Feature idea

[eohrnberger]

I didn't put this in suggestions or anything because I really doubt that the program supports it. However, it occurred to me that a nice feature, in addition to expanded reactions besides "like", would be being able to mark a specific post with a fallacy. It doesn't necessarily have to show who did so, but it should show how many selected that specific fallacy. Thoughts and ideas?

One problem is people misidentify fallacies all the time. A prominent example is confusing a simple insult with the ad hominem fallacy.

Agreed. It runs into the same problem as the 'hate speech' argument, who gets to define and who gets to identify it?

Understandable. And we would probably see that all the time in that two different people might mark the argument with different fallacies. I guess another problem would be is, unless the program allowed for multiple fallacies to be listed, it would be hard to choose if multiple fallacies were used, even assuming they were correctly identified. Still I think that it would be a good thing in that people can see how others are viewing their arguments, and maybe learn to not use that particular fallacy.

Hmm, sounds like you are looking for a general case per post 'tagging' capability, which, if everyone had their own and private, might not be a bad thing, especially if you could search your tags for multiple terms.

 

[maquiscat]

Agreed. It runs into the same problem as the 'hate speech' argument, who gets to define and who gets to identify it?


Hmm, sounds like you are looking for a general case per post 'tagging' capability, which, if everyone had their own and private, might not be a bad thing, especially if you could search your tags for multiple terms.

Yes, the per post, similar to the like. I do favor the multiple choices that I have on Talk About Marriage (TAM) and FB. And in my thinking it could be a way by which those who never learned the fallacies, like me, could better become acquainted with them. Oh, especially if the word, if selected, were to be a link to an explanation of the fallacy. I do get that, especially people new to debating, will end up attributing the wrong fallacy to a given argument/post. While the fallacy is clearly defined, what it applies to might not be so. So again, two people could think that the same argument is two different fallacies.

I do get the concern about people using them just for annoying and spamming on others. It was an idea that popped into my head. I know I wouldn't mind being able to point out to a person that they made an ad populum fallacy but not necessarily have to post about it just to say, hey you make this error.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, the per post, similar to the like. I do favor the multiple choices that I have on Talk About Marriage (TAM) and FB. And in my thinking it could be a way by which those who never learned the fallacies, like me, could better become acquainted with them. Oh, especially if the word, if selected, were to be a link to an explanation of the fallacy. I do get that, especially people new to debating, will end up attributing the wrong fallacy to a given argument/post. While the fallacy is clearly defined, what it applies to might not be so. So again, two people could think that the same argument is two different fallacies.

I do get the concern about people using them just for annoying and spamming on others. It was an idea that popped into my head. I know I wouldn't mind being able to point out to a person that they made an ad populum fallacy but not necessarily have to post about it just to say, hey you make this error.

Hey, it's all good here.

This is sort of thread is a 'crowd sourcing' and 'group consideration' thing going on, and all ideas should be critically considered for their pros and cons without recrimination against the poster who brought it up.

The other thought that I had about personal 'tagging' of specific posts is that it would enable someone to 'drag up the past' with those tags beyond what would be reasonable. People should be allowed to evolve their thinking and positions with the addition and consideration of new information, as presented over time here in these forums, again, without recrimination.

I mean, isn't that what we are all here for? Considering other perspectives and points of view? To have our thinking challenged and be made to clearly verbalize (write) out thinking on those points?