SDF Chatter
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net to the_dunk_tank@hexbear.netEnglish ·
edit-2
2 years ago

We need more bullying, not less bullying.

message-square
message-square
72
fedilink
57
message-square

We need more bullying, not less bullying.

AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net to the_dunk_tank@hexbear.netEnglish ·
edit-2
2 years ago
message-square
72
fedilink

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 years ago

    Just say informal logical fallacies aren’t real and ask them to prove to you that they’re actual logical fallacies worth caring about. Even Wikipedia has this blurb:

    The traditional approach to fallacies has received a lot of criticism in contemporary philosophy. This criticism is often based on the argument that the alleged fallacies are not fallacious at all, or at least not in all cases. To overcome this problem, alternative approaches for conceiving arguments and fallacies have been proposed. These include the dialogical approach, which conceives arguments as moves in a dialogue-game aimed at rationally persuading the other person. This game is governed by various rules. Fallacies are defined as violations of the dialogue rules impeding the progress of the dialogue. The epistemic approach constitutes another framework. Its core idea is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. In the Bayesian approach, the epistemic norms are given by the laws of probability, which our degrees of belief should track.

    All these nerds did was memorize the Wikipedia list on informal logical fallacies without understanding what informal logical fallacies are supposed to be. Appeal to authority is a good example. It’s all well and good until it has the “it isn’t appeal to authority if the source is an actual authority” clause. But therein lies the rub. Everyone appeals to what they believe to be an actual authority. Nobody appeals to the authority of who they believe to be an incompetent person. So, the informal logical fallacy called appeal to authority doesn’t exist because no one is foolish enough to purposely appeal to a source that they themselves feel isn’t an actual authority. I could go on. The vast majority of claims of ad hominem aren’t actually ad hominem, but just generic insults. And even with actual ad hominem, ad hominem presupposes that there’s no casual link between a person’s idea and a person’s action or character. You can see this with the type of ad hominem tu quoque. Tu quoque is just calling your opponent a hypocrite, but if one didn’t separate one’s thoughts from one’s actions like some idealist liberal, then suddenly tu quoque isn’t so fallacious. Why haven’t your argument materialize in the real world, as demonstrated by you failing to live up to what you’ve just argued? Could it be that your argument is actually trash and you are completely full of shit?

    • dinklesplein [any, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      formal fallacies also kind of aren’t fully real either. at least within the confines of discourse, it’s not like formal/deductive logic is hugely applicable to rhetoric anyway imo. i think just drawing upon fallacies in general is a bit pointless, most debate is centred around premise acceptability and not argument structure.

    • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      Well said o7

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Would you say something about ‘tone policing’? Rejecting tone policing can be quite handy to prevent ‘civil’ liberals from ignoring substance and shutting down a discussion. But as it’s ultimately a rejection of a type of ad hominem and you’re being quite persuasive about the flaws in such fallacies, I’m wondering what your view is.

the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

Subscribe from Remote Instance

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net
lock
Community locked: only moderators can create posts. You can still comment on posts.

It’s the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances’ admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 2 users / day
  • 9 users / week
  • 27 users / month
  • 135 users / 6 months
  • 23 local subscribers
  • 16K subscribers
  • 4.9K Posts
  • 128K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • KiaKaha [he/him]@hexbear.net
  • MiraculousMM [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
  • corgiwithalaptop [any, love/loves]@hexbear.net
  • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
  • replaceable [he/him]@hexbear.net
  • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
  • CARCOSA [mirror/your pronouns]@hexbear.net
  • BE: 0.19.8
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org