|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Things like 'fear-mongering' or other generalized fallacies carry with them deceptively emotive intentions. Emotive wording has no place in debate, or logic, for that matter -- if they do, the person asserting x to get person A to be emotive is playing foul, and chances are, it's because person B doesn't have much of an argument, or substance, so let's attack the person instead of the argument. 'Fear-mongering', etc., is an example of that.
And that was my point. Those three examples I gave were all present in the original post with the expressed goal of invoking an emotional response instead of a logical one. The point wasn't to open up discussion, but shed doubt on our currently elected officials on the topic of gun control through emotional arguments without a solid foundation. I pointed it out in my first post in this thread.
Quote:
Drawing preconceived conclusions isn't even fallacious. The very cognitive process involves preconceived notions, which eventually, unless demonstrated false, follow as preconceived conclusions. If the conclusion follows, it's irrelevant if it was preconceived or not.
You're quoting me out of context. I have no problem with what you say here. The problem is with the second part that you addressed separately.
Quote:
Unconnected ideas: involves a value judgment on the beholder. If the person asserting, what may appear to be 'unconnected ideas', then demonstrates how x is so. It's no longer 'unconnected ideas', it falls on you to demonstrate how it isn't so, and if you cannot, you are back at #1 -- begging the question.
Value or not, if it didn't follow a logical train of thought it isn't applicable to a logical argument. Saying that government run healthcare = more strict gun control is a leap of faith, especially considering that if anything, gun ownership has actually opened up across the country with the advent of widespread concealed carry laws. You could invoke a correlation with other governments stating that those with universal healthcare are more likely to have more strict gun laws than those without, but we all know that correlation doesn't equal causation. So yes, drawing preconceived notions based off of illogical, unconnected ideas to further one's argument is definitely a part of the fear-mongering gambit that is not only used in this instance, but in anti-vaccination, creationism, 9/11 truthers, etc.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
Value or not, if it didn't follow a logical train of thought it isn't applicable to a logical argument.
Granted.
Quote:
Saying that government run healthcare = more strict gun control is. . .
Okay. Then your argument is with SunDawg's opinions, not mine. If you wish to refute him/her, or demonstrate how he/she is wrong, you are more than welcome to do so but saying..
Quote:
. . .So yes, drawing preconceived notions based off of illogical, unconnected ideas to further one's argument is definitely a part of the fear-mongering gambit that is not only used in this instance, but in anti-vaccination, creationism, 9/11 truthers, etc.
Is nothing more than:
- 1. Using opinion against opinion. If he/she is wrong -- provide the evidence or citations. Not attack him/her by labeling him/her as a part of the fear-mongering gambit because he/she stated an opinion, or asked a question.
- 2. Drawing preconceived notions based off of illogical, unconnected ideas to further one's argument is. . . an example of you begging the question because you haven't cited, or demonstrated anything factual for this to be so. As of now, logically, your argument is no more valid than his'/her's.
- 3. Using fallacious generalizations such as anti-vaccinationist, creationist, 9/11 truther, etc., is to claim that an individual represents the majority, or the majority represents the individual is politics, or to play foul i.e. emotive wording to provoke an emotive response, not logic.
When you eliminate the mind-set of using generalizations, and start judging a person as an individual who believes x, and not as an anti-vaccinationist, creationist, 9/11 truther, etc., you will be able to utilize logic correctly, and rely less on the sophism of modern politics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Okay. Then your argument is with SunDawg's opinions, not mine.
Exactly, I was merely asking if some of the logical fallacies that he implemented were part of a logical argument. Nothing more. In your next post you adequately explained the art of fear-mongering and it echoed my own personal thoughts from previously in thread.
Quote:
1. Using opinion against opinion. If he/she is wrong -- provide the evidence or citations. Not attack him/her by labeling him/her as a part of the fear-mongering gambit because he/she stated an opinion, or asked a question.
I have provided evidence-backed opinion since my initial post. Again, over the past 15 years, CCW licencing has increased to include the majority of the continental US. Handgun ownership is at an all time high and there hasn't been an "attack" on gun control since the early 90's. Even then, the democrats couldn't pass any gun control/reform. People in this country value the second amendment and the government knows it.
Quote:
2. Drawing preconceived notions based off of illogical, unconnected ideas to further one's argument is. . . an example of you begging the question because you haven't cited, or demonstrated anything factual for this to be so. As of now, logically, your argument is no more valid than his'/her's.
