense and we are all supposed to shake our heads in acceptance and understanding? What in the living fuck? This is no accident. The more confusing the law, the more valuable the translator. If legalese were clear and accessible, the legal industry would crumble overnight, much like the way prescription medication would cost pennies if not for the towering network of medical bureaucracy. Lawyers, like politicians, function as linguistic tollbooths on the bridge to justice, extracting their due before allowing passage.

Imagine a world where the law was written so plainly that a ten-year-old could understand it. A world where contracts, lawsuits, and legislation didn’t require interpretative dance to make sense. But no, instead, we get a labyrinth of fine print that ensures no one, save for the chosen few, can navigate it. This is not law; this is wizardry. And if the law is sorcery, lawyers are its gatekeeping priests.

Hope? No, But At Least a Chuckle of Sardonic Cynical Nihilism.

Of course, none of this will change. Bureaucracy metastasizes; systems grow more convoluted; laws become denser; and politicians continue to manufacture the illusion of necessity. This is the natural order of things, as unstoppable as entropy. But in the face of such absurdity, perhaps all we can do is laugh. Laugh at the fact that we pay people to explain rules we should already understand. Laugh at the fact that civilization, for all its grandeur, is a Rube Goldberg machine designed by committee. Laugh, because the alternative is screaming into the void—and the void is already full of lawyers.

Our politics is more of a poorly scripted tragicomedy, endlessly rebooted with worse casting each cycle. The latest act? A political sleight of hand so brazen that it assumes the average voter possesses the critical thinking skills of a concussed goldfish.

How the Backward Progressively Go Backward:

The Progressive—the elitist that practically salivates with the disdain of a talk-radio host who just discovered irony but refuses to use it—tend to regard the American people as idiots. They talk down to us all. They tell us how to live. They demand our obedience. They tell us to trust them because they know better. Considering the electorate’s track record includes enthusiastically electing celebrities, con men, and people whose entire political ideology can be reduced to an AI-generated brand slogan. But if the people were actually, you know, “smart,” (a thought experiment so dangerous it borders on science fiction), would they really fall for the notion that Kamala Harris was ever a viable President-in-waiting, past, present or even future?

She can’t and couldn’t even articulate why she wanted the job. And who can blame her really? She cheated her entire life, using her skin color and gender as a basis for why the rules should not apply to her. Why does anyone seek power in a system that eats its own, where every grand ambition is met with bureaucratic quicksand and the relentless entropy of public disinterest? She stood alongside an administration that history is going to regard as a slow-motion car crash into a flaming orphanage, and rather than confront the wreckage, the powers that be simply asked the American people to squint until it looked like an art installation. The reclassification and redefinitions of what things actually mean. First they did this with words and phrases. Now they attempt to do with video. One of the first things I learned in film school. Everything you see and hear on a pre-recorded, heavily edited, piece, whatever the piece is, is crafted, and created to give you, the viewer, a reaction. That reaction does not have to be based at all on honesty or objective facts. What you see is what they want you to see. That is how production of a narrative is done. When all else fails. Go back to the beginning. You cannot win a game if you do not know or play by the rules and those rules seem to change whenever the other player you play against is changing them as they see fit when they see fit.

The deception, if we can even call it that, was so half-ass it bordered on performance art of an SNL sketch. “Look away.” “Don’t ask questions,” they said, as if the average citizen—already juggling inflation, existential dread, and a social media addiction—had the time or energy to be fooled in the first place. No, the failure wasn’t hidden; it was paraded through the streets with the frantic enthusiasm of a magician who just realized their rabbit is dead while wearing a dress he stole from the airport luggage wheel.

And let’s talk about effort. Or rather, the absence of it. The left has redefined hard work as something that happens exclusively from home, preferably in between TikTok dances and overpriced oat-milk lattes and let’s not forget eggs. A damning accusation, though one wonders if the real issue here is economic resentment or a secret longing to join them. After all, who among us wouldn’t trade sweat-drenched labor for a six-figure salary earned in pajama pants? The horror isn’t that some people figured out how to game the system—it’s that the rest of us still believe the game was ever fair to begin with.

But at the end of the day, does any of it matter? Politics is, and always has been, the art of convincing people that they have a choice when, in reality, they’re just selecting the flavor of their inevitable disappointment. Maybe the real joke isn’t the politicians who fail so spectacularly, but the fact that we still expect anything else. Don’t forget, infinity literally means, on a long enough time scale the survival rate for all life is zero. Another way to conceptualize it is if you start walking in a straight line, hypothetically, as there is no such thing as a true straight line in reality, everything is curved, we just do not see the curve in the literal sense, because it is so vague where the curve begins to curve that it is undetectable to us, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real, true, or an objective fact. That is what an objective fact is. A fact outside of your point of reference that is true regardless if you know, believe or have input on that truth. It’s just true and that objectivity of the Universe does not give two-shits and a fuck whether or not you care or not or even participate. You, me, us, are not as important as we want to believe. We just aren’t… Get over it… But back to infinity and straight lines. If you start walking in a straight line, infinity happens. Space curves, time stretches, and the absurdity of existence plays out on an endless loop. You walk long enough, far enough, and eventually, you come across someone about to set off on their own straight-line journey. And the real mind-bender? That person is you—setting out infinities ago, doomed to repeat the same path, over and over, as if choice or direction ever really existed in the first place.

What is Truth?

• A Philosopher - Truth is an elusive ideal, a convergence of perception and reality. It exists independently yet is filtered through subjective experience. Some say truth is absolute, others that it is contingent. Perhaps it is neither, merely a construct we chase but never fully grasp.

