Rhetorical fallacies... Rhetorical fallacies everywhere

>all these tryhards
Just reduce and resume the opponent arguments.
Then ridiculize a bit his reasoning but laud his arguments.
Then accept your opponent is actually smart but his arguments are a bit bland.
Bit by bit start ridiculing his person and his arguments so he shows the core "argument".

Then proceed to apply the first rule. Resume, Reduce and Ridicule.

Smart-obstinate people have a lot to say. They are very hard to beat.

This method only works if you wanna beat someone in an argument. But this doesn't guarantee he is gonna accept your opinions.

That's not how human relationships work.

>logic
If you mean the "IQ logic" or the "niggers are inferior", "it just make sense"kind of logic, then you should stop circlejerking on the shitposting boards of Veeky Forums.

Accept the fact the people will always commit them, and so will you. Only call them out when they commit the most egregious ones.

> niggers are superior

>superior
What do you mean by superior?

try to educate them, then ignore them

and report them if it's unrelated to Veeky Forums, racebaiting, and the like

There are n ways you can prove a person's arguments are retarded that don't involve autistically shouting "Muh fallacy! fallacy!". Doing so is the most fedoracore thing you can do, and makes you look like a pretentious twat.

Refer to:
and, most importantly:

first, stop being an autist
if someone's making a logical error, address it in the context of the conversation and explaining what's going on. yelling out meme names for fallacies is idiotic and counterproductive, and it's the easiest way to spot a retard.

You're supposed to adress the argument he or she made. It does not matter how fallacious the reasoning is.

Demand they get on their knees and orally stimulate your genitals to the point of orgasm.

Also this:
With emphasis on in context. It's up to them to abstract to the general case, you can't brute force it into their head.

i don't try to change other people's factually incorrect opinions as much as i used to and i'm happier for it

>You're supposed to adress the argument he or she made. It does not matter how fallacious the reasoning is.
I am confused, are you stupid?

Logical fallacies only really count for a dialectic dialogue, where both parties are trying to determine the truth (as "much" as they can through discussion) and want to make sure their logic is air-tight.

You could call out logical fallacies in a debate, but there are better ways to deal with people's mistakes in debates (as rhetoric is much more important in debate than facts, reason etc.)

>appealing to emotion fallacy detected

Be polite, and try not to act like a snob. Don't mention their fallacy by name, instead, correct their line of understanding only when it is required or helpful, and do it with a sincere smile.

Don't. I find refuting the entire point entirely rather than going for fallacies is way more effective. If you really have to, just don't be a fuck about it.

Meaning of superiority

Pointing out a fallacy tells nothing about the conclusion. Implying otherwise is a fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy is a well understood fallacy.

But often misused to justify fallacious arguments.

>not a native speaker here
what do you mean by 'resume his arguments'?

Also 'ridiculize his reasoning but laud his arguments' - at this point i dont even know wtf is going on: whats the difference between 'reasoning' and 'arguments', i thought these two were pretty much the same, how did you separate them?

In 'X is Y because Z' im pretty sure 'because Z' is 'reasoning' but does that mean that 'X is Y' is an 'argument'? Does 'argument' mean 'his opinion?

such as that your perception of fallacy is absolute or even relevant

...

A fallacy is just an error in logic. You don't have to point it out, just exploit it. If you know how to argue and your case is solid it'll be obvious how a fallacy can be exploited.

The fallacy fallacy is misused by people that don't understand the Gettier Problem.
Sophists believe that anyone that calls them out on their fallacies are *automatically* using the fallacy fallacy, which is not the case.

If they point out that an argument DOES NOT support a conclusion BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT is fallacious, then that is NOT a fallacy fallacy.

However, if they state the conclusion MUST BE WRONG just because the argument IS fallacious, then they're discounting incidental or accidental correct conclusion supported INCORRECTLY, and that IS a fallacy fallacy.

Simplified at the left.

Here.

Give them this with the pic:

Now imagine someone cycles through all of these during a conversation.
If you do this, please stop.
Admit you're wrong; it's ok.

>logic isn't absolute or relevant
*tips anti-fedora*

Also, you can print this out and play it in front of them as they make a fool out of themselves.

>>logic isn't relevant
>fuck logic
>fuck empiricism
>muh sophism
>muh sophist misunderstanding of logic and science
You're a sophist that practices anti-empirical and anti-epistemological thinking.
>u cant prove nuffin
In analytical logic, you can.
The "other unknowns are still possible" is mathematical improbability when we get down to physics.

