Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Saying that something is wrong or shouldn't be done because it is "socialistic". I never see anyone who makes this argument actually define socialism. Nor, does anyone point out why if something were "socialistic" why that would make it bad. Is it "socialistic" to have a police force or an army? How about public schools, a health department, and a local sewer department? If these are "socialistic" are they bad?
2. Comparing your opponent and his arguments with either Naziis or Communists. Whenever I hear this argument I automatically decide the person making it has lost his side. This is such an extreme argument that its just silly.
Many people often simply state their objection. Now, it is better for you to ask for the definition of socialism. Do you explain in detail every point you make when it comes to beliefs of any form? I do not think so. I get the impression you bring up the socialist example because YOU do not like people labeling socialist some view you MAY agree with. I do not know.
Also, your examples of the police and the Army may not be good examples. The Constitution did address raising an Army. Maybe you if you read more about the "Tragedy of Commons" you may understand that some programs are good social programs for the good of everbody but other types of programs go into the socialist philosophy realm. There is a difference. I will say that I do agree with what I call social programs but not with Socialist programs. The Founding Fathers came up with some good logic in drafting The Constitution that does go along the "Tragedy of Commons" principle and by doing so had a pretty fair balance between freedom and liberty and the common good when delineating the responsiblities of the federal government, the states and the citizens. You can also combine that with the social contract as mentioned by some philosophers. To me those philosophical principles make more sense when governing people. They are more in line with our natural rights and with human nature.
The second example I do see your point. Often people compare other people views in such way to demonize the opponents views. Politicians do that very often.
In general I would not ban any type of fallacy used by people. People have their own way of expressing themselves. If people use flawed logic, so be it. It will reflect along the debates of discussions. To me inferring banning speech goes along the spirit of what I suppose we all stand for, freedom to express ourselves as best and as we know how.
Obviously counter-factual argument irritates me the most. Example: someone railing about Obama as an implied cause of that person's having to wait until age 67 to reach Social Security's full retirement age, when in fact that part of the structure of Soc. Sec. was enacted before Obama was a Senator, much less President. I am not even an Obama supporter, but I respect the truth. I suppose my objection could be stated as "people posting about things they know nothing about".
I might go ahead and just ban evasion or "what-about"-ism.
So for instance, if someone makes an argument about "X," people would no longer try to squirrel out of the topic altogether by ignoring subject X and bringing up subject "Y" instead.
I hate when I make a clear, self-contained, self-explanatory statement that is responded to with "So what you are REALLY saying is <insert something that I didn't say, infer, or mean at all>."
I might go ahead and just ban evasion or "what-about"-ism.
So for instance, if someone makes an argument about "X," people would no longer try to squirrel out of the topic altogether by ignoring subject X and bringing up subject "Y" instead.
This is actually tough because there are 3 biggies to me. First, the runner-ups:
1 - acting like an exception to the rule invalidates it. My fav example is an otherwise seemingly intelligent girl I used to work with who didn't think smoking could cause cancer because her grandmother smoked 3 packs a day and lived to be 90, cancer-free.
2 - the mind-numbingly stupid practice of when you say one extreme isn't true, people act like you're saying the opposite is true. Extremists are by definition idiots.
But now, the winner:
The mental midgets who automatically treat generalizations like absolutes. ie if you say something is true, they go "oh yeah right! As if that's always true!!" or "Then how do you explain (exception)" Noooo, I didn't say always and without exception, just in general.
These are what I'd call the "Unholy Trinity" of bonehead logic that a scary # of people use on a regular basis, esp on message boards.
Edit: maybe I should call it the "Unholy Quartet" or something because I forgot one:
When people resort to personal attacks, ignoring the actual topic. I'm not talking about make a crack in the "heat of battle" or in response to an initial crack either, where they are still actually discussing the topic (not that that's great).
I might also add basic statistical illiteracy. For example, being unable to distinguish "rate" from "raw numbers," or understanding ideas like incidence rates, probability curves, mode/median/mean distinctions, outliers, correlation/causation, and other such topics.
I feel "ad hominem" to be the most annoying. To attack me, and making the inference that because of some negative quality of mine, my ideas are also without merit is annoying. By extension, it is also annoying for said ideas to simply be dismissed as stupid, without making any attempt to explain why you feel that way.
It always gets me when someone writes a short, angry post that states something like, I don't care about what you think. If a person really doesn't care what the other guy thinks, he doesn't bother to tell him that he doesn't care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Noooo, I didn't say always and without exception, just in general.