• A Physicist - Truth is that which is testable, measurable, and repeatable. It is the consistency of natural laws, the fabric of reality governed by equations. While our models improve, truth itself remains indifferent to our understanding—it simply is, whether we perceive it correctly or not.

• A Politician - Truth is flexible—it’s about perception and persuasion. What matters isn’t what is true, but what people believe to be true. If the narrative is strong enough, it becomes the truth, at least in the minds of those who matter.

• A Truck Driver - Truth is simple—it’s what actually happened, no matter what anyone says. You either made the delivery on time, or you didn’t. People might twist words all they want, but truth don’t change just ‘cause someone don’t like it.

• A Lawyer - Truth is whatever can be proven. It exists within evidence, arguments, and precedent. There is factual truth, but in a courtroom, what matters is legal truth—the version that can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

• A 10-Year-Old Child - Truth is when you're not lying. If something really happened, then it's true. But sometimes, grown-ups say different things are true at the same time, and that’s really confusing. Maybe truth is just what most people agree on?

In modern society, certain ideologies have positioned themselves as absolute moral authorities, defining what is acceptable to think, say, or believe. These ideologies claim to champion progress, equality, and reason, but in doing so, they often suppress dissenting views rather than engaging with them. Truth has become politicized—facts and reasoned arguments are no longer neutral but are instead framed as ideological statements, often dismissed as "problematic" or "dangerous."

Disagreement is no longer seen as part of a healthy debate but as a moral failing. Those who question dominant narratives risk being ostracized, labeled with judgmental terms, or outright silenced. The result is a form of intellectual conformity where only one worldview is permitted, and alternative perspectives are rejected not through discussion but through social and professional consequences. This shift has led to a paradox: while modern society prides itself on rationality and critical thinking, it increasingly ignores evidence that contradicts its favored beliefs. In doing so, it undermines the very principles of reason, debate, and free expression that it claims to uphold. Many people sense this contradiction but fear speaking out due to the potential consequences. However, as awareness of this dynamic grows, more voices are beginning to challenge it. And those voices are winning. No longer does volume dictate quality but rather clarity itself as quality.

A Warning About the News You Watch:

Mainstream media—CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX—often distorts the full picture. They condense stories, inject opinion, and prioritize engagement over truth. This has led many people to turn toward independent journalists, but that shift comes with its own dangers.

On social media, anyone can brand themselves as a journalist, and many are more focused on monetization than accuracy. They know how to manipulate algorithms, emotions, and controversy for attention.

This is opening up another can of worms that someone somewhere is going to have to deal with. While some independents do solid reporting, many do not. This is why critical thinking is essential. People on the internet will do and say anything to get famous or make money so they don’t have to work regular jobs. While some are serious about what they do, how they do it, why they do it, most are not. Most are just trying to make a dollar doing nothing or at least in their mind it is doing nothing. Again, with that delusional, look at me, pay attention to me, follow me bull shit.

You should apply the same skepticism to independent news as you do to mainstream media. Ask:

• Does this information make logical sense? • Does it rely on facts or emotional manipulation? • Is there evidence beyond personal claims?

You won’t find truth in one source alone. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Be Mindful of Influence, Not Just Information. Much like how news companies profit from engagement, many so-called "experts" and influencers—whether journalists or self-help authors—profit from telling you what you want to hear. Before blindly trusting a source, consider what they gain from your belief.

Watch, think, and move on with your day. And stop buying books that promise to change your life—they don’t know you, they just want your money.

It’s Minority Not Army:

The Minority and their math problem with revolution that can’t count - Threats, whether empty or real, rely on a fundamental principle: the ability to execute. And when it comes to the idea that 0.6% of the U.S. population—the trans community—could create large-scale unrest, the numbers simply don’t add up. Let’s put this into perspective: In a country of 330 million people, 0.6% equals roughly 2 million individuals—and that’s assuming every single trans person would actively participate in this hypothetical campaign of chaos. Spoiler: They won’t. The reality is that any significant movement requires numbers, organization, and resources. While this 0.6% is hoping the 7.6% of all LGBT that are adults help out in the cause. It isn’t likely they will get as much support under those terms for some sort of a revolution. There are many people within the subculture that do not appreciate the sentiments coming from that portion of the trans community. This is why small fringe groups, regardless of ideology, are almost always relegated to disjointed acts of symbolic protest, not systemic or systematic upheaval. Yet, in the internet’s echo chambers, the loudest voices often believe they can substitute online influence for real-world power. This is the essence of modern ideological movements—subcultures that masquerade as mainstream. "Whoa-ke Cult-Lure" thrives on the illusion that being the most vocal equates to being the majority, but in a democratic nation, numbers—not volume—dictate influence. The reason they scream so loudly is because they have to. Otherwise, their numerical insignificance would be impossible to ignore. And when challenged? Logic is not an option. Instead, labels—“bigot,” “transphobe,” “racist”—are deployed like smoke grenades, diverting attention away from the fact that they cannot mathematically or rationally sustain their own claims. It’s a tactical admission of intellectual defeat. So, will they make the country unsafe? Um, I say, what army? How do they expect to actually make any of this a reality logistically when you only have less than 2 million people out of 600+ million. It’s hilarious to watch these people cry though...

Elon Musk and DOGE:

The last thing I want to leave on is the whole Elon Musk thing. I think Joe Rogan said it best, so I am just gonna let Joe, do what Joe does. Scare the piss out of the people that should be scared.

“People are worried that Elon is going to steal everyone's money. He has $400 Billion. Elon's not going to steal your money. That's not what he's doing. He's a super genius that has been fucked with. When you've been fucked with by these nitwits that hide behind 3-letter agencies, and you're dealing with one of the smartest people alive helping Donald Trump get into office and find out what corruption is really going on, you fucked up.

You fucked up and picked the wrong psychopath on the spectrum. He's going to hunt you down and find out what's going on, and that's good for everyone. That's how you should be looking at this, like 'Wow, we have a brilliant mind examining these really corrupt and goofy systems and bringing in a bunch of psychopath wizards.” —Joe Rogan

Final Thoughts:

I voted RED in the election, but the enemy of enemy is my friend, till they’re not. I do not stand for everything conservatives stand for. I will never stand with or for Jesus. Believe if you want, but leave me the fuck alone with it. I will never make it my business what a woman does with, to, or for her baby inside her. I will never support men in female places, spaces, or sports. I would never give support to help an illegal person prosper. I always want less Government in my day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year life. I never want more. While I support some common sense law pertaining to guns I generally support the 2nd Amendment. I absolutely loathe political correctness of any kind. While I think we should do more to help the environment I refuse to believe human beings are the root cause to such a level we have to outright stop how we live. While we need to stop putting limits on developing new technologies. There are a bunch of old technologies, well, old, that the Patent office has buried in their files. Every time someone invents something new that could hinder the oil industry that tech get buried or repurposed. We can start there. If we want to lighten up on the environment both sides have to work on this. Not one and not some plan that clearly is directionless and its only goal is to make America weak. But, hey, in the meantime I have to choose dumb so dumber doesn’t get to rule over the very many that serve the very small to rule over the very many. Sounds silly doesn’t it?

That’s because it is… Silly… Five Thousand, told you so…

Dissidentia Latin for, Dissidence by David-Angelo Mineo 2/25/2025 5,165 words

0 notes

dizzytomato · 7 months ago

Text

ChatGPT admits "inadvertent" tu quoque

You're correct. I may have inadvertently used a tu quoque fallacy in my previous response. A tu quoque fallacy occurs when someone tries to discredit an argument by pointing out a similar flaw in the opponent's argument or behavior.

I apologize for the oversight. It's important to be aware of logical fallacies and avoid using them in our arguments.

Would you like to continue our discussion, focusing on the specific examples you mentioned earlier? I'm interested in learning more about your perspective and understanding the reasons behind your beliefs.

#chatgpt #geminichatgpt #logicalfallacies

0 notes

innerparadisementality · 11 months ago

Text

10 Mind-Blowing Logical Fallacies That Are Ruining Your Arguments—And How to Spot Them!

What Are Logical Fallacies? How to Identify and Avoid Them Welcome to the second article in our decision-making series. Our first instalment focused on heuristics – those handy mental shortcuts that help us navigate the world quickly and efficiently. In this article, we’re diving into logical fallacies, the errors in reasoning that can derail even the best intentions. Understanding these…

View On WordPress

0 notes

taqato-alim · 2 years ago

Text

Analysis of the viewer commentaries to the YT video "Trump: This was the most embarrassing moment in US history" by Fox News

youtube

Many comments lack subject knowledge, logical reasoning, and facts

Most commenters show bias and lack objectivity

Civility and relevance are also frequently lacking

Overall quality is evaluated as fair to poor

Comments rely heavily on anecdote and opinion over evidence

Logical fallacies are common, especially argument from personal experience, ad hominem attacks, and hasty generalizations

Arguments are mostly emotive and inconsistent, with few counterarguments

Comments reveal weak ethical reasoning and consideration for social impacts and the common good

They exhibit tendencies of in-group favoritism, confirmation bias, and affective polarization

Negative emotions like anger and fear outweigh positive emotions

Expressions reveal more autocratic than democratic inclinations

Here are the usual evaluation criteria for opinion-based comments, along with my evaluation of the given comments per each criteria:

Subject knowledge: The knowledge and expertise of the commenters regarding the subject matter. Evaluation: The majority of the comments do not demonstrate extensive subject knowledge on political issues. Many are opinionated but lacking in-depth facts or analysis.

Logical reasoning: The use of logic, facts and evidence to support arguments. Evaluation: Most comments lack logical reasoning and rely primarily on opinions, beliefs and rhetoric. Few cite concrete facts or evidence to support their positions.

Relevance: The degree to which the comments are on topic and pertinent to the discussion. Evaluation: While most comments are broadly relevant to the topic of Donald Trump and U.S. politics, many stray into tangential issues or side topics.

Objectivity: The comments are free from bias, prejudice or skewed perspectives. Evaluation: The vast majority of comments show a clear bias and partisan perspective, with few attempting an objective or balanced viewpoint.

Civility: The comments are respectful, polite and avoid ad hominem attacks. Evaluation: Though most comments are not overly crude or impolite, several directly criticize or insult political figures and those with opposing views. Civility is generally lacking.

In summary, based on these usual evaluation criteria for opinion-based comments, the overall quality is fair to poor. Most comments would benefit from demonstrating greater expertise, logic, objectivity, and civility while remaining properly focused and relevant to the topic. The qualitative weaknesses are typical of open online comment sections.

Based on the comments provided, I would evaluate the status as follows:

Science vs Fiction: The comments fall firmly on the fiction side of the spectrum. They are opinions, anecdotes and rhetoric, not based on scientific analysis or evidence.

Empirical vs Anecdotal: The vast majority of comments are anecdotal in nature, based on personal opinions, beliefs and experiences. There is little use of empirical data or statistics.

Fact vs Opinion: Almost all the comments represent opinions, not facts. There are few verifiable facts cited to support the various arguments. The language used is largely emotive and opinionated.

Objective vs Subjective: The comments show a high degree of subjectivity, reflecting the personal biases, preferences and perspectives of the commenters. There are few attempts at an objective or dispassionate analysis of the issues.

In summary, the comments exhibit many of the characteristics of casual discussion rather than rigorous analysis or debate. They rely heavily on anecdote, opinion and subjectivity, with little use of empirical data, facts or objective reasoning. This likely reflects the open, informal nature of the online comment section in which they appear. While some views may resonate emotionally, most would lack persuasive power in a more critical or evidentiary discourse.

Based on my review of the comments, I identified the following logical fallacies:

Ad hominem - Several comments directly attack and insult political figures instead of addressing their positions.

Argument from personal experience/anecdote - Many comments cite anecdotes and personal experiences as arguments, which are not generally representative or conclusive.

False dichotomy - Some comments frame the issues in black and white terms, presenting only two extreme options when more nuanced alternatives exist.

Hasty generalization - Some commenters generalize from limited evidence or a single or few examples to broad conclusions.

Loaded language/emotive words - The majority of comments use emotionally charged or slanted language, indicating a biased perspective.

Straw man - Several comments misrepresent or exaggerate the arguments of those with opposing political views to make them easier to counter.

Appeal to tradition/sentiment - A few comments justify their positions based on nostalgia, national pride or "the good old days" rather than facts or evidence.

Black-or-white/all-or-nothing thinking - Some comments view political issues, people and situations in extreme, uncompromising terms with little acknowledgment of complexity or nuance.

In summary, the logical fallacies that appear most frequently in the comments are: use of loaded language, arguing from anecdotal experience, ad hominem attacks, hasty generalizations, straw man arguments and false dilemmas. All of these weaken the persuasiveness and logical integrity of the arguments expressed.

Based on my review, I would evaluate the arguments in the comments as follows:

Strengths:

Some comments express passionate and strongly held views on important political issues. The discourse, though informal, indicates a level of civic engagement among the commenters.

A few comments attempt to logically defend their positions with premises and reasons to support their conclusions, though these arguments remain largely undeveloped.

Weaknesses:

Most arguments are largely emotive, relying predominantly on rhetoric, subjective language and anecdotal evidence rather than sound logical reasoning and facts.

Many arguments contain logical fallacies as noted in my previous summary, undermining their cogency and persuasiveness.

Most arguments exhibit a high degree of bias, partisanship and lack of objectivity, limiting their credibility and openness to alternative views.

Many arguments lack clarity and specificity, making it difficult to fully evaluate their strength since key premises and conclusions remain vague or implied.

Very few counterarguments or responses to opposing views are provided, indicating a lack of critical interaction and debate among the commenters.

In summary, while the comments express passionate views on important issues, the informal and open-ended nature of the dialogue, combined with a heavy reliance on subjective anecdote over logic and evidence, results in arguments that are generally weak and unpersuasive. The discourse would benefit from greater clarity, substantiation with facts, acknowledgement of alternative perspectives, and logical responses to counterarguments.

Overall, I would evaluate the strength of the arguments in the comments as fairly weak due to the predominance of the weaknesses noted above. However, there is certainly potential for more rigorous and insightful debate if the commenters were willing to engage in a more objective, fact-based and civil discourse.

Based on my review of the comments, I would evaluate the ethics as follows:

Lack of moral basis for political claims: Many comments express strong political positions but fail to ground them in moral principles or considerations of the common good. They tend to reflect ideologies and partisan stances rather than a coherent ethical framework.

Little consideration for social impacts: Most comments advocate political policies and views with little acknowledgment or discussion of their ethical implications in terms of how they may impact society's most vulnerable groups. There is a lack of concern for social justice and equity.

Political ends justify means: Some comments imply that desired political outcomes justify almost any means used to achieve them, with little regard for ethical norms, values or fair processes. There seems to be an "ends justify the means" mentality.

Casual incivility and disrespect: Though not overly offensive, several comments exhibit a casual incivility, disrespect or contempt toward political figures and those with opposing views. There is a lack of consideration for the intrinsic worth of all persons.

Tribal, zero-sum approach: Many comments reflect a "zero-sum," tribal approach where one political faction "winning" requires the other "losing," rather than a positive-sum approach seeking solutions that can benefit all groups in society.

In summary, I would characterize the ethics reflected in the comments as generally weak. There is a lack of concern for moral principles, justice, fair treatment of others and the common good - elements foundational to robust political ethics. Many comments exhibit a partisan, "winner takes all" mentality with little regard for the dignity and interests of those seen as political opponents.

The informal and open-ended nature of the online discussion may contribute to this ethical deficit. More structured debate focused on moral reasoning and implications for society as a whole may help surface a more ethically grounded approach to the issues discussed.

Based on my review of the comments, I would make the following psychological observations:

Strong affective polarization: Many comments exhibit the psychological phenomenon of "affective polarization" where partisans have negative feelings toward the opposing party and its supporters, which can increase extreme attitudes and distrust.

Confirmation bias: Most comments reflect a confirmation bias where commenters selectively attend to information that confirms their existing views while ignoring or discounting disconfirming information. This reinforces preexisting opinions.

In-group favoritism/out-group hostility: Some comments demonstrate in-group favoritism toward those who share their political views coupled with hostility toward the out-group of political opponents, a common psychological tendency.

Desire for social identity/tribalism: Many comments express a desire for a strong social identity and sense of belonging through alignment with a political group or "tribe." This tribal loyalty seems to override concerns for facts or the common good.

