/lit/ - Literature

>>23322597
How many of the logical fallacies are actually just methods of rhetoric?

>>22641694
Is this one?

>>20948358
Truly shows indifference when you go out of your way to defend him in a thread. Either way, at least you acknowledge that you don’t even know basic logic, but it’s ok, take this picture as a starting point

What a load of bullshit.

>>19440446
>>19440446
>I don't like your conclusions
Re-read the post.
Your argument was based on a logical fallacy (false equivalence)
When he pointed this out, you responded with a strawman argument and a micro-adhominem

Pure, unadulterated Midwitism. Accusing of having committed one of these should constitute a fallacy.

>>15098954

Building on this: even /pol/ of all places, which many users on this board profess to hate, has a sticky right at the very top about fallacies. Even the stupid place with the dumb bad people ostensibly values proper argumentation, in a sense. Argumentation is central to the entire website's culture.

>>14475520
>goes to /pol/ once

>>11962963
try not to commit logical fallacies in your speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies try to memorise them and recognise them in you oponent argument . Do not try to win , but always try to speak only truth and truth will set you free

If there is one thing I have noticed from reading conversations on image boards and various forums, it's that people have a tendency to post links to articles and youtube videos that support their argument, and quite often without posting a summary of what's in the link. I believe this stems from a petty kind of narcissism where the poster is thinking, "if he doesn't address all of the arguments in the links I posted, then I win!" We no longer think (or have we ever?) argument as a legitimate means of discourse to seek the truth, but instead as something to be won. But the bigger issue is, the accumulation and on demand of information has given birth to a new type of argumentative fallacy. Arguing has degenerated to the mere posting of links. They act as hurdles the opponent must jump over by reading or watching all of them, and addressing and refuting them to show that he has, which is followed by posting links of his own. Such a tactic becomes especially more disingeuous if someone posts a very long article (10+ pages novel length) or a video that's longer than half an hour. If you don't wade through these, you are thought to have lost the debate. Who has the time for that? There should be a fallacious argument term for bombarding the opposition with information to burn them out if there already isn't one.

I agree. This is my personal bible.

>>11104627
read again

>>10860919
I'm an antitheist and I think I'm right in being afraid of complete ego death (while still seeing how ego "trimming" can be a good thing (basically talking about neutralising ego inflation here)).
I would say new testament is irrational and based on a scapegoat mentality (for something that never actually happened...).
Also "that slave morality"...

What's the best book/books if I want to learn argumentation? (And no, argumentation doesn't necessarily mean a one-on-one debate, it just means how arguments are made, how conclusions are derived etc, basically logic. If you didn't know this chances are you don't know what are some good books in the subject.)

I had a discussion with a woman. She claimed that when abortion was legalised in our country in the seventies it lead to a slippery slope of allowing abortion in more and more cases (even though it actually hasn't). She claimed that this slippery slope will "naturally" continue and in the future, abortion will be allowed even in the third trimester unless we fully ban it now (currently it's only allowed in the first trimester unless the fetus is dying or severely handicapped).

I pointed out that this was a slippery slope logical fallacy. She didn't care/understand. I told her that most people who want abortions in the first trimester to be legal do not want to legalize abortions in the second and third trimester, so her argument didn't make sense. She said I was wrong because "history has proven us otherwise".

I told her that people made the same argument about gay marriage: A conservative politician in our country said that gay marriage would lead to people immediately wanting to marry animals. I told her that that didn't happen and noone actually wants to legalize marrying animals. I told her that this type of fallacy is the same type of fallacy she was using. She said I was changing subjects to something irrelevant and that I was intolerant of her views. She told me to "go educate myself on ethics".

How do you talk to people like this? I don't care what she believes, I just want her to realise that her arguments are filled with logical fallacies.

>>10435306
Burden of Proof isn't a meme. It's necessary in order to have an argumentative discourse without degenerating to fallacious statements and shitposts, although we are way beyond this point. Second, there will always be new people in the discussions who don't know all the facts, and these aren't dedicated threads nor can this information be stickied for everyone to see. Saying "this has been discussed X number of times, so there is point point in posting it" is no excuse to brush off the pleas of the ignorant who want to learn. It reeks of a foolish air of superiority and pride of seniority.

Also, legal burden of proof and 'Innocent until proven guilty' are one and the same, and has a basis in Roman Law, and later in Islam.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#History
Are you telling me you would prefer to live in a society where the innocent can be legally be executed without evidence or fair trial?