[Closed] Rules for all future STW discussions and arguments

pfft, where's the fun in that?

Hang on guys, I just need to put the ketle on and gets the biscuits out

For reference: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Though shalt read Jamie Whyte's book.

It's really very good.

[img] [/img]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Thoughts-Guide-Clear-Thinking/dp/0954325532

Thanks for the reference Stoner.

I have a personal rule of thumb regarding internet [s]arguments[/s] discussions that once someone breaks out the Latin, it's time to find something better to do.

Nosce te ipsum.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to replace 'nosce' with a verb of their choice. 😉

ne te confundant illegitimi

I know it's not correct latin as such and the translation into english is wrong but i had it written on my Classics/Latin book at school so i consider it true.

Te audire non possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

Ad hominem isn't necessarily illogical (see Mandy Rice Davies) and dichotomies are not necessarily false. Exaggerating an argument is essential for satire - are we banning that too?

What plonker created that list as a criteria of logic? Or am I missing the point?
I might send it on to a friend who lectures in logic for a laugh.

Too many 'dont's' and no 'do's'

Bit negative for me.

breaks out [s]the[/s] da Latin

I think the best rule would be you should post only under your real name, no anonymous accounts

A useful list for Junkyard to pick and choose from.
Hopefully it will expand his repertoire of rebuttals beyond the current pair.

Skoda Octavia

Well someone has sucked all the fun out of here ....

In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia

Sextus est in horto.

You first, Jambalaya, I'm sure you're not named after paella.

repertoire of rebuttals

Troll.

tl:dr

i hope one of them was "thou shalt not bother reading the OP properly and just say what you like based on the title"

In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia

Ecce Romani. It's been a very long time since I read any of them.

Ad hominem isn't necessarily illogical

[quote=vinnyeh ]A useful list for Junkyard to pick and choose from.
Hopefully it will expand his repertoire of rebuttals beyond the current pair.

After all these years have you finally grasped the first two ?

I like the fallacy of equivocation but only got to play it on here once- Used to teach logic at Uni- [ appeal to authority etc]- and generally dont bother that much on here as most of those i engage with are clearly numpties and they seem determined to not bother learning even the most simplistic of concepts [ Like punctuation for example 😉 ]

i hope one of them was "thou shalt not bother reading the OP properly and just say what you like based on the title"

[img] [/img]

Junkyard, shouldn't that final sentence have a full stop?

Number 10
https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/repetition-makes-truth/
Geoff Apps
"R E P E T I T I O N M A K E S T R U T H

The basis of this proven fact is that if something is repeated in the public domain often enough, however crazy or ridiculous it may be, people will begin to believe it. Once a sufficient number of people do believe it, not believing it becomes unconventional, or, to be more colloquial, Harpic*.

Think of several things you believe to be true. Then question yourself, consider each one carefully as to why you believe it.

Is it because it’s something you’ve actually seen or experienced first-hand, or is it something you’ve heard so often, from so many different sources, it must be true? Apply this principle to any or every aspect of bicycle design; do you believe what you believe because everyone else who shares your interest in cycling believes it?"

What plonker created that list as a criteria of logic?

Ecce Romani. It's been a very long time since I read any of [s]them[/s] those hateful, hateful books that made my life a misery at school.

FTFY.

Skoda Octavia

vRS

Estate

[quote=ransos ]Ad hominem isn't necessarily illogical (see Mandy Rice Davies)

I'm not sure the MRD principle is ad-hom - certainly not in the way ad-hom is commonly used on here. Of course her well known statement was only referring to one particular person, but it wasn't particularly making the point based on some presumed moral deficiency in that particular person - it was a more general logical suggestion based on the likely reaction of anybody in that position. If it was an ad-hom, the phrase wouldn't have entered into popular usage in the same way, would it?

The Ten Commandments of Logic

I do like Godel but it is a little complicated for here- short version once you form a system of maths- the axioms [or the rules ] cannot be tested internally by the system [ second rule] nor can the axioms prove all aspects of simple mathematics- ie some things we "know" cannot be proven,

As for ad hom aspects of a person character such as being a convicted fraudster or a known serial liar may well be relevant so NOT all forms of "character assassination" can be accurately termed ad hom

In the same way an appeal to authority is not necessarily false [ nor true] as experts tend to know stuff

I can appeal to einstein if discussing gravity I cannot if , and this does happen on here, discussing god/religion.