The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world to Microblog Memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoShowing who's in chargelemmy.worldexternal-linkmessage-square92fedilinkarrow-up1799arrow-down119
arrow-up1780arrow-down1external-linkShowing who's in chargelemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world to Microblog Memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square92fedilink
minus-squareNewNewAccount@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·edit-21 day agoOf course not. It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership that is the logical fallacy. The argument is: If CULT, then NICKNAME i.e. If X, then Y Your interpretation seems to be: If NICKNAME, then CULT i.e. If Y, then X Which is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down5·24 hours ago It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership That’s OP’s claim. My interpretation is that he gave Simon the nickname out of affection not domination
minus-squareNewNewAccount@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·24 hours ago That’s OP’s claim. No it’s not. OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames. Not that all entities that give nicknames are cults. But your second statement makes me realize that you likely have an inherent bias that is preventing you from seeing the logic involved.
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-24 hours ago OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames. Post-Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc Fallacy. “Cults give nicknames, therefore if you give someone a nickname you’re a cult” doesn’t logically follow. you likely have an inherent bias Casual Fallacy. The existence of individual bias does nothing to affirm or reject a claim If we were weighting on bias, your extreme reaction to a casual anecdote would disqualify your observations immediately.
Of course not. It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership that is the logical fallacy.
The argument is:
Your interpretation seems to be:
Which is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
That’s OP’s claim. My interpretation is that he gave Simon the nickname out of affection not domination
No it’s not.
OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames. Not that all entities that give nicknames are cults.
But your second statement makes me realize that you likely have an inherent bias that is preventing you from seeing the logic involved.
Post-Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc Fallacy. “Cults give nicknames, therefore if you give someone a nickname you’re a cult” doesn’t logically follow.
Casual Fallacy. The existence of individual bias does nothing to affirm or reject a claim
If we were weighting on bias, your extreme reaction to a casual anecdote would disqualify your observations immediately.