Need for certainty/closure: Several comments exhibit an intolerance for ambiguity and a desire for certainty and closure on complex political issues, even without sufficient facts to justify conclusiveness. This psychological need may outweigh veracity.

Limited perspective-taking: There is little evidence that commenters are considering the viewpoints and experiences of those with opposing political perspectives, indicating a lack of psychological skill in cognitive perspective-taking.

In summary, the comments demonstrate several cognitive and social psychological phenomena that contribute to political polarization and strong partisan attitudes. Greater self-awareness of these psychological factors and skills in cognitive reappraisal, perspective-taking and critical thinking could help commenters engage more productively across differences.

Based on my analysis of the comments, I identified the following emotions:

Anger: Several comments express frustration, irritation and anger toward political opponents and the opposing party, particularly the Biden administration. The language used conveys dissatisfaction and outrage.

Fear: Some comments exhibit fear-based appeals, suggesting threats to American values, power, security and way of life under the current administration and political climate. Cautions of "wokeness," decline and World War III also indicate fear.

Nostalgia: A few comments express sentiments of nostalgia and longing for a romanticized past era under the Trump administration, appealing more to emotion than facts.

Pride: Some comments convey national pride and a desire to see America regain its global standing and influence, though this often seems tied to a partisan political agenda.

Hope: Several pro-Trump comments express hope that he will return as president to "fix" the country and restore American prosperity and power on the global stage. The language conveys optimism and possibility.

Disgust: Negative descriptions of opponents, their policies and behaviours seem aimed at eliciting disgust or disdain, particularly in critical comments about Trump.

In summary, the dominant emotions expressed in the comments seem to be:

Negative - Anger, fear and disgust toward political opponents

Positive - Hope for a preferred political outcome and some pride in American global power

However, many of the emotional appeals appear polarizing, partisan and exaggerated. A more balanced approach that considers complexities and alternative perspectives may yield insights to temper strong negative emotions and channel positive ones in more constructive ways.

Based on the details in the comments, I would evaluate the position of the commenters as follows:

More Autocratic:

Many comments express support for strong, even authoritarian, leadership with few checks on power.

Some express nostalgia for an era with less "political correctness" and perceived restrictions on speech.

Those who strongly favor Trump's policies appear willing to accept unilateral executive actions to achieve desired political ends.

Comments critical of opponents exhibit a lack of tolerance for alternative views and policies.

More Democratic:

Some commenters criticize both political parties, indicating a desire for a more representative system.

A few comments advocate for a focus on social justice, equity and the interests of vulnerable groups.

There are calls for greater moral reasoning and consideration for the common good beyond partisan interests.

Several oppose the "tribal" and "winner takes all" approach reflected in some comments.

However, on the whole, most of the details in the comments would suggest:

Limited respect for political opposition and alternative views

A paucity of deliberative discussion focusing on facts, evidence and the public interest

Favoring strong leadership over checks and power balancing

Inclinations toward unilateral action and imposition of one's policy preferences

Therefore, while a few democratic sentiments emerge, the prevalent characteristics in the comments would place most commenters closer to the autocratic end of the spectrum in terms of their expressed political preferences, tendencies and ideologies.

0 notes

sergeyshcherbakov · 3 months ago

Text

What Is Truth? The Secret To Winning Any Argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4B6gJqyrMY What Is Truth? The Secret To Winning Any Argument #whatistruth #criticalthinking #debatetactics What is truth, and how do people manipulate it? In this mind-blowing video, we break down objective truth, how it’s formed, and the psychological tricks used in debates to shift reality. You’ll learn: ✅ How truth is shaped by logic & perception 🧠 ✅ The Bell Curve effect & why truth is an average ✅ Debate techniques to win any argument 🎯 ✅ How propaganda & misinformation distort truth This video exposes how facts can be twisted, why debates never find truth, and how you can outmaneuver any opponent with logic. ⚡ Subscribe for more deep dives into logic, psychology, and critical thinking! Chapters: 0:00 - Intro 0:17 - How to prove complete bulls*it 2:25 - What is objective truth 5:30 - Everything around is «average» 8:34 - The fox in the henhouse 13:49 - How to Win Any Argument 14:50 - Nazi Germany could become even more peaceful The video has information on What Is Truth? The Secret To Winning Any Argument. But it also tries to cover the following topics: How To Think Critically Manipulation Tactics Logical Reasoning ✅ Stay Connected To Me. 🔔 Join Sergey Shcherbakov for more content that uncovers truths and explores the world from new angles!: https://www.youtube.com/@shcherbakov.sergey?sub_confirmation=1 ✅ For Business Inquiries: [email protected] ============================= ✅ Other Videos You Might Be Interested In Watching: 👉 11 favorite songs of Kim Jong Un https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjsd5dbpPgM 👉 Even mom can't be trusted: cognitive dissonance during the war https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8gYkyFj1l4 👉 How war affects the meaning of life (survey in Ukraine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwLZODqRNY 👉 How truth becomes propaganda. Mind-blowing power of INTERPRETATIONS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U2VLG7Jg8U 👉 A unique study in Antarctica. I didn't expect to find THIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLtZ4xM2gE ================================ 🔎 Related Phrases: What Is Truth, The Secret To Winning Any Argument, What Is Truth In Philosophy, How To Win Any Argument With Logic, The Bell Curve And How Truth Is Defined, Understanding Logical Fallacies In Debates, How Propaganda Manipulates Truth, The Psychology Behind Persuasion And Arguments, How To Use Debate Techniques To Win, What Is Objective Truth Vs Subjective Truth, Why People Believe In False Narratives #whatistruth #criticalthinking #debatetactics #logicalfallacies #philosophy #psychology #truthandlies #debunkingmisinformation #argumentwinning #skepticism #howtodebate #propaganda #mindmanipulation #psychologicaltricks #debatingskills #philosophicaldebates via Sergey Shcherbakov https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT2oru4CaQeeNAqBAruTFdw February 07, 2025 at 09:30AM

