Argument: I see [attribute] in [subgroup]. Response: You have not properly identified [subgroup]. Retort: What does it matter if I properly identify [subgroup]? ↳ Well, you know, the Argument kind of depends on properly identifying the subgroup, else you simply assert that you see [attribute] in [unknown subgroup of uncertain description], which is utterly useless and thus we might wonder why you're wasting our time with petty distractions.
I'm uncertain to what degree we ought to be singling out the individuals; the problem is in the argumentative structure. Oh, right. I already called this one out↗ in particular, so, there's that. But more than hammering on the individuals, who often take plenty of heat in threads they try these, it just seems worth noting some of the weird tricks people try. For instance, it's kind of hard to explain because there are different ways of going about it, but sometimes we encounter these weird progressions in which people don't seem to be able to follow themselves from post to post. We'll have plenty of opportunities to log those structures, too, but this particular variation involves a weirdly willful and self-defeating retort. Because, you know, when we strip it down to its components, sometimes it's kind of fascinating. I figure we can create a collection of some weird argumentative structures we encounter. Some are harder to describe than others, like this one sort of who-what-where clueless bit that has to do with looking something up but all they managed to find were quaternary YouTube critiques telling them how awful the primary source material is. And, to the other, some of it just doesn't go here, like the who-what-where clueless bit that has to do with, say, ignoring what one has written in a thread, or in multiple threads, or over the course of several years; do we really want to waste our time satisfying such trolling for our time? And so on. But, no, I haven't really figured what to do about the inherent criticism; the point isn't to bludgeon people for their gaffes—I can argue that with the individual in the original thread if I want. But it's also true that every once in a while it occurs to me that I really ought to scribble down a list of some of the strange moments because, strangely, certain bits just feel familiar, and this, for instance, was an occasion I happened to notice at a time when I happened to be wondering about other appearances of futility in other discussions. This was so straightforward it seemed worth writing down. And, yeah, eventually it means looking back at someone's formulation, but no, really, the point isn't to hammer on any one individual. Over time, if we stick around, we'll all eventually drop something in some manner genuinely worth noting.
"I see [attribute] in [subgroup]" is (or makes sense only as) a claim about correlations. P(attribute| subgroup) > P(attribute| others). At least a rigid interpretation (P(attribute| subgroup) = 1) usually makes no sense, and if it would be really meant, the "I have seen an exception many years ago" would be sufficient to reject it. So let's suppose the meaning is P(attribute| subgroup) > P(attribute| others). "You have not properly identified [subgroup]" is then a weak counterargument, given that in the original argument it is presupposed that it is quite clear who belongs to the subgroup and who not. Say, for example, it is clear that 45% belong to it, 40% don't, and only for 15% it is open to discussion. Of course, in principle the inaccuracy of definition of the subgroup can invalidate the claim P(attribute| subgroup) > P(attribute| general population). Say, P(attribute| 45%) > P(attribute| 40%+15%) but P(attribute| 45%+15%) < P(attribute| 40%). But this would be not what one would, in general, expect. A typical example would be more like P(attribute| 45%) > P(attribute| 15%) > P(attribute| 40%), so that for the unclear group the probability is something between the extreme cases where it is clear if they belong to the subgroup or not. In this case, the missing clarity in the definition would not matter at all.
"Do you think the manager will evict Sherry?" "Most likely." To someone else "Hey! Stranger said Sherry's being evicted." "There's an 80% chance A & B will cause X." A & B causes Y. "Damnit! You TOLD me A & B would cause X!" <>
Thinking because one believes something, it must be true. Also : I do not know if this is considered a fallacy but I often think a discussion could go much better if people would say "I believe everyone knows god exists" & such rather than "Everyone knows god exists" etc. A stated belief is often much easier to take than a flat statement about me which I know is not true. <>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies <> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions <> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases <> https://web.archive.org/web/2016040....utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm <> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality <>
I'll volunteer - I don't know WTF the OP said anyway, the [subgroup] is the same in "argument, response and retort". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Any of these? Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole. Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. Pulled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
"No doctor would ever do X or Y before surgery!" "You can look it up." "I do not need to look it up." "Why not?" "Doctors saved my life 3 times!" <>
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Considered putting this in Tyops. Ignore 1 not to. <>
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is mostly nonsense. If 1 is attempting to argue against something 1 is doing, there is, at least, an obligation to explain why 1 is doing it. 1 of the stupidest things I have seen is parents trying to tell kids they will never smoke while puffing on a cigarette. Many times I have heard someone arguing for or against something then acting in the opposite manner & I have to wonder what the heck is the motive. I have to wonder if they are kidding or being sarcastic or playing the fools advocate or whether they have MPD or cognitive dissonance or they are simply stupid. They are trying to put the onus on others of attempting to figure what the heck is going on. Even if the claim is valid, the argument is false without any explanation of why the person is arguing against themselves. Arguing against something 1 is doing is a sign of a con artist or someone who just likes to hear themselves talk. I cannot trust someone who, for example, rants&raves against abortion then has an abortion. Do not correct someone's grammar with several mistakes in your post. If you want to argue against beer, wine & liquor, at least wait until you are sober. Do not tell me you cannot stand strawberry ice cream while eating a pint of it. Do not piss on my leg & try to tell me it is raining. If you want to argue with yourself, just look into a mirror & leave me out of it. <>