>be you
>tells people to not tell people about the fallacies being used
>use fallacies himself

kys

heavily depends on the people around you.

shifting the bruden of proof is also a fallacy and many time when people use it it seems because they don't have arguments and won't admit it, if people do this I think it is okay to point it out that they commit fallacy because it is easier and faster for both or three or whatever of us.

fallacy is actually refuting the point, retard.

but it refuse the reason to believe in the conclusion unless it is something that is observed and not concluded (I know you could say this for everthing but I hope you catch my drift).

This guy said what I meant

-Or we could call eachother out everytime and make logical consistence a norm in everyday talks and in the political ones. Hopefully this will intrigue better conclusions in our society.

Also you just comitted a fallacy.

thanks capitalism

let's talk about new fallacies

the JUST fallacy

starting a statement with "just"
>just be yourself
>just stop worrying
>just relax your muscles to let it in easier

the How Does It Affect You fallacy

>why do you care about people setting themselves on fire? how does it affect you?

the Fun fallacy

>what's wrong with having fun?
>why are you so boring?

I think these should be ready Recognised as new fallacies following post chan era what do you feel thoughts concerns

A fallacy is faulty reasoning in a logical argument. Questions or imperative sentences aren't arguments, and your examples won't become arguments even if you rephrase them as sentences, perhaps except for the "how does it affect you" (i.e. "your argument is invalid because the subject matter doesn't affect you").

>aren't arguments

Exactly.

But people use them as arguments. Hence, they are fallacies.

It's the exact same as someone saying
>Are you an idiot?
>You're a retard!

That's an ad hominem, a non argument used to detract and take away from the subject.

The Howdit Fallacy operates in a similar manner, by trying to turn the discussion to make an irrelevant point. Oh, I just read you agreed with me on that one, but I'm keeping this anyways

The Fun Fallacy is a derivative from both fallacies

>your argument is invalid because there are irrelevant exceptions
>your argument is invalid because of a personal trait

The ""reasoning"" behind it is usually stems from someone making a case for a temporary situation towards a long-standing or permanent issue. Something like "having fun" is inherently subjective and entirely illogical and deserves its upgrade from a facile argument to a non argument.

JUST fallacy deserves the same treatment
>your argument is invalid because of a personal opinion
What is supposed to be an opinion, where JUST is directly followed by a call for action, is wrongly treated as an answer, and even if you want to believe that having an opinion as an answer for an issue is acceptable, it still isn't an argument when presented to someone who made a point, it simply doesn't counter. It also deserves an upgrade to non argument.

The fact that I see these trending is a strong reason for me to believe that these should be considered the new fallacies to consider in debates

>That's an ad hominem, a non argument used to detract and take away from the subject.
It's not, it's just an insult. Ad hominem is using personal information about someone making an argument to discredit his reasoning.

I agree with you that these are shit ways to discuss anything, but these aren't logical fallacies. Not every discussion involves logical arguments, and not all bullshit is a fallacy.

>it's just an insult
Sure, in the right context.I think it serves the same purpose, the insult serves to ruin the perception of the character and thus their reasoning. Even if I am a poopb0i.

All I'm saying is, while you may agree that these are facile arguments, or even terrible people being terrible and not arguing at all, I see these too often and often enough that I consider it a pattern, which to me implies that people fall back to these as logical conclusions, and those conclusions are faulty. I am not against calling them meme fallacies until they go through the trials and fire of scrutiny.

Not by explaining it to them.

I haven't entirely mastered this myself but if you haven't noticed, people are extremely afraid of being dumb. If you have ever talked to a person and they are committing some logical fallacy (an actual fallacy not one that you think is a fallacy) and you point them out on it, their immediate reaction will probably a grimace or they'll be very defensive about it. They won't want to try to see if they actually have committed a logical fallacy they want to avoid ever admitting to you that they have indeed committed a fallacy and that you have caught them.

The best way is for you to lead them into realizing themselves they have committed a fallacy.

This would probably involve asking them a serious of questions in a sort of parallel scenario where you lead them along to show them why it is their argument is fallacious.

