Selected Logical Fallacies

[myron myron]

[ILWL]

Is it possible that you have made these fallacies yourself?

[myron myron]

It's possible.

Do you have any examples?

[mogadishu]

Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue) - if an argument or arguer has some particular origin or political persuasion, the argument must be wrong (or right).

When lefties are pressed to defend their positions intelligently, an oxymoron, they invariably resort to attacking their adversaries personally with a handful of labels, but try calling a commie a commie and watch them get all sanctimonious and self-righteous.

Red Herring - changing the subject by digression, misdirection or false emphasis in order to avoid having to defend one's position.

Whether a President has personally fought in a war is a red herring. It is irrelevant.

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

I'm glad you looked, because that is a good example of a red herring. Whether a President has personally fought in a war is irrelevant to an assessment of that President's politcal philosophy.

Wrong... a president's political philosophy is to be determined from what they do, as well as what they say. Actions speak louder than words. Examining words alone provides a woefully superficial analysis if actions are in clear contradiction to them.

And no - it's genetic fallacy whether you think you can predict how i will argue or not.

[ILWL]

I'm glad you looked, because that is a good example of a red herring. Whether a President has personally fought in a war is irrelevant to an assessment of that President's politcal philosophy.

Wrong... a president's political philosophy is to be determined from what they do, as well as what they say. Actions speak louder than words. Examining words alone provides a woefully superficial analysis if actions are in clear contradiction to them.

And no - it's genetic fallacy whether you think you can predict how i will argue or not.

You know something Mog - I cannot help but like you friend or should I say Comrade!

[myron myron]

I'm glad you looked, because that is a good example of a red herring. Whether a President has personally fought in a war is irrelevant to an assessment of that President's politcal philosophy.

Wrong... a president's political philosophy is to be determined from what they do, as well as what they say. Actions speak louder than words. Examining words alone provides a woefully superficial analysis if actions are in clear contradiction to them.

And no - it's genetic fallacy whether you think you can predict how i will argue or not.

Not wrong. FDR.

It's not a fallacy if it's correct. How can I predict? For the reasons I stated. Like a charm too.

[mogadishu]

Not wrong. FDR.

It's completely wrong - philosophy is concerned with how one should live.

It's not a fallacy if it's correct.

Not if it's correct, no. But if you're dismissing any political argument on the basis of its stance, you aren't correct. If you could stop bleating on about your powers of prediction, which seem to impress you and nobody else, for long enough, you might be able to see that you're engaged in a contradiction.

[myron myron]

[myron myron]

Not wrong. FDR.

It's completely wrong - philosophy is concerned with how one should live.

It's not a fallacy if it's correct.

Not if it's correct, no. But if you're dismissing any political argument on the basis of its stance, you aren't correct. If you could stop bleating on about your powers of prediction, which seem to impress you and nobody else, for long enough, you might be able to see that you're engaged in a contradiction.

I said political philosophy.

And I don't dismiss; I dissect, with analysis of facts and sources.

[mogadishu]

Hmm. Not with much success, it has to be said.

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

My opening post only listed the fallacies that came to mind at the time I posted.

Thanks to Mogadishu, three more logical fallacies can be added to the list.

Argument By Question - asking one's opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer, or no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand. The opponent has a choice of looking weak or being long-winded. Just about any question has this effect to some extent because it usually takes longer to answer a question than to ask it. Example:

How do you define neo-con?

(followed by myron's attempt to make "lefties" look weak or long winded)

It's a buzzword they use as a slur because they think it sounds bad and they hear others like themselves saying it, but almost none of them have any clue what it's supposed to mean and they get tongue-tied when confronted to define it.

Argument by Rhetorical Question (Leading Question) - asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer. Example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

This is known as the fallacy of illicit presupposition. Where have I asserted an illicit presupposition? Where, myron, where?


Psychogenetic Fallacy - attributing a psychological reason (invariably concocted) for your opponent's argument as a way to discredit the argument without addressing it. Yes... I'm guilty of suggesting that you appear to have a lonely need to argue. I addressed your argument as well, but that is a minor technicality we won't account for.

Now I'm late for work.

Whose fault is that?

[myron myron]