Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilref" data-source="post: 5369309" data-attributes="member: 73517">The time it takes to show how an argument uses flawed logic is notably longer than the time it takes to make it in the first place.Your arguments make use of a number of rhetorical fallacies. The primary and most obvious one is the slippery slope but you’ve also gone into Post Hoc, Composition, confusing cause and effect, leaping to a conclusion, etc. All of the above done without advancing any actual supporting clauses for your conclusions. This is why it’s flawed logic (and bad reasoning for that matter).               By starting with the ‘this could be’ you’re making a claim without any substantiation. You then go on to add a good deal to this hypothetical argument, again with nothing to actually support it. You’re advancing a conclusion without any causal relationship to..well, anything other than itself.  Let’s try this ‘falcarrion could be an alien. Nothing is stopping him from coming from another planet. And with advanced alien technology he could take over the world. So if you want to live, go build a nuclear bunker’.  Obviously I made it extremely implausible but the actual point follows the same line, with the same lack of supporting evidence.     So, breaking the above down.     ‘Nothing is stopping them from stopping support for…’  Well they’ve made statements that they’re not going to. And they have products on their release lists for next year that would suggest the reverse. But, absolutely, nothing is stopping them from doing so. Just as nothing is stopping them from discontinuing D&D entirely, o relaunching the original chainmail rules or… There are thousands of things that they don’t have anything to ‘stop’ them from doing. Just because there’s nothing to stop a company from doing something…doesn’t mean they’re going to do it.  As for all content being removed, they’ve left 3.5 material up for..a long time. I highly doubt they’re going to remove everything for the core books. Not least as that would require removing swathes of dragon magazines which would be time consuming and reduce the value of their products.  They’re also still selling the books, so they’d have to write them down as a loss. Which companies can do…but they don’t like doing it unless there’s a tax reason to do so. All in all this paragraph is notably flawed.         Once again you’re making rhetorical fallacies. Second sentence you begin with ‘If’. ‘If the earth is flat, then I would walk off the end of it’. Here we have an unsubstantiated proposition which you then use to draw your conclusion. What’s more the cause does not follow the effect.   And the rest of the paragraph continues in a similar manner.         A nice dose of appeal to fear and again an unsupported conclusion.     I’m not going to touch the second post as it didn’t actually support your argument, just made some unrelated statements.  And the above is why I argued you were using flawed logic. I should have made a stronger argument about the excess of rhetorical fallacies but I was focused on the logical flaws initially.</blockquote>

Verification