Deviation Actions
Literature Text
Don't you despair,though. I have seen fit to educate you poor ignorant bastards so you can finally discuss and talk in a halfway intelligent manner. As long as you take this advice to heart, that is. You guys don't appreciate criticism without a hefty sugarcoating.
In the immortal words of Mario, LET'S-A GO.
FORMAL FALLACIES
1. The Ad Hominem
"I resemble that remark!" ~ Curly Howard
Derived from the Latin phrase Argumentum Ad Hominum (Argument against the Man) is the term for any argument attacking your opponent themselves instead of their statement.This is a really bad way of debating for two big reasons. One, it's an attempt to dismiss what the other person is saying by bringing up their bad behavior, which tends to reflect poorly on the person doing it (Be honest with me here. If you were really as smart as you think you are, would you be trying to pull the oldest bullshit move in the book on the other guy?)
And secondly, at it's core, the logic behind the Ad Hominem attack is nonsensical. Observe:
1. The other guy is not a nice person.
2. Therefore, he is wrong.
If your head isn't up your ass, you will notice that the premise asserted (The other guy isn't nice) has no logical connection to the conclusion urged (The other guy is wrong). Even if the guy you were arguing with was in fact not a nice guy, the fact that he gambles/ smokes pot/masturbates in public parks has no bearing on whether or not his argument is logically sound.
Reducto Ad Hitlerum.
Ad Hominem can be observed in one common debate tactic, and that is comparing the opponent to Hitler.
For example:
1. The opponent supports increased military spending/ vegetarianism/ Gun Control
2. Hitler supported these things
3. Therefore my opponent is wrong and should be ashamed of himself.
The obvious implication of this tactic is to compare your opponent to Hitler and therefore discredit him. You did not argue against his position, all you did was compare him to Hitler.
Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
Examples of Ad Hominem:
"Of course you're wrong, women can't do math!"
" Given Sentator Blackwell's record of flip-flopping during elections, we can safely dismiss his testimony during the corruption hearing"
"Just like a Liberal to say that, thanks for proving your stupidity to me"
" What do you know about quantum particle physics? You're a Mormon."
" Ad Hominem is not a fallacy if the other person...."
"What the hell does Inspector Khalid Ali know about the safe temperature to store pork?! He's a Muslim!"
"You're not a Libertarian? Why, what's your problem?"
2. Affirming the Consequent
"Googoo is Gaga. Wawa is Gaga. Are all Googoos Wawas?" ~ Baby Timkins
This is a fallacy that confuses the direction of 'If X-Then Y' arguments and named after the Consequent of the conditional statement. (IE. The Consequent is the Y in "If X-then Y")
This is a form of Non Sequitur, which will be covered later.
Affirming the consequent is related to the generic phrase that "all x are y, but not all y are x" in that the formal fallacy fails to recognize the "not all y are x" part, which is kind of an important part.
Examples of Affirming the Consequent:
"If colloidal silver works, then my cancer will get better.
My cancer is in remission now.
Therefore, the colloidal silver worked."
"Fascists are pro-war and bomb countries.
Barack Obama authorized drone strikes in Afghanistan
Therefore, Obama is a Fascist. Infowars.com"
" If LL Cool J were to rob Fort Knox, he'd be rich
LL Cool J is rich
Therefore, he has robbed Fort Knox"
The general form of the fallacy is as follows:
<dl>If X, then Y</dl><dl>Not X.</dl><dl>Therefore, not Y</dl>Because the logical rules laid out don't state that Y is exclusively a condition of X, it is erroneous to assume Y is not present if X is not. There are potentially other factors that could lead to X that are not solely dependent upon, or indicated by, Y.
(The correct implication is: If X, then Y. Not Y, therefore not X. So now you know.)
Example
"If I eat chocolate, I will get fat
I do not eat chocolate
Therefore, I will not get fat."
4. Negative Proof
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" ~ Christopher Hitchens
This is where things get interesting, folks.
A negative proof is a fallacy that takes the following structure:
X is true because there is no evidence that X is false.
If the only evidence in favor of something is a lack of evidence against it, then the logical position should be that of skepticism and not credulity. This is a very common fallacy in a lot of conspiracy theorists and alternative health believers' arguments because it is an attempt at turning the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. This is dishonest because, in the absence of any evidence, the burden of proof is always on the proponent of the claim, not the skeptic. Remember this old axiom: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Basically, if you're claiming that laying with Ouija Boards will unleash demons, then it is your task to pony up the evidence, skippy.
The entire reason the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme exists is because the FSM is a rebuttal to the Negative Proof fallacy, in that the joke is that the line of logic used in the fallacy can be used to reach incredibly absurd conclusions
Furthermore, once evidence is, in fact, presented, then and only then will the burden of proof actually turn back on the skeptic to disprove said evidence.
Examples of a Negative Proof:
"The sheeple cannot disprove my theory that the world is secretly run by alien lizard people, so I must be on to something."
"I know for a fact that demons exist and Ouija Boards summon them because the atheists and secularists could never prove they didn't."
"Well if you're so smart, then let's see you prove that crystal therapy doesn't cure cancer!"
5. Non Sequitur
" I can make birds levitate but nobody cares." ~ Stephen Wright
Non Sequitur comes from a Latin phrase meaning "That which does not follow". A Non Sequitur means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise of the statement. Thus, this is a form of fallacious logic because your conclusion has no real relation to the main premise of your argument. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecendent can be labeled as Non Sequiturs because both are models of faulty reasoning which lead to conclusions that do not follow from the premise.
Examples of a Non Sequitur:
" My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid."
"All men are mortal and Socrates was a man. Therefore, Socrates would have preferred Coke over Pepsi."
" P1: If each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life he would be no better than a machine.
P2: However, there are no such rules.
C: Therefore, men cannot be machines."
Note: While this may seem fine on the surface, it's still a Non Sequitur because 1) the first premise says nothing about whether or not men can be machines, but whether they would be better than (or, depending on how you look at this term, greater than, more than, beyond, or simply more capable than) machines; and 2) it ignores the possibility that men could just be machines without such definite rules. Therefore, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Not all Non Sequiturs are blatant and easily visible. Keep your eyes open and your brain working.
6. Special Pleading
" I demand a recount!" ~ Bart Simpson
Special Pleading is when an person demands special considerations for a certain premise of theirs. Usually this is done to get around a logical inconsistency in their argument for it to fly and, in a lot of cases, that said argument contradicts past statements or actions. And thus they use special pleading to create an exception for themselves.
Please keep in mind that this is sound in certain instances where there are legitimate special cases or exceptions, it becomes a fallacy when the person doesn't satisfactorily justify why the case is special.
Here's how it goes: A guy accepts a set of criteria for judging something like, painting for instance. and applies the criteria for quality (form, color, anatomy, perspective, etc.) consistently, and when the day comes that his own paintings are held to these criteria, he declares his work a "special" case without ever giving a good reason why and excludes himself from the criteria he set himself to judge the quality of a painting.
This is a fallacy because he is claiming himself exempt from certain standards and yet is providing no good reason for why this should be so. A legitimate exception to the rules would be either easily justified or made apparent in the conditions they have made in the first place, such as "these rules apply to x, y, and z because of a, b and c" and people can agree to this and see the reason for the exemption. Simply demanding an exception is not going to fly.
Examples of Special Pleading:
"Alcohol and tobacco are fine, but Marijuana should remain illegal."
" The Bible passage forbidding gay sex is God's law but Christians can still eat shellfish and work on the Sabbath bcause..... um...."
" No, the Steelers didn't fumble! Look at the replay, man! The linebacker pushed the ball out of his hands!"
This concludes part one. Stay tuned for more.
For example, I got into a discussion with a person on the existence of deity. He made a rather extraordinary claim that there was no God without citing any evidence, or even experience to back this claim.
When I followed up with the question, "What is your proof that God does not exist," he attacked me and said that burden of proof was on me despite the fact that he was the one that made the claim.
This is basic college-level debate here... that said, stuff like what you said in this piece should be hard to grasp especially since knowing these stated principles follows the lines of common sense. You may also want to express the importance of citing evidence in order to the claim that has been made, not based on how extraordinary the claim is.