38 dishonest tactics used in arguments
- Thread starter col
- Start date
Lifeblood
Defender of the faith
Originally posted by col
Oh dear lord of light Lucifer.
So this is very misleading:
Because they aren't reacting to a statement of fact by you, they're reacting to you getting hostile, argumentative, purposefully baiting them, and generalizing about a people based on their nationality. Thanks for clarifying that.
Originally posted by col
I admire subtle and patient teachers! Keep up the good work. 
Okay, that makes sense.
Hmm, I guess I'm just not attentive enough.Originally posted by col
Well I certainly do - deliberately. I labelled this thread as 'tactics' rather than fallacies because these are methods used commonly in debating - and easy to counter too if you know what to look for.
I'm sure folk can find plenty of examples around this forum if they look real hard
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
To be honsest...I don't tend to see argument as a game. Some of those listed are genuine fallacies, but others - like 4, 7 and 19 - are perfectly legitimate.
19 is useful, for instance, if you are having an abstract discussion about the "true meaning" of a word, etc. Although more sophisticated people are aware that all things like that can have their lines blurred, sometimes this argument is productive. Such is the case in establishing scientific terminology.
4 is kinda legitimate - although the ideal thing would be to request the important difference; and this would likely be the reponse of the person to whom it was said.
7 just happens to be the basis for modern science!
19 is useful, for instance, if you are having an abstract discussion about the "true meaning" of a word, etc. Although more sophisticated people are aware that all things like that can have their lines blurred, sometimes this argument is productive. Such is the case in establishing scientific terminology.
4 is kinda legitimate - although the ideal thing would be to request the important difference; and this would likely be the reponse of the person to whom it was said.
7 just happens to be the basis for modern science!
samildanach
Necrophile
Originally posted by calgacus
7 just happens to be the basis for modern science!
Get used to it Buddy!
I take it you haven't heard that XIII is considering putting science in with history
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Oh dear...his isn't is he?! Where is he proposing that?
Where is he proposing that?
samildanach
Necrophile
Site feedback Calcagus- but I wouldn't get too worried hes still chewing over ideas
Mrogreturns
The Ghost Who Posts
Originally posted by calgacus
7 just happens to be the basis for modern science!
At the risk of offending on definitional grounds, I'll just point out that the concept of "proof" has limited currency in science. Scientists tend not to talk about proof and even when they do, they don't usually mean it
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I've no probs there Mrogreturns
I thought, now that this thread treatens to become "second-page", this might be the moment to re-iterate the suggestion to sticky this thread.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
So moved...Originally posted by col
It doesnt feel right stickying my own thread but if you were to ask one of the other OT mods, I wouldnt object
And seconded.
