• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's talk about logical fallacies....

cabse5 said:
Unless they're white, of course. There's that nasty white supremacy, right?:roll: Oh, and the police. Every police person must act like the one who killed Floyd, right? Isn't that why there was protesting from coast to coast after Floyd was killed?:roll:
Click to expand...

I am not sure if " think up a stupid way of doing something and then insist it has to be that way " is another on the lists of fallacies. But you have given us a good example of it anyway.
 
pinqy said:
Because climate change activists driving has guzzling cars has nothing to do with any facts about climate change. That someone doesn't practice what they preach does not mean that what they preach is wrong.


Woody because of that statement? Ar bummer from Authority.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. A gas guzzling SUV sends hydrocarbons into the air.
 
OlNate said:
He specifically called out his own use of Nirvana fallacy in the video... I think if you were to watch his videos in general, you'd very quickly find out that he's the last person in the world to claim perfection. I mean, he literally ends every single one of his videos with "It's just a thought". That's a kind of humility we don't really see in 2020. I find it refreshing.
Click to expand...

He's your hero.:roll:
 
OlNate said:
He actually explained it rather well. The fact that they drive a gas guzzler doesn't take anything away from their argument, if their argument is sound. You can criticize them personally for not following their own advice, but that's not an attack on their logic, because it doesn't address their argument, only their personal behavior. :shrug:
Click to expand...

A major part of environmentalists' arguments is that gas being expelled into the air is bad for the environment. Unless you don't believe in the tenants of environmentalists, this is a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
This post is an example of at least 4 of the fallacies documented in the video. Good job. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm saying the guy doesn't know what a fallacy is, so, him (or you using his examples of fallacy) to portray my thinking as fallacious is rather circumspect.
 
cabse5 said:
I think you're wrong. A gas guzzling SUV sends hydrocarbons into the air.
Click to expand...

Yes. And? How does that mean hydrocarbon emissions are not harmful?

Person A claims hydrocarbon emissions are harmful, contributing to global warming.
Person A drives a gas guzzling car spewing lots of hydrocarbon emissions into the air.
Does that mean that hydrocarbon emissions are not harmful? No. It just means A is hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
Yes. And? How does that mean hydrocarbon emissions are not harmful?

Person A claims hydrocarbon emissions are harmful, contributing to global warming.
Person A drives a gas guzzling car spewing lots of hydrocarbon emissions into the air.
Does that mean that hydrocarbon emissions are not harmful? No. It just means A is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

The environmentalist says hydrocarbons emitted into the air is bad.
 
cabse5 said:
The environmentalist says hydrocarbons emitted into the air is bad.
Click to expand...
Yes. What is your point? They’re either right or wrong, but what kind of car they drive has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong.
 
lurchadams said:
I did watch a couple more last night. Watching the one in your OP put several of his videos in my youtube playlist. I can see why X pooh poohed the guy - the guy isn't the biggest trump supporter!
Click to expand...

No, for sure, he's not....lol... Die hards may have a problem with him, but even his criticism of Trump seems to be based in reason, and not talking points or knee jerk partisan reaction. If someone is open to reason, they will at least be able to respect where he's coming from. If not, well.. :shrug: We know those folks exist.
 
OlNate said:
No, for sure, he's not....lol... Die hards may have a problem with him, but even his criticism of Trump seems to be based in reason, and not talking points or knee jerk partisan reaction. If someone is open to reason, they will at least be able to respect where he's coming from. If not, well.. :shrug: We know those folks exist.
Click to expand...

He's very "Maddow-like" in his building of his evidence before for his theses. I can see why he gets under some Trumpublican's skin. He's too reasonable.
 
cabse5 said:
A major part of environmentalists' arguments is that gas being expelled into the air is bad for the environment. Unless you don't believe in the tenants of environmentalists, this is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I mean, you're literally echoing the example of the fallacy from the video. Not sure what you want me to say here. :shrug: This isn't a debate about environmentalists, it's a discussion of fallacies. Unless you're trying to demonstrate your understanding of the content by "role playing" the example perfectly, you're off topic.
 
lurchadams said:
He's very "Maddow-like" in his building of his evidence before he states his thesis. I can see why he gets under some Trumpublican's skin. He's too reasonable.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's out to piss off Trumpists, though...not really. I mean, he doesn't handle them like kid gloves, but they're his desired audience. He really is an educator first.

But, yeah, some Trumpists aren't exactly enthusiastic about being educated, so ... I agree...hehe... The difference with this guy is that he's generally not trying to be a dick about it.
 
cabse5 said:
He's your hero.:roll:
Click to expand...

Hero? Mmm...wouldn't go that far, but I do respect his approach and what he has to say. I don't usually post videos here, so when I do it's probably going to be someone I admire and agree with... This wasn't supposed to be political, though. Like, not at all. As I stated in OP it's just a reference. Not sure why you're being such a cranky pants about it... :shrug:
 
pinqy said:
Yes. What is your point? They’re either right or wrong, but what kind of car they drive has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Environmentalists who drive gas guzzling SUVs either don't believe their greenhouse 'apocalyptic' speech or they are hypocrites. Which makes their speech on climate change dubious.
 
pinqy said:
Yes. And? How does that mean hydrocarbon emissions are not harmful?

Person A claims hydrocarbon emissions are harmful, contributing to global warming.
Person A drives a gas guzzling car spewing lots of hydrocarbon emissions into the air.
Does that mean that hydrocarbon emissions are not harmful? No. It just means A is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

If A is hypocritical, one can discount the claims of A.
 
cabse5 said:
Environmentalists who drive gas guzzling SUVs either don't believe their greenhouse 'apocalyptic' speech or they are hypocrites. Which makes their speech on climate change dubious.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t. There is zero connection.

Blatant example. A man says that protecting children from sexual predators is important.
We then find out he’s actually a child molester.
Is this evidence that it is not important to protect children from molesters? Of course not. (No I do not have anyone in mind for my example)

Again, whether or not a person acts according to what they say has nothing to do with whether or not what they’re saying is true.
 
OlNate said:
I mean, you're literally echoing the example of the fallacy from the video. Not sure what you want me to say here. :shrug: This isn't a debate about environmentalists, it's a discussion of fallacies. Unless you're trying to demonstrate your understanding of the content by "role playing" the example perfectly, you're off topic.
Click to expand...

The environmentalist with 'environmental apocalyptic speech', one part of that speech being the apocalypse created from the use of gas, but drives around in a gas guzzling SUV is either a hypocrite or doesn't believe in their 'environmental apocalyptic speech'. There are no other choices for what that environmentalist is doing when driving around in the gas guzzler.

Since that environmentalist either doesn't believe in the 'environmental apocalyptical nature' of their speech or is a hypocrite, their speech does not have a strong reputation and is fallacious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom