Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Interesting idea for a thread Jinnkai.
Since I hang out in Politics a lot, I've become accustomed to seeing posts where someone will identify a logical fallacy in an opponent's post and move on as if the label resolved the whole thing. I never quite understood that. Just because something is observed or phrased as an identifiable fallacy doesn't make the point entirely specious.
|
See I don't care about fallacies. (Of course I'm probably guilty of many, some would say.)
I just think to identify or to label something a "Fallacy" is to do so with the intention of not having to discuss the points brought about and in a way try to discredit the poster.
If you saw the list, there's a lot of fucking types of fallacies. My impression is you could find a "fallactic" label for any debate you are involved in, identify the fallacy and then say, "well, there is no reason for this debate anymore.... you just created "x" fallacy and thus you have totally ruined your credibility and thus you are a schmoe.
I'm sure someone will identify this post as a fallcay under.... "x" rules and description...thus it will be proven untrue and the poster a fraud.
Wait, I'm the poster
..... I'm not a fraud, I put...
Uh huh another fallacy.... and talking to himself no less.......
