thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.png


  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Well, that eliminates about 75% of posts on MCS…


    Anyone who relies on issued talking points (e.g. “How to talk to your Republican uncle at Christmas Dinner”) will be grateful for the simplicity. They can just state any or a string of the subheaders in that chart without any great understanding or applicability. Ever wondered if somebody attempting actual debate is holding a bullshit bingo card with some of those terms?


    While this is nice as an individual item to think and chat about here, none of this will ever make it out into the main stream conscience or even common vernacular, without these concepts seriously being taught, and reinforced in our education system.

    Sadly, the education system is a complete failure outside of the private schools and we as a nation are collectively getting dumber. While most of the posters on M[C]S are smarter than your average net troll (with some exceptions), we can’t, as a society even get terms like “Ya’ll, you’ze, dese, dat,” etc out of our vocabulary. While those are regional expressions, they are still common enough throughout the country.

    That being said, I like the post, however, in all honesty the chances of getting those things out of our collective vernacular are slim to none, and slim just shot himself in the head.


    Someone with a “classical” education a century ago learned all of this in the study of “rhetoric.”

    Sadly, politicians over the past half century have made “rhetoric” a bad word.
    And the education system has decided that the basics of rhetoric are “too hard” to learn.

    Which is why the internet seems to have become over-run by thickheaded morons who actually believe they are intelligent.


    You ARE aware that you committed about five of those logical fallacies in your post, right?

    The ugly truth is simple: math is truth, everything else is a logical fallacy of one form or another. And the biggest mistake is to believe that you can determine any kind of truth merely by arguing about it.


    5 huh?
    Which ones do you mean?


    The substance of a discussion is of greater import than its style. Though many seem to rely on the distraction value of whether something is or isn’t applicable from the list above. Of greater concern perhaps are critical thinking and reading skills – not to mention an occasional shout out to self awareness. But hey – if reason fails – just make noise and fling poop.


    What good is style if its wrong…?
    This list is about logic and how to express your views in terms that stand up….instead of “distracting” from the actual debate with specious points…or trying to connect dots that don’t actually connect.
    This is “critical thinking”.


    “What good is style if its wrong…?” in reply to …
    “The substance of a discussion is of greater import than its style.” !!
    Perhaps you may have noticed my mention of “reading skills”?
    Items are made specious by debunk … not because they don’t fit someone’s beloved unassailable narrative. It is incumbent on the self-appointed oversight committee of one to prove “specious” or unconnected dots. Not to just declare them so. Because that would be style – not substance.


    Interesting that you seem to think a discussion based on logic is all style…or that discussing logic is all style.

    Hey….if you don’t know what is actually logical…if you can’t support your belief with logic…then your “substance” is an illusion.

    You may think it has substance…but without the tools of logic, it only an illogical, indefensible belief.

    Not to point out a specious argument is the same as allowing fantasy to stand as fact.

    And who would let fantasy stand unchallenged as fact….?


    I don’t think we have a common language.


    The onus of proof of any thesis is with the one making the declaration.
    If he has made a glaring mistake of logic, then his “proof” is unsupported.
    I suppose we could allow every debate to degenerate into a logic/language lesson…and then into a nature of logic debate…and then into a nature of the mathematical universe debate…
    But in most cases both sides of the debate should understand the logic issue at hand (they aren’t difficult concepts).
    If not, then the debate(or one side of it) becomes part of the 75% I mentioned in my very first post.

    In any case, trying to achieve any form of “could/should” on the internet would be in most cases impossible.

    (and I’m pretty sure I’ve committed several logical fallacies in this discussion….welcome to the internet 🙂 )

  • here's some related content from the store: