"Fallacy!"-free Fridays on Enworld RPG threads?

[wrecan]

Fallacy!

(I feel so dirty.)

 

[Umbran]

This analogy isn't meant to place me or anyone on a sort of pariah pedestal but just to illustrate that if most people want to be anal-retentive, then it will be anal-retentive, and Red Sox fans will have to face that reality.

I'd suggest you turn it around, and instead have your Red Sox fan realize that it isn't anal-retentive to begin with. It is a fairly sensible reaction in most of the situations in which it happens.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I'd suggest you turn it around, and instead have your Red Sox fan realize that it isn't anal-retentive to begin with. It is a fairly sensible reaction in most of the situations in which it happens.

I guess it depends how "anal-retentive" is being applied.

In real life and especially on forums when we don't have emotional cues, when a person states an opinion, the parameters are not always understood and must be assumed rightly or wrongly. (We know this when you recently interceded in an argument on the Modular Madness thread about subjective opinion vs perceived statement of objective fact.)

For example, I could have attacked Mark CMG and demanded substantiating evidence for the existence of Proposal-free Wednesday. I didn't, though, because I know he wasn't being sincere. That is, I understood the general parameters of his statement to be humor or sarcasm.

Declarations of fallacies and sorting of objective facts from subjective opinions are only useful when they're not extraneous to the context. So Person A says something. Person B feels that their position has been distorted and misrepresented and declares some fallacy is in effect. Person B fails to acknowledge that maybe Person A was never talking about Person B's premise, or changed the subject never having agreed to be bound to Person's B premise. Person B declared a fallacy without knowing what the parameters are. That would be presumptuous, and presumption (or a misunderstanding resulting from the presumption) can read as belligerence, and belligerence breeds belligerence.

I'm not suggesting the above is happening *most* of the time. Wrongheaded opinions and trolling is very problematic but I don't think it's as systemic these days as it was during the Great Editions Wars of '08 to '09 (I bow to your greater experience in these matters). I think (and yes, the irony of my own presumption is not entirely lost on me) that most people are well-meaning and a common problem is when someone in logic-nerd mode misunderstands the parameters and not everyone is playing by those inferred rules.

For example, my wife is prone to certain logical fallacies. Even if we weren't married, I would never call her stupid, nor would I accuse her of a straw man argument, because she would just roll her eyes and call me anal-retentive. Furthermore, even if her argument is technically fallacious, it doesn't mean she's wrong, it just means she didn't know how to articulate her point. So what exactly is accomplished when we're talking past each other like that -- unless the point is just to argue for its own sake?

 

[1Mac]

Furthermore, even if her argument is technically fallacious, it doesn't mean she's wrong, it just means she didn't know how to articulate her point. So what exactly is accomplished when we're talking past each other like that -- unless the point is just to argue for its own sake?

Because even if your wife isn't wrong, she is making a bad argument, and if the point is to be persuasive, you aren't going to get anywhere with a bad argument.

"Fallacy!"-free Friday would lead to a discussion board where meaningful discussion is impossible.

 

[Umbran]

I guess it depends how "anal-retentive" is being applied.

True enough, I suppose. In how I read it being applied here, while it is descriptive of the behavior (being highly focused on details and propriety), it adds the connotation that it is taken to inappropriate, even unhealthy, lengths (as compared to calling it being "nitpicky", for example).

Declarations of fallacies and sorting of objective facts from subjective opinions are only useful when they're not extraneous to the context.

I don't know if it's *only* useful in that situation, but it is largely so, yes.

I think most of the time, when it is done here, it is not extraneous to the context. The context is generally a discussion, with logical supports and counter arguments, in which the sorting can be quite valuable and appropriate, or even necessary for the discussion to continue.

 

[Umbran]

and if the point is to be persuasive, you aren't going to get anywhere with a bad argument.

Quite the opposite - logical fallacies are generally applied because they are usually extremely persuasive. You can get a long, long way with a bad argument.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Because even if your wife isn't wrong, she is making a bad argument, and if the point is to be persuasive, you aren't going to get anywhere with a bad argument.

"Fallacy!"-free Friday would lead to a discussion board where meaningful discussion is impossible.

Which I think supports my contention on post 30 that, like the Yankees bar, that the status quo has been self-selected to determine what is "meaningful discussion".

Next time I have a discussion with my wife, I have to remember to tell her that she's making a "bad argument" and we're not having a "meaningful discussion" <--- smiley face connotes humorous parameters to exclude fallacy declaration that marriage is not analogous to Enworld

 

[1Mac]

Which I think supports my contention on post 30 that, like the Yankees bar, that the status quo has been self-selected to determine what is "meaningful discussion".

That's not what I said. Dare I say that that's a straw man. By "meaningful discussion," I meant a place where any idea could be discussed in a fruitful way, which is the opposite of how you seem to define it.

Next time I have a discussion with my wife, I have to remember to tell her that she's making a "bad argument" and we're not having a "meaningful discussion"

If you say "you are being illogical," without explaining what you mean, you are yourself committing a logical fallacy; specifically an ad hominem.

 

[1Mac]

Quite the opposite - logical fallacies are generally applied because they are usually extremely persuasive. You can get a long, long way with a bad argument.

Fair enough. I guess what I meant is that you won't get anywhere with someone who can point them out, which is why it is important to do so.

 

[El Mahdi]

I just don't understand why Yankees fans and Red Sox fans can't simply enjoy talking about the thing they both love - Baseball!

Of course each thinks their team is the best, the problem comes when each start trying to prove they're the best. I'm not a Yankees fan, but I can certainly admire their history and records, and appreciate the talent of their players.

Besides, there's so many more unifying things to complain about - like officiating and the commissioner.


If we got rid of the need to prove we're right and others are wrong in posts, the "fallacies" would disappear on their own...