I was pointing out that he himself was begging the question by trying to tie universal healthcare to gun control. I can only prove or disprove the information set forth by SunDawg in support of the idea that universal healthcare equals gun control in the near future. Yes, I probably could've worded it better. 
Quote:
3. Using fallacious generalizations such as anti-vaccinationist, creationist, 9/11 truther, etc., is to claim that an individual represents the majority, or the majority represents the individual is politics, or to play foul i.e. emotive wording to provoke an emotive response, not logic.
I disagree. Those adjectives are used by those groups to indicate their position on a subject, so cannot be fallacious. Therefore it is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to a group of people in a logical argument. And, if you like, i can point to large emotional, rather than logical, arguments in any of those three groups.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
I have provided evidence-backed opinion since my initial post. Again, over the past 15 years, CCW licencing has increased to include the majority of the continental US. Handgun ownership is at an all time high and there hasn't been an "attack" on gun control since the early 90's. Even then, the democrats couldn't pass any gun control/reform. People in this country value the second amendment and the government knows it.
If they are true, then they are true but after going back and reading, I noticed you didn't provide the links, or citations for them. You may say x is so, but since the information isn't immediately available (deduction) it's going to take induction to clarify the premises before drawing conclusions about x. That is what I was referring too -- I had no objections to anything you said, I took objection to how it was presented.
Quote:
I disagree. Those adjectives are used by those groups to indicate their position on a subject, so cannot be fallacious. Therefore it is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to a group of people in a logical argument.
You are more than welcome to disagree but that doesn't lessen its fallacy. When put into a syllogism, it doesn't follow, and thus is necessarily fallacious:
All people who think x are z.
Person A thinks x.
Therefore, Person A is z.
The first premise is faulty because Person A may share principles commonly associated with z, but it does not follow that person a is z. So, to say because groups use z as their position on x therefore it cannot be fallacious is to beg the question as to how it's not a fallacy of generalizing. Just because they assert z, does not make it so. This applies to a lot of arbitrary labels attempting to generalize.
Quote:
And, if you like, i can point to large emotional, rather than logical, arguments in any of those three groups.
And that would prove nothing because there are opposites using the same emotional arguments: the individual, who thinks x, does not follow that other individuals who think x react, or debate the same way, it follows that the former individual who thinks x does. To judge the individual based on the majority, or to judge the majority based on the individual are both fallacious. You can only judge individual a based on individual a, you don't judge individual a by observing individual b.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
xcuse me guys....you're putting a little too much polish on this conversation. Please put down the logic textbooks and call each other a few names, just to keep in spirit of dawgtalkers.net 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I noticed you didn't provide the links, or citations for them.
You don't need to provide links or citations for things that are common knowledge. If the information is listed in an encyclopedia, it's fair game. This is a good place to get a primer on handgun laws across the US and how it's evolved since the late 80's.
Quote:
You are more than welcome to disagree but that doesn't lessen its fallacy. When put into a syllogism, it doesn't follow, and thus is necessarily fallacious:
The syllogism doesn't accurately describe what i was saying. I never said that all people in any of those three groups were fear-mongers, just that the main tenets of their ideal is based on emotive, rather than logical or fact based reasoning that can be characterized by fear-mongering. And I never made the parallel to even suggest that because it's not logical to even think in that context.
When the original poster utilized logical fallacies that characterize fear-mongering, I called him out on it, presented information as to why, and left it there. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with this logic 101 lesson.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
j/c
Geez, you guys are a ball of fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
j/c
Geez, you guys are a ball of fun.
I question your use of the word ball in the manner in which it was utilized in the same sentence as fun. If you are implying that fun is an object that could be formed into the shape of a ball, then maybe your use of that term could be appropriate in a literal sense. The reason I am perplexed is that the word fun is an adjective, and therefore unable to be referenced by a physical shape.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
You don't need to provide links or citations for things that are common knowledge.
Ambiguity (i.e. here is x, go find the rest yourself, therefore z), and begging the question (if it were common knowledge there wouldn't be a debate about it -- there is) aren't evidence.
Quote:
I never said that all people in any of those three groups were fear-mongers, just that the main tenets of their ideal is based on emotive, rather than logical or fact based reasoning that can be characterized by fear-mongering.