#mentalhealth #relationshiptips #personalgrowth #meaningoflife #exploration #interpretation #mediamanipulation #warpsychology

0 notes

philosophystudentorg · 1 year ago

Text

Strawman Fallacy: What It Is And How To Avoid It | PhilosophyStudent.org #shorts

Explore the concept of the Strawman Fallacy, a common logical error where arguments are distorted for easy dismissal. Please Visit our Website to get more information: https://ift.tt/oeAxuS8 #strawmanfallacy #logicalfallacies #philosophy #criticalthinking #philosophyeducation #shorts from Philosophy Student https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZIsSLFOa8w

View On WordPress

#ancientphilosophy #biography #greekphilosophy #legacy #monotheism #philosophy #stoicism #zenoofcitium

0 notes

psycomix-fallaciae · 1 year ago

Text

www.fallaciae.cards 👈 Citare il giudizio di un'autorità è sufficiente a chiudere la discussione? O forse è solo un punto di partenza? Questa #fallacia è nota come argumentum ab #uctoritate, collegata alla fallacia ad #verecundiam, 👑 come ben sanno i possessori 😎 delle #carte delle #fallacie a #fumetti (#fallaciae e #fallaciaebis) #retorica #logica #logicalfallacies #argomentazione #dibattito #auctoritate #verecundiam

#fallacie #logical fallacies #retorica #argomentazione

0 notes

sensedetector · 5 years ago

Text

Name Calling Fallacy

Hi! We’ve just published an article about name-calling logical fallacy and how it relates to identity politics: Name Calling Ad Hominem Examples. There are definitions, types and examples from recent Australian Media

#LogicalFallacy #NameCalling adhominem

1 note · View note

mineofilms · 5 months ago

Text

Inconveniens

youtube

And I just completely abandoned a 5000+ word essay on my thoughts about “after the election.” I was grinding, it was flowing, but then I realized, pretty much everything in this essay is more rehash of older ideas already hashed out over a three year span. I am just done doing that. I feel like even though there is a lot to say about what, how, why democrats lost the way they did and keep losing is just me kickin’ the dying, soon to be dead, that is progressive-woke, into the grave, but a deeper and darker one. So why bother? We all know what, how, why. We saw it. We lived it. We hated it. We voted it out. No reason to elaborate on the specifics. They are still not listening. The losers that double down are on an island all by themselves talking to air, posting to no one on bluesky. Spewing their “view” to a very small minority while the majority either stops watching or only watches for the unhinged meltdowns. There just isn’t a point. Besides. I have 2 to 4 years to be hyper-critical on what the new regime is going to do and I am sure I will have something to say about it, just like everyone else. I still have plenty of content I can draw from: AI, God, AI is God, God is AI, Rock and Metal Subgenres, more on Conceptual Horror, Is reality even real? Album, film review, breakdowns. Fiction, oh my gosh, fiction. Fiction actually pays the bills. I don’t need to write about identity politics, both the winning and losing sides. I said it before, it didn’t matter who won. Us, the people, will lose. I still have yet to see anything that makes me change that perspective. My cynical nature is still quite sound. I still believe the light at the end of the tunnel is just you waving you to go back. I at least applaud the winning side for trying to fix a sinking pirate ship with Popsicle sticks. I felt the breath of fresh air most felt. I heard that loud sigh. A glance over my shoulder to see the hopemonkey. Can they succeed? Well, they will try. I tend to agree with them more than the latter. That is why I did what I did with my vote. I still have issues with the winning side of this but not nearly as much as I do with the losing side. If I have to pick a side I choose the side that hurts me the least in all respects and buries the other side. However, spite. There is that…

These days modern discourse is less about understanding and more about who can shout the loudest. This is an ego-driven circus, performing for applause while tribalism runs the show. It's all projection—identity politics at its finest. Left, right, center, black, white, yellow, red, blue—it’s the same game, just with different colored jerseys. Nobody’s clean, no one’s blameless, no one is innocent. It’s branding, not beliefs. Existentialism whispers in the background, reminding us how meaningless most of it is—especially the outrage. Let’s face it: most of this outrage isn't about fixing anything. It's about influence, it’s about power, it’s about proving you're the “good one” in a society that couldn't care less and has even less “good ones” in it. Real progress? Yeah, we’ll see about all that. Lately it’s been dead on arrival when people care more about their vibe and how the outside views them than the viability of actual solutions. What they call “progress” is often just running backward and slapping a fancy label on it called “progressivism.” Here’s the truth no one wants to admit: outrage is a drug. It’s not about justice or change. It’s performative, addictive, and pointless. It’s screaming into a digital abyss while real problems fester. And curiosity? Forget it. That died the second we all decided comfort in our echo chambers was better than engaging with the uncomfortable.

