~ archived since 2018 ~

Keep your arguments legit (I know this is a bit off topic. But since debate is encouraged here I thought I would post it)

Forgetaboutthelonely · 2020-07-14T06:25:44+00:00

Crosspost "Keep your arguments legit" from /r/coolguides:Posted by misterkairos | 13 July 2020 |...

Forgetaboutthelonely

July 14, 2020

61 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Keep your arguments legit (I know this is a bit off topic. But since debate is encouraged here I thought I would post it)
Author	Forgetaboutthelonely
Upvotes	61
Comments	26
Date	July 14, 2020 6:25 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/hqwdmi/keep_your_arguments_legit_i_know_this_is_a_bit/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/keep-your-arguments-legit-i-know-this-is-a-bit-off.1196708 https://theredarchive.com/post/1196708

Comments

[–]maxcorrice 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Prove that your argument is right without using the bandwagon argument

At this point I don't think you even understand what you're talking about. There is no bandwagon argument in my defense of the claim that many of the named argument-types really are always fallacious. Demanding that I remove one, then, is simply confused.

I'm forming a hunch: you've never actually studied logic before, have you?

So here we go:

Ad hominem: committed anytime someone attacks the messenger instead of attacking the evidence for the message. Whether it's an ad hominem abusive, circumstantial, or tu quoque, it's still always a fallacy to attack the person or their motives instead of the evidence. "Why?," one may ask. Well, because the relevant question is truth or falsehood of the disputed proposition, not the motives, character, or other behaviors of the people involved in disputing the proposition. Insofar as the goal is truth, only evidence for against its truth counts.
Straw man: committed anytime someone misconstrues/exaggerates a position in order to refute it, but only actually refutes the exaggeration, not the real position. Again, insofar as the goal is truth, attacking a position a person does not actually hold is..."unhelpful," let's say.
Post hoc: the actual laws of nature are a complicated bitch, so inferring to one naively just from some surface correlation is sloppy thinking. This is why medical researchers spend decades testing their hypotheses; it takes a lot of work reliably to establish a real causal relationship in the world.
Hasty generalization: not all generalizations are hasty, of course, but those that are, are thereby fallacious. The same warnings that underlie the post hoc danger apply here.
Bandwagon arguments: I already covered this one. Popularity of a belief has no essential connection to its truth or falsehood.

[–]maxcorrice 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway2841 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway2842 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You re edited your comments once I called you out, your original replies had no proof.

Like I said, that's false. I edited because initially I hadn't realized what exactly you were demanding, so I went back and fixed it to address your demands. I should not have addressed your demands???

You’re also again, basing it on these being laws of logic, but since they are not quantifiable they cannot be proven as such without the bandwagon argument.

Alright, you truly are ignorant of this stuff. "Laws of logic are not quantifiable???" That is a perfect knee-slapper. The laws of logic just are the laws of math; Russell and Whitehead proved that over a century ago (Goedel proved that any formal system we invent to express these laws cannot be fully reduced to another such system, but the laws themselves are one creature, not two).

In predicate logic (and in categorical (sort of)) we have two types of quantifiers: the universal quantifier and the existential quantifier. With them we can make any sort of numerical or categorical claim we want via the gorgeous magic of Russell's formula for definite descriptions.

Learn some logic before trying to hold forth on its nature. I mean, would you try to correct someone's differential equations if you didn't know any??

[–]jershcer0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jershcer0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jershcer0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway2841 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway2841 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you’ve then edited your comment to look good

No, I edited on-the-fly several times because after initially posting I realized what you were demanding wasn't what I thought you were demanding.

you’ve already lost anyways

If it's about "winning" or "losing," then it isn't about truth. If it isn't about truth, then it isn't worth much.

because you opened with ad homonyms rather than actual evidence,

Again, that's false. I did no such thing.

you’re also basing your whole argument on your argument already being right.

Also false (insofar as I can parse what your assertion means).

There are plenty of cases where you can call a strawman on a logical extrapolation just because it’s exaggerating the original argument to strike at its heart.

Nope. Shit like that sells really well on tv and the internet because most people's reasoning is highly emotionally driven and motivated, but it's always sloppy reasoning nonetheless.

In order successfully to strike at the heart of someone's argument, a necessary condition really is to NOT misconstrue it. But straw men only occur where one DOES misconstrue.

If I for instance argued “it should be legal to murder black people in Detroit” exaggerating this argument would lead to “you want all black people in Detroit to leave or die?”, a strawman which points the actual goal of the argument.

Like I said, sells well to people who don't think clearly, but not to those who do. A far, far better move in your hypothetical would be to ask the simple questions, "Why? And why specifically in Detroit?" Then you could get the other party's justifications on the table and rationally assess them.

Basic rule that many of these fallacies cover: Ridicule isn't evidence.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link