Let's talk about logical fallacies....

[cabse5]

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.

I'm talking about the speech of the one environmentalist who decries the use of gas but drives around in a gas guzzling SUV. Either that environmentalist is a hypocrite or doesn't believe in the environmental apocalyptical nature of their speech.
Either way, the speech of that one environmentalist is fallacious because there is no strong reputation for their speech because their speech is hypocritical or unbelieving.

 

[OlNate]

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 is not on solid footing and is fallacious.

Wrong, unless you can demonstrate the car they drive somehow changes the statistics they cite when making their claims. :shrug:

 

[OlNate]

I'm talking about the speech of the one environmentalist who decries the use of gas but drives around in a gas guzzling SUV. Either that environmentalist is a hypocrite or doesn't believe in the environmental apocalyptical nature of their speech.
Either way, the speech of that one environmentalist is fallacious because there is no strong reputation for their speech.

You're also demonstrating the fallacy fallacy... hehe... I'm starting to think you're not actually debating here, you're just doing a good impression of all the fallacies, and laughing at us reacting to it... :lol:

 

[cabse5]

Wrong, unless you can demonstrate the car they drive somehow changes the statistics they cite when making their claims. :shrug:

The environmentalist has no reputation.

 

[cabse5]

Wrong, unless you can demonstrate the car they drive somehow changes the statistics they cite when making their claims. :shrug:

Wrong?? The gas guzzling SUV is exactly what the environmentalist is preaching against.

 

[OlNate]

Wrong?? The gas guzzling SUV is exactly what the environmentalist is preaching against.

One more time, cabse:

Wrong, unless you can demonstrate the car they drive somehow changes the statistics they cite when making their claims. :shrug:

You're attacking the messenger, and perhaps rightly so, but you're doing nothing to the actual message, because that message isn't reliant upon the car the messenger drives.

I'll reframe this for you until you understand it, we'll get there together...hehe

 

[pinqy]

I'm talking about the speech of the one environmentalist who decries the use of gas but drives around in a gas guzzling SUV.

Which is the same as a child molester saying that molesting children is wrong. Both are cases where a person acts opposite to their claim.

Either that environmentalist is a hypocrite or doesn't believe in the environmental apocalyptical nature of their speech.

Similarly, either the child molester is a hypocrite or doesn’t believe molesting children is wrong.

Either way, the speech of that one environmentalist is fallacious because there is no strong reputation for their speech because their speech is hypocritical or unbelieving.

Apply that to the child molester. Your logic would be that his claim that molesting children is wrong is fallacious because he has no strong reputation because his claim is either hypocritical or unbelieving. But whether a person is a hypocrite or not...whether a person actually believes their own claim or not...has nothing to do with whether the claim itself is true or false.

L

 

[cabse5]

One more time, cabse:



You're attacking the messenger, and perhaps rightly so, but you're doing nothing to the actual message, because that message isn't reliant upon the car the messenger drives.

I'll reframe this for you until you understand it, we'll get there together...hehe

For example, one wouldn't take the word of a big game hunter on matters of gun control...

The warnings of an impending global warming catastrophe from the use of gas coming from the, for example, environmentalist who drives around in a gas guzzling SUV are fallacious.

In this instance, I'm attacking this gas guzzling messenger of climate change and not his message. To believe this environmentalist has any credibility let alone expertise would be fallacious.

 

[OlNate]

For example, one wouldn't take the word of a big game hunter on matters of gun control...

The warnings of an impending global warming catastrophe from the, for example, use of gas coming from an environmentalist who drives around in a gas guzzling SUV are fallacious.

I'm attacking this gas guzzling messenger of climate change and not his message. To believe this environmentalist has any credibility let alone expertise would be fallacious.

Well, ok, that's fine - I fact check everyone I debate, whether they use fallacies or not, though. But being a hypocrite is different than using a fallacy tactic. You'd be right, they are a hypocrite, but their argument could be logically sound. It would depend on what they say, not what they drive.

 

[danielpalos]

I noticed we don't have a clean debate zone here. Is the right wing afraid of losing all their arguments if they have to actually reason and rebut with valid arguments?

 

[cabse5]

Which is the same as a child molester saying that molesting children is wrong. Both are cases where a person acts opposite to their claim.



Similarly, either the child molester is a hypocrite or doesn’t believe molesting children is wrong.

Apply that to the child molester. Your logic would be that his claim that molesting children is wrong is fallacious because he has no strong reputation because his claim is either hypocritical or unbelieving. But whether a person is a hypocrite or not...whether a person actually believes their own claim or not...has nothing to do with whether the claim itself is true or false.

L

In this instance, I'm not commenting on the message of the environmentalist who drives around in a gas guzzling SUV, I'm commenting on the credibility of said environmentalist. It isn't good reasoning to accept the comments of said environmentalist as being credible and, therefore, said environmentalist's comments are fallacious.:roll: Figure it out, just once.

 

[cabse5]

Well, ok, that's fine - I fact check everyone I debate, whether they use fallacies or not, though. But being a hypocrite is different than using a fallacy tactic. You'd be right, they are a hypocrite, but their argument could be logically sound. It would depend on what they say, not what they drive.

The point I've been trying to convey from the start of this is the environmentalist driving around in a gas guzzling SUV has no credibility and to legitimize the words of said environmentalist would be fallacious - would be faulty reasoning.

 

[cabse5]

Well, ok, that's fine - I fact check everyone I debate, whether they use fallacies or not, though. But being a hypocrite is different than using a fallacy tactic. You'd be right, they are a hypocrite, but their argument could be logically sound. It would depend on what they say, not what they drive.

I wouldn't be logically sound to accept the comments of the environmentalist driving around in a gas guzzling SUV.

 

[OlNate]

The point I've been trying to convey from the start of this is the environmentalist driving around in a gas guzzling SUV has no credibility and to legitimize the words of said environmentalist would be fallacious - would be faulty reasoning.

Yeah, and you've been wrong this entire time. :shrug: I'm sorry, but you are. What you have been saying this entire time has been an example of the Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy. The literal example from the video. That's not my opinion, you're providing the literal example of the definition.

 

[pinqy]

In this instance, I'm not commenting on the message of the environmentalist....said environmentalist's comments are fallacious..

Those seem contradictory to me. Please explain what you think the difference is. How is claiming his comments are fallacious not commenting on his message?

 

[cabse5]

Yeah, and you've been wrong this entire time. :shrug: I'm sorry, but you are. What you have been saying this entire time has been an example of the Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy. The literal example from the video. That's not my opinion, you're providing the literal example of the definition.

I guess, then, it isn't advantageous to attempt to gain the advice from experts and to shun the advice from non-experts?

 

[cabse5]

Those seem contradictory to me. Please explain what you think the difference is. How is claiming his comments are fallacious not commenting on his message?

The environmentalist's message is fallacious since it is faulty reasoning to accept the words of an environmentalist that drives around in a gas guzzling SUV. Said environmentalist has no credibility (on environmentalism).

 

[pinqy]

The environmentalist's message is fallacious since it is faulty reasoning to accept the words of an environmentalist that drives around in a gas guzzling SUV. Said environmentalist has no credibility (on environmentalism).

Would you agree then that the message that global warming is a hoax is fallacious if the person claiming it drives a Prius?

Or that the message that molesting children is wrong is fallacious if it comes from a child molester?

 

[cabse5]

Would you agree then that the message that global warming is a hoax is fallacious if the person claiming it drives a Prius?

Or that the message that molesting children is wrong is fallacious if it comes from a child molester?

To believe the thinking of the Prius driver, one must determine if the Prius driver has any expertise in climate change. For example, I'd drive a Prius just for the gas mileage. It would be a pocketbook issue for me.

There are many aspects to child molestation, IMO. Those aspects that affect the child. Those aspects that affect the child molester. I guess, one would have to force the child molester to be more specific why child molestation would be wrong.

 

[pinqy]

To believe the thinking of the Prius driver, one must determine if the Prius driver has any expertise in climate change. For example, I'd drive a Prius just for the gas mileage. It would be a pocketbook issue for me.

There are many aspects to child molestation, IMO. Those aspects that affect the child. Those aspects that affect the child molester. I guess, one would have to force the child molester to be more specific why child molestation would be wrong.

In other words, a message is not fallacious solelY due to perceived hypocrisy or lack of credibility.

 

[cabse5]

In other words, a message is not fallacious solelY due to perceived hypocrisy or lack of credibility.

To follow the message from the messenger that is hypocritical or lacks credibility, for examples, is fallacious.

 

[OlNate]

I guess, then, it isn't advantageous to attempt to gain the advice from experts and to shun the advice from non-experts?

Nah, now, that's a strawman fallacy. hehe... Who said anything about experts and non-experts? Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're not an expert. I had a doctor that smoked the entire time I went to him. He kept me healthy, and he got me to quit smoking cigarettes. Being a hypocrite didn't prevent him from being an expert.

 

[cabse5]

Nah, now, that's a strawman fallacy. hehe... Who said anything about experts and non-experts? Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're not an expert. I had a doctor that smoked the entire time I went to him. He kept me healthy, and he got me to quit smoking cigarettes. Being a hypocrite didn't prevent him from being an expert.

In this case, the climate change case, impending global warming disaster is imminent and anyone who ignores or is hypocritical to the speeding up of this process isn't an expert of impending climate change disaster.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers would have no arguments at all without logical fallacies.

 

[holbritter]

A really good primer on debate tactics, for nerds like me who is interested in this stuff. I've posted videos from this guy before, he's probably my favorite political youtuber at the moment. I'm sure you'll recognize many of these concepts at play here at DP, as he explains them. It's a really good explanation of the various fallacy tactics that debaters use. I know I've been guilty of a few myself... :lol:



No real debate here, I didn't know where else to put it. Maybe bump it with a comment, though, as I think a lot of folks here would benefit from seeing this one...hehe... :cheers:

Good one!

Good examples too. I can't stand when someone does the "What you're saying is...." lead up.

Probably have done one or two of his other examples.