Hope, if you squint hard enough, might still be alive. But let’s not kid ourselves—it’s mostly used as bait. Hope sells. Hope manipulates. And in the hands of really bad actors, it’s just another trick to keep us playing a rigged game. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship and calling it innovation. Cancel culture? Yeah, both sides are in on that racket as well. It’s not about accountability; it’s about control. Say the wrong thing, think the wrong thought, laugh at the inappropriate joke, and you’re canceled. Both sides love a good purge—it’s tribal behavior, plain and simple. And if you’re clinging to facts? Good luck. Those are as rare as curiosity. Today’s facts are facts, get this, till they’re not. We live in a society where people actually believe thinking something is real by default without actually validating its authenticity or not. Be it a thing or even a concept. How many times have you heard this nowadays? We’re together, till we’re not. It’s fun, till it’s not. It’s worth it till it’s not. It’s a thing, till it’s not. Our attention fixated on it either way has zero consequence to it being real or not, by default. What we’re left with are “facts” that are twisted into unrecognizable shapes to fit narratives that only reinforce the self-delusional tribe. Truth doesn’t matter. Just the tribe. The game is rigged to keep you fighting while nothing changes. Just for the tribe.

Schools are now battlegrounds for ideological supremacy, with “progress” being shoved down throats like it’s the gospel. For the Tribe. Except it’s not progress; it’s indoctrination in a shiny package. The elites are clueless, disconnected from the lives of the people they claim to lead. Credentials don’t equal wisdom, and guess what? People noticed. They noticed so much they came out in droves. They’re saying, “No, thanks; go fuck yourself.” The Woke movement? It’s good at making noise, elevating minority issues to mainstream status like everyone’s on board when most weren’t and aren’t. Coercion isn’t progress—it’s manipulation. And the worst part? It’s all underpinned by the same human flaws: greed, hatred, power-lust, codependency, narcissistic-sociopathy. These aren’t ideological problems. They’re human problems, and they’re not going away. The 76,728,186 people who voted for Trump weren’t just casting ballots. They were saying, “This system is broken.” It’s not about left or right; it’s about a system that’s failing everyone. Both sides have bad ideas repackaged, and everyone pretends its gourmet sweet cakes when it’s just dressed-up poop.

So here we are, stuck in a cycle of outrage, tribalism, and stagnation. We’ve traded curiosity for conformity, dialogue for memes, relationships from an app and progress for branding. It’s a sinking ship, and the captain’s arguing over what color the lifeboats should be: brown, blue or pink? But hey, at least the memes are funny, right? The TikToks of Liberals melting the fuck down in their cars are entertaining, but also it is very sad people are actually like this. Even if they are living it up for the camera. Stop pretending your vote is some part of a magic fix for this. It won’t. Stop wasting your energy trying to “save the world” from itself.The world doesn’t care. They are too busy checking their likes and hearts on the media that isn’t so social. Find what matters to you—family, love, laughter—and hold onto it like it’s the last shred of sanity in an insane reality.

The rest? Noise. Don’t be noise.

Life’s too short to argue with clowns. Let the circus burn while you enjoy what’s real. Because in the end, we’re all compost. Make your moments count before you’re part of the pile. When we are part of the pile, it won’t matter what God you believe, color your skin was, whether or not you took it up the ass or like vagina. It really doesn’t matter. I know, how inconvenient for the minority, who we all now can point, snicker and laugh at, like we all wanted to from the beginning. It is no longer weird to not go along with the progressive plan. That is the old normal and how great it tastes that the limbs have been cut off. However, the head is still attached. The new normal should be giving value to learning. Real learning…

In January 21, 1980, Isaac Asimov wrote for his Newsweek column “A Cult of Ignorance/My Turn.” Source in the URL:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. We have a new buzzword, too, for anyone who admires competence, knowledge, learning and skill, and who wishes to spread it around. People like that are called “elitists.” That’s the funniest buzzword ever invented because people who are not members of the intellectual elite don’t know what an “elitist” is, or how to pronounce the word. As soon as someone says “elitist” it becomes clear that he or she is a closet elitist who is feeling guilty about having gone to school. I believe that every human being with a physically normal brain can learn a great deal and can be surprisingly intellectual. I believe that what we badly need is social approval of learning and social rewards for learning. We can all be members of the intellectual elite and then, and only then, will a phrase like “America’s right to know” and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning.”

Isaac Asimov once slammed society's growing love affair with ignorance, warning that too many folks mistake democracy for "my dumb opinion is just as good as your informed one." He mocked the distrust of experts, like saying, “Who needs a pilot? I’ve seen Top Gun twice!” Asimov stressed education was the only antidote to this nonsense but feared we’d rather binge gossip than learn facts. His cynicism oozed: in a world run by science, we can’t afford to act like cavemen with Wi-Fi. Basically, he thought stupidity wasn’t just annoying—it was a civilization-ending event waiting to happen. If he only knew…

“Yeah. Yeah, I got bad news for you. They don't have a monopoly on stupid. You wear "Queers for Palestine" T-shirts... (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) ...and masks two years after the pandemic ended. And you can't define "woman." I mean, person who menstrates. You're the teachers' union education party, and you've turned schools and colleges into a joke. You just lost a crazy contest to an actual crazy person. (AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)” —Bill Maher, YouTube posting Nov 15th, 2024.

