Terms you're tired of hearing...

[Shadylookin]

I hate the word african american as well. Actually unless you have dual citizenship "*any nation or place*-american" needs to go

spreading democracy

"blog" the word itself and all possible words that use it as a prefix

 

[Grisu]

colatteral damage
terrorist
un-patriotic
anti-<insert country here>

 

[Norseman2]

But the term "Straw Man" is regarded as a standard logical falacy in debating circles. If one points out why an argument is a straw man argument then it's perfectly valid.

If you feel that an argument made is not in fact a straw man argument, then you are welcome to retort and explain why it is not.

Saying that someone's argument is fallacious is kind of pointless if you don't back it up. Saying "Strawman", "Redherring", or "Ad hominem" aren't rebuttals. What you need to do is identify for yourself that they have made a fallacious argument, demonstrate why, and possibly educate them about that particular type of fallacy. For example "My position is nothing like what you just argued against. I don't think this, I do think that. You made a strawman fallacy, by attacking a position that I don't hold." It does no good to tell someone that they have made a fallacious argument and leave it at that. They need to be educated as to why it was fallacious so that they will stop making fallacious arguments, and in turn be able to identify the fallacious arguments of others.

As for the term I'm the most tired of hearing: Terrorist. Practically any time one group doesn't like another, they call them terrorists, or supporters of terrorists. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't. The meaning of the word terrorist can be found in the word itself. It's somone who tries to incite terror. The shock and awe strategy of the US would be more in line with terrorism than the guerrilla tactics of the insurgents, but which group is more often called terrorists? It's become a buzzword, most of the time it doesn't even mean anything. When someone calls someone else a terrorist, it's more often an accusation of violating the laws of war. That is its own legitimate gripe, you don't need to call someone a terrorist for them to be big bad meanies that you can point your finger at.

 

[Rambuchan]

^ Straw man argument there. From a terrorist. Infected with Political Correctness too, I might add.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Logic, Logically, Logical

For one logic is subjective. People may argue this point but given the amount of disputes over 'logic' on CFC I would state that it is.

Secondly, it's a bloody condesending term. "Think logically...".

Thirdly, it's overused.

/RANT

Terrorist

Simply because of how it is used. Person is a terrorist therefore we don't need to understand them, their history, culture, religion, or grievances.

EDIT: We've done this thread before. Not complaining, just showing off my CFC experience. I have 2000 posts don't you know

 

[Willowmound]

Americans (I'm sorry, but it seems always to be Americans) saying "at this time" when it would have sufficed to say "now" or just nothing at all.

"You may board the plane at this time"

"I don't have a comment at this time"


Americans (again, I am sorry, but this too is seems prevalent only in the US of A) saying "go ahead and --" when it would have sufficed just to say the darned thing already!

"Go ahead and take out your books"

"Go ahead and sit down"


Here's a favourite:

"You may go ahead and board the plane at this time"

What is the deal with all these unnecessary words? They serve no purpose other than clutter the language. Succinctness people!

 

[Tee Kay]

I hope everyone would agree...
"Middle East"

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Innocent Civilian

You are on one side or the other and therefore bias and not innocent.

You are a noncombatant maybe, but not innocent.

I'm pretty sure Bin Laden said something similar.

I agree there shouldn't be the need for the "innocent" however.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "reality TV" yet. Or "natural law". Though the term I despise most is "assault rifle" mostly because most people that use it don't have a clue in hell about what they're speaking of.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

"Comprehensive agreement"

 

[sysyphus]

Saying that someone's argument is fallacious is kind of pointless if you don't back it up. Saying "Strawman", "Redherring", or "Ad hominem" aren't rebuttals. What you need to do is identify for yourself that they have made a fallacious argument, demonstrate why, and possibly educate them about that particular type of fallacy. For example "My position is nothing like what you just argued against. I don't think this, I do think that. You made a strawman fallacy, by attacking a position that I don't hold." It does no good to tell someone that they have made a fallacious argument and leave it at that. They need to be educated as to why it was fallacious so that they will stop making fallacious arguments, and in turn be able to identify the fallacious arguments of others.

Obviously when calling Staw Man one should back it up as to why, but there is nothing ineirently wrong with the term itself.

 

[Brighteye]

Logic, Logically, Logical

For one logic is subjective. People may argue this point but given the amount of disputes over 'logic' on CFC I would state that it is.

Secondly, it's a bloody condesending term. "Think logically...".

Thirdly, it's overused.

Yes, I agree that one never needs to say 'logically...' The logic should be clear anyway, because logic is not subjective.
Logic is not subjective; our rules of logic are universal, a priori codifications of how truth presents itself to us from true statements.

Without logic there is no thought or proof; logic is the very basis of objectivity. You cannot call it subjective.

But yes, what I dislike? 'Blog'
If you use it at all, it should be 'blog. What was wrong with weblog? Or even web log? A t lters rlly ta hd wte?


That is: Are two letters really that hard to write?
Perhaps I should miss out the spaces too:
Atltersrllytahdwte?

It's not cool, it's not funny. Our prime minister isn't yBlair. His wife isn't eBlair. It's not a blog.

 

[IglooDame]

Yes, I agree that one never needs to say 'logically...' The logic should be clear anyway, because logic is not subjective.
Logic is not subjective; our rules of logic are universal, a priori codifications of how truth presents itself to us from true statements.

Without logic there is no thought or proof; logic is the very basis of objectivity. You cannot call it subjective.

But yes, what I dislike? 'Blog'
If you use it at all, it should be 'blog. What was wrong with weblog? Or even web log? A t lters rlly ta hd wte?


That is: Are two letters really that hard to write?
Perhaps I should miss out the spaces too:
Atltersrllytahdwte?

It's not cool, it's not funny. Our prime minister isn't yBlair. His wife isn't eBlair. It's not a blog.

A bit ironic, you asking "are two letters really that hard to write?" and then proceeding to leave five letters out of your last four sentences.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Yes, I agree that one never needs to say 'logically...' The logic should be clear anyway, because logic is not subjective.
Logic is not subjective; our rules of logic are universal

If Logic and it's rules are universal then pray tell how two people both arguing from polarised positions can use logic to arrive at two seperate conclusions?

My point is this, a poster not going to convince me by merely posting their reasoning is "logical".

 

[Leatherneck]

Here's a favourite:

"You may go ahead and board the plane at this time"

What is the deal with all these unnecessary words? They serve no purpose other than clutter the language. Succinctness people!

... and the question could be asked "Why do you english have so many words with extra letters that are not needed?"

Go head tell me, because at this time I don't get it.

 

[Rambuchan]

I'll jump on the bandwagon too.

Without logic there is no thought

With this statement you are discounting all the absurdist humour you profess to love, not to mention all the great absurdist art (like Dada for example, which was strongly critical and political at times), you're discounting the teaching of the Buddha and Jesus, loads of cognitive psychology thinking and so on and so forth and blahdy blahdy blah.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

... and the question could be asked "Why do you english have so many words with extra letters that are not needed?"

Go head tell me, because at this time I don't get it.

IIRC its because those who effectively codified the language wanted to keep true to the more formal latin. Thus words like "debt" kept the latin "b" in it.

It's a long time since I studied the History of English Language so if anyone wants to rebut this theory feel free.

 

[RedWolf]

I hate the word "firefight" when used by the media.

The word is military slang used among fighting men to describe a gun battle. That is it's context... (It may be more nuanced then that.. I don't claim to know)

So it sounds ridiculous when I hear Paula Zahn in a pressed white pant suit telling me "Today in Bahgdad 4 US Marines were wounded in a firefight"... And it's not just CNN.. every single news sation does it. They use it now as if it's a real word.

The word is gunfight, shootout, small arms fire etc...

The equivalent is like hearing on the news: "Today 4 armed broke into a jewellery store and made off with 3 bags of bling"

 

[Brighteye]

If Logic and it's rules are universal then pray tell how two people both arguing from polarised positions can use logic to arrive at two seperate conclusions?

My point is this, a poster not going to convince me by merely posting their reasoning is "logical".

Yes, I'll agree that to call oneself logical is generally a waste of time. People reach different conclusions because either their logic is flawed or their premises are.
Very frequently, they define words differently. I recall a rather long discussion on CFC about souls and AI in which we had a diversion of a few pages because one person was arguing about intelligence, and another posted a lot of arguments about sentience, because a third person had said that intelligence required sentience. Intelligence and sentience aren't the same thing, and many of the conclusions were different as a result.
My last sentences were perfectly normal and used the language (almost) correctly, although informally.

I'd have thought that claiming that thought doesn't exist without logic is a certain way to get people replying, and we all know that that makes for a good thread.
All I get is Rambuchan... how disappointing!
The argument ad absurdam is a logical tool, frequently used in rhetoric. Not only is it logical and good in rhetoric, but it can be hilarious too. What more does a person need?

As for the teachings of Buddha and Jesus, I'm reminded of the wisdom of the Great Caliph of Cairo when he captured the Great Library of Alexandria.
If it agrees with logic then it is unnecesary, so burn it. If it does not, it is heretical, so burn it.

 

[Samson]

If Logic and it's rules are universal then pray tell how two people both arguing from polarised positions can use logic to arrive at two seperate conclusions?

Most likely;
Neither are really relying on logic.

Also could be;
Different starting axioms.
Different definitions of the problem.
Only one relying on logic.

My point is this, a poster not going to convince me by merely posting their reasoning is "logical".

This I do agree with. If you claim you are using logic you should set out your starting axioms and each logical step. If more people did this I am sure they would find out how tenuous there resoning is, and either reconsider their possition or at least accept it is based on preconceved ideas an belief.