One argument I often see, is the idea that if you aren't an expert in a topic or don't understand how every layer of a topic built on several layers of abstractions, it means you are wrong

Per instance, when using a scientific study to prove something, Veeky Forums will say:
>do you even know how to calculate the Fst?
Even though you can understand the paper just fine, because the conclusion is crystal clear

Another argument I often see, it's attacking the methodology
>did you know that Fst is not a perfect method? Here's some unrelated paper that highlights why you should be careful using Fst to draw conclusions
It doesn't really prove that the paper is flawed, or that the scientist who wrote the paper didn't take into account those problems

if they had putted than into account it should be writen in the paper if not you can wonder why maybe because they forgot or maybe they did it on purpose or maybe they didn't know about it etc. either way it is still something that is worthy to adress, and no it doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong but to ignore it is just plain stupid.

Finally, we have a board for this

Insulte USED to either DISTRACT or DISCREDIT are ad hominems.

It's NOT an ad hominem if an insult is used WITH a CORRECTION or COUNTER ARGUMENT.

Stop with the fallacious implication of stating Empricism and Deduction don't belong in Science and Math.

Science and Math don't exist without Empiricism and Deduction, and they both require knowledge of fallacies.

Get the fuck out of here if you don't understand that.

There is a reason why PhDs are called PhDs, and ignorant uneducated narcissistic dolts like you don't belong here.

There are processes and protocols completely independant of belief and ego, and it's dipshitted idiots like you that shoot your big mouth off using authoritative fallacies or egotistical circular logic that fuck everything up.

Some people are just too stupid for protocols and procedures because they're not intellectually mature or evolved enough to understand them, so they cling to egotistical or exposure "reliabilism" (actual thing look it up) which is flawed beyond reproach.

You're an example of someone that thinks they "get" science, believing it's just dictation, without understanding the process, which absolutely includes weeding out fallacies.

Why do you hate people weeding out fallacies? Probably because that's all you know, and you believe if people weed out all the fallacies then there is nothing left... which is wrong. There is often one solution left, which is what education is.

Now stop posting these shitty "empiricism and dedication aren't science" nonsense and fuck off.

Saying "analytical epistemology is a form of pyrrhonism" is absolutely incorrect.

That's like saying "atheists believe everything came from nuthin!"

It's wrong and without merit.

Fuck. The. Fuck. Up.

*Insults USED

*which is what deduction is.

*"empiricism and deduction aren't science"

...

if you think the scientific method is used in science, you don't know what science is

I just want to say I appreciate your righteous indignation like an art

Call them a faggot.

>There is a reason why PhDs are called PhDs, and ignorant uneducated narcissistic dolts like you don't belong here.

>be PhD in sociology
>my entire field is fallacious
>spend my whole 10:30 topics lecture bulverizing Marx as a filthy brocialist
>there is literally no other reason to favor dialectical and historical materialism or science in general over my own internally inconsistent, contradictory notions of consciousness-dependent "identity"
>let alone fail to defend them as matters-of-course with tired lines about how the lack of consistency and violation of even the most benign assumptions are fully justified because "oppression intersects in strange ways"
>fuck it, the internal inconsistencies actually prove my ideas right, because they themselves predicted them
>pass out my research group's new surveys
>we're trying to solve the chronic underreporting of rape in the literature
>mostly we've assumed without empirical basis it's underreported and proceeded from there
>exactly two questions: "Do you consider yourself a generally content person?" and a checkbox for respondent's gender
>this time around, we are interpreting any variant of "yes" from a female student to mean "I have been raped."
>this is because hegemony is making them internalize and become complicit in their own social oppression
>we're also interpreting "no" the same way
>conclusion is already written
>on the way back to my office, I stop for some food
>overhear something something superfluid helium something something droplet something protein crystallography
>male voices
>whip out my phone and prepare a grant proposal for a paper on the gender bias in STEM with "possible policy-level implications"

iknow nuklei, they should obey ad hominem

and all the suckers reproduce only pressure of desinformation, look at lomonosov, i am lawrince descent

>b-but sociology does not work in such m-maner...

Help me Veeky Forums, what is a good babys first logic and reasoning book?

Also what should be the response to someone who argues that terrorism is a non issue because there are way more murders in a given country? Obviously this is faulty logic, but I can't pin down if there is a formal category for this type of argument.

>someone pointed out my fallacious reasoning in the past and now I hate logic!

The reasoning is his way of thinking. The arguments are the wordplay+examples he uses to beat you.

>I should avoid the question
Keep trying brainlet ;^=)

Why do you keep bumping this Veeky Forums-tier thread? kek