The world’s a dumpster fire of tribal outrage, created by the very ignorance that claims it fights against, and TikTok meltdowns—but hey, maybe while the world burns, you’ll find a nice spot on the beach to eat that apple and just say, FUCK… Stay curious, stay human—hope might just survive the dive.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone…

Inconveniens Latin for Inconvenience by David-Angelo Mineo 11/25/2024 1,852 Words

0 notes

flinkliv · 2 years ago

Photo

Be aware of emotional appeal fallacy using hype. Read more: https://flinkliv.com/pages/logical-fallacy.html # #cognitivebias # #flinkliv # #a11y # #kognitivskjevhet #

#logicalfallacy #cognitivebias #emotionalappeal #flinkliv #accessibility #a11y #logiskfeilslutning #kognitivskjevhet #emosjonelleappeller

0 notes

goodaddress · 2 years ago

Text

Informal Fallacies

Fallacies of ambiguity

The source of the error for fallacies of ambiguity lies in the usage of language. This is due to the fact that many terms in natural language have ambiguous or vague meanings. Ambiguous terms have several meanings while vague terms have an unclear meaning. Fallacies of ambiguity often result in merely verbal disputes: the arguing parties have different topics in mind and thereby talk past each other without being aware of this. One way to avoid or solve these fallacies is to clarify language, e.g. by committing to definitions and by introducing new distinctions. Such reformulations may include a condensation of the original argument in order to make it easier to spot the erroneous step.

Fallacies of ambiguity are perhaps best exemplified by the fallacy of equivocation, in which the same term appears with two different meanings in the premises, for example:

Feathers are light. ("light" as "not heavy") What is light cannot be dark. ("light" as "pale in color") Therefore, feathers cannot be dark.

Equivocations are especially difficult to detect in cases where the two meanings are very closely related to each other.

The fallacy of amphiboly also involves ambiguity in meaning, but this ambiguity arises not on the level of individual terms but on the level of the sentence as a whole due to syntactic ambiguity, for example:

"The police were told to stop drinking on campus after midnight. So, now they are able to respond to emergencies much better than before"

On one interpretation, the police are not allowed to drink alcohol. On another, it is now the job of the police to stop other people from drinking. The argument seems plausible on the former reading but fallacious on the latter reading.

The fallacies of division and composition are due to ambiguity of the term "all" and similar expressions. This term has both a collective and a distributive meaning. For example, the sentence "all the citizens are strong enough to resist a tyrant" may mean either that all together are strong enough (collective) or that each one individually is strong enough (distributive). The fallacy of division is committed if one infers from the sentence in the collective sense that one specific individual is strong enough. The fallacy of composition is committed if one infers from the fact that each member of a group has a property that the group as a whole has this property. For example, "[e]very member of the investigative team was an excellent researcher", therefore "[i]t was an excellent investigative team". Any form of fallaciously transferring a property from the whole to its parts or the other way round belongs to the category of fallacies of division and composition, even when linguistic ambiguity is not the cause.

Fallacies of presumption

Fallacies of presumption involve a false or unjustified premise but are often valid otherwise. This problematic premise can take different forms and the belief in it can be caused in different ways, corresponding to the various sub-categories in this field. These fallacies include the naturalistic fallacy, the moralistic fallacy and the intentional fallacy.

A false dilemma is a fallacy of presumption based on a false disjunctive claim that oversimplifies reality by excluding viable alternatives. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist". One of the options excluded is that Stacey may be neither communist nor capitalist. Our liability to commit false dilemmas may be due to the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements.

For fallacies of generalization, the false premise is due to an erroneous generalization. In the case of the fallacy of sweeping generalization, a general rule is applied incorrectly to an exceptional case. For example, "[e]veryone has a right to his or her property. Therefore, even though Jones had been declared insane, you had no right to take his weapon away." The generalization, in this case, ignores that insanity is an exceptional case to which the general rights of property do not unrestrictedly apply. Hasty generalization, on the other hand, involves the converse mistake of drawing a universal conclusion based on a small number of instances. For example, "I’ve met two people in Nicaragua so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Nicaragua will be nice to me".

Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning in which the conclusion is already assumed in the premises. Because of this, the premises are unable to provide independent support for the conclusion. For example, the statement "Green is the best color because it is the greenest of all colors", offers no independent reason besides the initial assumption for its conclusion. Detecting this fallacy can be difficult when a complex argument with many sub-arguments is involved, resulting in a large circle.

Fallacies of relevance

Fallacies of relevance involve premises that are not relevant to the conclusion despite appearances otherwise. They may succeed in persuading the audience nonetheless due to being emotionally loaded, for example, by playing on prejudice, pity or fear.

Ad hominem arguments constitute an important class among the fallacies of relevance. In them, the arguer tries to attack a thesis by attacking the person pronouncing this thesis instead of attacking the thesis itself. Rejecting a theory in physics because its author is Jewish, which was common in the German physics community in the early 1930s, is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. But not all ad hominem arguments constitute fallacies. It is a common and reasonable practice in court, for example, to defend oneself against an accusation by casting doubt on the reliability of the witnesses. The difference between fallacious and justified ad hominem arguments depends on the relevancy of the character of the attacked person to the thesis in question. The author's cultural heritage seems to have very little relevance in most cases for theories in physics but the reliability of a witness in court is highly relevant for whether one is justified in believing their testimony. Whataboutism is a special form of the ad hominem fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

Appeal to ignorance is another fallacy due to irrelevance. It is based on the premise that there is no proof for a certain claim. From this premise, the conclusion is drawn that this claim must therefore be false. For example, "Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God". Another version of the appeal to ignorance concludes from the absence of proof against a claim that this claim must be true.

Arguments from analogy are also susceptible to fallacies of relevance. An analogy is a comparison between two objects based on similarity. Arguments from analogy involve inferences from information about a known object (the source) to the features of an unknown object (the target) based on the similarity between the two objects. Arguments from analogy have the following form: a is similar to b and a has feature F, therefore b probably also has feature F. The soundness of such arguments depends on the relevance of this similarity to the inferred feature. Without this relevance, the argument constitutes a faulty or false analogy, for example: "If a child gets a new toy he or she will want to play with it; So, if a nation gets new weapons, it will want to use them".

#logicalfallacy

1 note · View note