If you're not saying all people in any of those three groups were 'fear-mongering', then why are you saying the main tenets of their ideal? Who is their? The their are those groups to indicate their position on a subject and that's where you slip because the groups to indicate their position on a subject are who? The anti-vaccination, creationism, 9/11 truthers, etc.
So, to say you're not saying all is being intellectually dishonest. If you have to use their, you're generalizing, and you're using all in the context of their's philosophy, or shared beliefs/thoughts, as you have. You're grouping them together as one, and no longer judging based on individual merit because if you take away their, or them, you're left with no target but individuals and individuals are different, rendering the terms anti-vaccination, creationism, 9/11 truthers, etc. meaningless, which is what I demonstrated when I said:
Quote:
When put into a syllogism, it doesn't follow, and thus is necessarily fallacious:
All people who think x are z.
Person A thinks x.
Therefore, Person A is z.
The first premise is faulty because Person A may share principles commonly associated with z, but it does not follow that person a is z.
You can cherry pick, and generalize when it's convenient all you wish -- that doesn't make it so.
If 'fear-mongering', as you say, is defined being based on emotive, rather than logical or fact based reasoning and if that's what 'fear-mongering' is, then all human beings are 'fear-mongering' because all humans, regardless of their genetic makeup, empirically use emotive based reasoning which is why I said earlier:
Quote:
Drawing preconceived notions based off of illogical, unconnected ideas to further one's argument is. . . an example of you begging the question because you haven't cited, or demonstrated anything factual for this to be so
Calling someone, or telling someone they are 'fear-mongering' or their motive is to 'fear-monger' is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the argument. 'fear-mongering' is a personal attack on the subject (person), not the object (argument).
Any argument, if genuinely false, can be genuinely demonstrated to be false so personal attacking has no place if an argument is genuinely false.
A few of your examples that don't follow about 'fear-mongering':
Quote:
KyDawg was merely pointing out the basis and goal of Sun's argument, to sway you in favor of their argument by scaring you, thus promoting an emotional, not rational, decision. It's important to recognize and call out logical fallacies such as this in order to help others make informed, not fear-driven, decisions.
It didn't scare me -- I'm sure there are others' out there who felt the same, so in the words of David Hume, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion" leading to what I said earlier:
Quote:
Please let us, the individuals, judge for ourselves on whether it frightens us or not. We are not children.
Another:
Quote:
So many people were scared into buying ammo that suppliers can't keep up, thus raising the price.
Oh really? Do you have particular evidence that says exactly what you assert? Suppliers can't keep up because people were scared into buying ammo? Correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds a bit like correlation equals causation.
Then, you assert:
Quote:
Those three examples I gave were all present in the original post with the expressed goal of invoking an emotional response instead of a logical one.
Some of your examples, like above, don't follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
Geez, you guys are a ball of fun.
I question your use of the word ball in the manner in which it was utilized in the same sentence as fun. If you are implying that fun is an object that could be formed into the shape of a ball, then maybe your use of that term could be appropriate in a literal sense. The reason I am perplexed is that the word fun is an adjective, and therefore unable to be referenced by a physical shape.
However - I must question your use of the word "ball". As we all know, the ancient greek word "ballsus" was commonly used to refer to those that had none. In stereotypical, hypotenuse use, you called me "notaballhaveu", the ancient incan for "wanna go?"
Should we further this discussion, I'm sure Episiotomy, and other such big words that I can't spell and don't care about, would agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294 |
They're having fun guys, let'um go. Besides, Episiotomy only speaks in the native language of these countries now-a-days.Latin America, Poland, Bulgaria and India. link: cutting kitty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Ambiguity (i.e. here is x, go find the rest yourself, therefore z), and begging the question (if it were common knowledge there wouldn't be a debate about it -- there is) aren't evidence.
Then put all of science based publication methods on the stand. I was just following that methodology. If it's in an encyclopedia, it's fair game and common knowledge.
If you want to continue this, PM me. Because as it stands right now it's no longer about Sundawg's illogical post of gun control based on healthcare reform, and more about our own views on how to correctly debate something.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
If you want to continue this, PM me. Because as it stands right now it's no longer about Sundawg's illogical post of gun control based on healthcare reform, and more about our own views on how to correctly debate something.
Granted, and conceded. No further debate coming from me.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Is the 2nd Amendment next on their
agenda?
|
|
