Logical Fallacies

[karpos]

In most online discussions, accusing someone of a logical fallacy combines an Appeal to Authority (a list of logical fallacies) with a Strawman (let me force your argument into something in this list), Ad Hominem attack (you are obviously either deceptive or stupid) and often a few Red Herrings. Which is wonderfully circular - accusing someone of logical fallacies in order to engage in them.

Debating this in any depth is the ultimate Red Herring, you completely lose track of the original subject within a few minutes.

On the other hand, sticking with the subject, responding directly and simply, speaking for yourself, etc. generally steers you clear of most logical fallacies. Not all of them - then again, is an appeal to authority wrong if you don't claim it's a logical proof?

your comment about women and couches was a very deliberate (and offensive) attempt to change the subject, so please don't make any claim to be 'sticking with the subject and responding directly and simply...

[PeterG]

Example argument

Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today?

Debater trys to get you to say yes no or no.
If you say yes, debater claims you believe in animal sacrifices
If you say no, you must have a problem with Jesus quoting Leviticus 19:18

Leviticus 19:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

There's nothing fallacious about asking, "Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today?" Every is the qualifier that makes the difference. I can answer "no" to this question without any problems whatsoever, and you could too, from what I can tell.

A problematic question would be, "Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today, or that none of them are?" That would set up an either/or fallacy. But that's not what the example argument given above does.

(Disclaimer: I haven't been keeping up with the tattoo thread, or wherever this stuff came from.)

[karpos]

There's nothing fallacious about asking, "Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today?" Every is the qualifier that makes the difference. I can answer "no" to this question without any problems whatsoever, and you could too, from what I can tell.

A problematic question would be, "Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today, or that none of them are?" That would set up an either/or fallacy. But that's not what the example argument given above does.

(Disclaimer: I haven't been keeping up with the tattoo thread, or wherever this stuff came from.)

And i said animal sacrifices, ceremonial law, sabbath regulations do not apply to us, therefore I answered the question that was put to me...

[PeterG]

And i said animal sacrifices, ceremonial law, sabbath regulations do not apply to us, therefore I answered the question that was put to me...

If you're referring to an exchange in another thread, please forgive me and post a link if you feel like it.

If you're referring to the example argument as given above, you did not answer the question. It was a perfectly reasonable yes-or-no question.

[Bootstrap]

And i said animal sacrifices, ceremonial law, sabbath regulations do not apply to us, therefore I answered the question that was put to me...

If you're referring to an exchange in another thread, please forgive me and post a link if you feel like it.

If you're referring to the example argument as given above, you did not answer the question. It was a perfectly reasonable yes-or-no question.

The best place to continue the actual subject is here:

Tattoos and Couches - What Old Testament Laws are Binding?

[MaxPC]

And on it goes.

dont forget Godwin's law...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

Reductio ad Hitlerium
I like that. Nova Latina at its finest.

[ohio jones]

For MD, reductio ad Vaticanum.

[karpos]

Reductio ad Hitlerium
I like that. Nova Latina at its finest. [/quote]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[MaxPC]

Reductio ad Hitlerium
I like that. Nova Latina at its finest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I remember reductio ad absurdum: good one.
The next level or step is argumentum ad nauseam.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam