• 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!

White privilege

ashurbanipal said:
Uh, what? Do you know what a truth table is?

Here's an example of a truth table for a tautology:

(A v ~A)

A (A v ~ A)
T T T F T
F F T T F

Note that the values for both lines of the main operator (v) are 'T'.



Not a tautology. It may be a sweeping generalization, but not all generalizations are bad. Example: All renates are cordates. Example2: All hydrogen atoms have one proton. Example3: All Byzantine icons were made with a religious purpose.

Definitions with agendas are not necessarily fallacious either. Example: I may wish to impress upon someone that definitions are possible, so I make a definition: prime numbers are numbers evenly divisible only by themselves and one. Hardly fallacious.
Click to expand...
When a statement such as "white privilege" is being used as a tautology OR a sweeping generalization (and the author of this concept has no choice but to consider it so for everyone who lives in a particular social structure) it is therefore fallacious...just as "black criminality" is a fallacious statement, especially when the definition has an agenda.

Stop promoting such pseodo-intellectual male bovine excrement as indisputable fact which is worthy of any corrective action by legislation or Marxist re-education.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
 
jwzg said:
When a statement such as "white privilege" is being used as a tautology OR a sweeping generalization (and the author of this concept has no choice but to consider it so for everyone who lives in a particular social structure) it is therefore fallacious...just as "black criminality" is a fallacious statement, especially when the definition has an agenda.

Stop promoting such pseodo-intellectual male bovine excrement as indisputable fact which is worthy of any corrective action by legislation or Marxist re-education.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Except its not being used as a tautology or a sweeping generalization.
 
jaeger19 said:
Except its not being used as a tautology or a sweeping generalization.
Click to expand...

You may not mean to use it that way but that is what it is nonetheless...

science
Click to expand...

You create a problem to justify reverse racism where none exists... if a person is not granting privilege then not privilege exists. In that situation everybody is equal. That is how the vast majority of Americans operate. You want to see and cry racism. Maybe that is how your justify failing in life... I don't know, but it is negative and detrimental to the advancement of minorities... you are part of the problem.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You may not mean to use it that way but that is what it is nonetheless...

.
Click to expand...

no its not.. But you are free to prove that it is used that way. Good luck... :mrgreen:

You create a problem to justify reverse racism where none exists... if a person is not granting privilege then not privilege exists. In that situation everybody is equal. That is how the vast majority of Americans operate. You want to see and cry racism. Maybe that is how your justify failing in life... I don't know, but it is negative and detrimental to the advancement of minorities... you are part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the scientific research proves you wrong.. over and over and over again... and despite your promises to refute it.. you got nothing. Quite frankly, your refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence is why you are part of the problem.
 
jaeger19 said:
no its not.. But you are free to prove that it is used that way. Good luck... :mrgreen:



Sorry but the scientific research proves you wrong.. over and over and over again... and despite your promises to refute it.. you got nothing. Quite frankly, your refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence is why you are part of the problem.
Click to expand...

I can't take this stupidity any more...
 
ashurbanipal said:
No. Find me any textbook of informal logic written by a professor of philosophy (the profession that studies, among other things, fallacies) and published by a major academic press (e.g. Blackwell, U of Cambridge press, U of Harvard Press, U of Princeton Press, etc.) that defines either in the way you do. Hint: since I own most of those textbooks, and happen to have written one myself, I'm pretty sure you won't find such a text that says that. The reason is because both fallacies are what I said they are. But feel free to take a trip to your best nearby university library to try to prove me wrong (and please, no links from people on the internet who have no idea what they're talking about...if you can find something from the SEP, great. Something from a blog by the likes of Alvin Plantinga or J.D. Trout, great. Otherwise, no).



Where was this argument?



Again, find me a textbook meeting the conditions named above that says that. A tautology is a proposition that is true on every line of its truth table. A circular argument is one that has the same proposition in both the premises and the conclusions. An argument requires at least two propositions, so a tautology (being always exactly one proposition) is not an argument.

Some circular arguments would be tautologies if you made a big proposition of the conjunction of all their premises and conclusions. But not all would be. Example:

My hair is black.
My hair is not black.
Therefore, my hair is black.

That's a circular argument. But the proposition "My hair is black and my hair is not black and therefore my hair is black" is not a tautology, because it is not true on all lines of its truth table.



That is neither a tautology nor a fallacy. It is of the form modus ponens, which is valid (a few controversial counterexamples notwithstanding). It is not a sound argument, however, for the simple reason that one of the premises is untrue.
Click to expand...

Wow, aren't we full of ourselves? By the way, I've never written a book. However a can smell b.s. If you have shown a book on logic, anyone dumb enough to have paid for it should get a refund.

1. Tautolgy is a logic fallacy when used in argumentation. I described it poorly and gave a misleading example. However, if I claimed that either X or !X were true, this would be correct, but rhetorically meaningless, hence considered a logical fallacy. The point here is it is agreed that it is meaningless, however you wish to categorize it.

2. Ad populem is exactly as I described. If you wish to cite a source which contradicts this, please do. Otherwise you may concede this point.

3. Appeal to authority; see above.
 
Last edited:
jwzg said:
When a statement such as "white privilege" is being used as a tautology
Click to expand...

Nothing can be used as a tautology except a tautology.

jwzg said:
OR a sweeping generalization (and the author of this concept has no choice but to consider it so for everyone who lives in a particular social structure) it is therefore fallacious
Click to expand...

Not all generalizations are fallacious, as I already have shown.

jwzg said:
...just as "black criminality" is a fallacious statement, especially when the definition has an agenda.
Click to expand...

"black criminality" is not a fallacious statement, because it's not a statement.

jwzg said:
Stop promoting such pseodo-intellectual male bovine excrement as indisputable fact which is worthy of any corrective action by legislation or Marxist re-education.
Click to expand...

Why? What are you talking about?
 
ibelsd said:
Wow, aren't we full of ourselves? By the way, I've never written a book. However a can smell b.s. If you have shown a book on logic, anyone dumb enough to have paid for it should get a refund.
Click to expand...

Deflection will get you nowhere. If you're correct about your claims, you ought to be able to provide evidence. In this case, logic is an academic subject. Show me something that meets academic standards that agrees with you, or admit you have no case. As it happens, I know you cannot do that, and must instead resort to insults (as you have already done) just to try to save face. I hate to tell you this (because I'm confident you won't listen), but that's always pretty transparent.

ibelsd said:
1. Tautolgy is a logic fallacy when used in argumentation. I described it poorly and gave a misleading example. However, if I claimed that either X or !X were true, this would be correct, but rhetorically meaningless, hence considered a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If someone's argument can be shown to contradict a tautology, that argument is flawed. Similarly, plenty of meaningful propositions follow from tautologies. (A v ~A) is obviously a tautology, but it's not obvious why it is a tautology. If what you're saying were true, we wouldn't ever be able to investigate tautologies.

ibelsd said:
2. Ad populem is exactly as I described. If you wish to cite a source which contradicts this, please do. Otherwise you may concede this point.
Click to expand...

Sure. See: Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Twelfth Edition, New York: Cengage Learning, pp 127-31.

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others. The appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.
Click to expand...

ibelsd said:
3. Appeal to authority; see above.
Click to expand...

Same book, pp 143-4. If you don't have ready access to this book, you can see the relevant sections using Amazon's "Look inside" feature.
 
We get it. White people are bad. Vote democrat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bodhisattva said:
And the argument was an Appeal to Authority...
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. I've posted my argument for why it wasn't. If you disagree on any reasonable grounds, you ought to be able to say what those are, and post an argument with some logical force.

Bodhisattva said:
I can't take this stupidity any more...
Click to expand...

It may be true that you can't take it any longer, but if it were true that all of the arguments that show white privilege exists are stupid, again, you ought to be able to employ logical argument to show that they're stupid.

Of course, in the end, you cannot do that...which is precisely why those of us who are reasonable accept that white privilege exists and try to do something about it.
 
blackjack50 said:
We get it. White people are bad. Vote democrat.
Click to expand...

Actually, if that's what you think, then no, you don't get it.

White privilege is based on implicit bias, and implicit bias is something that happens subconsciously. Black people themselves are shown to have implicit bias against black people, and to reinforce white privilege. That such bias is implicit means it is subconscious, and not something of which a person is usually aware. People who are sincerely not racist in their conscious beliefs may nevertheless reinforce white privilege. That does not make those people bad. It certainly doesn't mean that white people as a group are bad.

A person may become bad when, presented with sufficient evidence of white privilege, they then start throwing up every kind of absurd justification to deny reality, rather than do the more reasonable thing...which is not necessarily to vote Democrat. Rather, it is to recognize that this is something most of us probably do, and start trying to work to correct it in our personal day-to-day actions.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Actually, if that's what you think, then no, you don't get it.

White privilege is based on implicit bias, and implicit bias is something that happens subconsciously. Black people themselves are shown to have implicit bias against black people, and to reinforce white privilege. That such bias is implicit means it is subconscious, and not something of which a person is usually aware. People who are sincerely not racist in their conscious beliefs may nevertheless reinforce white privilege. That does not make those people bad. It certainly doesn't mean that white people as a group are bad.

A person may become bad when, presented with sufficient evidence of white privilege, they then start throwing up every kind of absurd justification to deny reality, rather than do the more reasonable thing...which is not necessarily to vote Democrat. Rather, it is to recognize that this is something most of us probably do, and start trying to work to correct it in our personal day-to-day actions.
Click to expand...

Understanding Implicit Bias

I understand the idea. My issue with it is that whole concept of "not being able access" this alleged bias. How can you have something you can't introspectively reach? I know the mind is complex, but the inability to even conceive of something you see...makes absolutely no sense.

So what is my snarky comment supposed to mean? That if EVERYONE has implicit bias...then what is the solution? Vote democrat? How has that worked out? Are we supposed to treat black people differently? Should this subset of American citizens NOT have to live up to the same standards as the rest? I mean Asian Americans generally kick the crap out of both whites and blacks in money/finances and education.

Are we supposed to acknowledge the superiority of whites in our society? That blacks just can't cope in this society? I don't buy that. Not even a little bit. I expect the same effort from all parties. So then the question is...aside from ensuring that race cannot be used to discriminate...what else can we do? At some point you have to recognize that the only "change" that truly needs to happen is from within.

It isn't the "white man's burden" to fix the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ashurbanipal said:
No it wasn't. I've posted my argument for why it wasn't. If you disagree on any reasonable grounds, you ought to be able to say what those are, and post an argument with some logical force.



It may be true that you can't take it any longer, but if it were true that all of the arguments that show white privilege exists are stupid, again, you ought to be able to employ logical argument to show that they're stupid.

Of course, in the end, you cannot do that...which is precisely why those of us who are reasonable accept that white privilege exists and try to do something about it.
Click to expand...

I actual did both quite a few times. That you missed them or failed to understand them is your problem. I also never said white privilege simply does not exist... I said privilege exists and it exists for all sub.groups. Those saying only white exists and others dont are racists.
 
ibelsd said:
Wow, aren't we full of ourselves? By the way, I've never written a book. However a can smell b.s. If you have shown a book on logic, anyone dumb enough to have paid for it should get a refund.

1. Tautolgy is a logic fallacy when used in argumentation. I described it poorly and gave a misleading example. However, if I claimed that either X or !X were true, this would be correct, but rhetorically meaningless, hence considered a logical fallacy. The point here is it is agreed that it is meaningless, however you wish to categorize it.

2. Ad populem is exactly as I described. If you wish to cite a source which contradicts this, please do. Otherwise you may concede this point.

3. Appeal to authority; see above.
Click to expand...

They are obviously the logical fallacies that have been described...

I debate him every few years and immediately regret it...
 
blackjack50 said:
Understanding Implicit Bias

I understand the idea. My issue with it is that whole concept of "not being able access" this alleged bias. How can you have something you can't introspectively reach? I know the mind is complex, but the inability to even conceive of something you see...makes absolutely no sense.

So what is my snarky comment supposed to mean? That if EVERYONE has implicit bias...then what is the solution? Vote democrat? How has that worked out? Are we supposed to treat black people differently? Should this subset of American citizens NOT have to live up to the same standards as the rest? I mean Asian Americans generally kick the crap out of both whites and blacks in money/finances and education.

Are we supposed to acknowledge the superiority of whites in our society? That blacks just can't cope in this society? I don't buy that. Not even a little bit. I expect the same effort from all parties. So then the question is...aside from ensuring that race cannot be used to discriminate...what else can we do? At some point you have to recognize that the only "change" that truly needs to happen is from within.

It isn't the "white man's burden" to fix the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What i dont get is their argument that blacks cant make it on their own. They demean blacks. It is horrible.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What i dont get is their argument that blacks cant make it on their own. They demean blacks. It is horrible.
Click to expand...

Well the argument isn't specifically that. I understand that there are racist out there. And that the system was racist as well. And that people need the advantage to overcome that initial lower tier.

But that's been done. Welfare exists. It isn't supposed to support you. It sucks. So don't be on it. The fact is...the system sucks if you are poor. You will have to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ashurbanipal said:
Deflection will get you nowhere. If you're correct about your claims, you ought to be able to provide evidence. In this case, logic is an academic subject. Show me something that meets academic standards that agrees with you, or admit you have no case. As it happens, I know you cannot do that, and must instead resort to insults (as you have already done) just to try to save face. I hate to tell you this (because I'm confident you won't listen), but that's always pretty transparent.



Nonsense. If someone's argument can be shown to contradict a tautology, that argument is flawed. Similarly, plenty of meaningful propositions follow from tautologies. (A v ~A) is obviously a tautology, but it's not obvious why it is a tautology. If what you're saying were true, we wouldn't ever be able to investigate tautologies.



Sure. See: Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Twelfth Edition, New York: Cengage Learning, pp 127-31.





Same book, pp 143-4. If you don't have ready access to this book, you can see the relevant sections using Amazon's "Look inside" feature.
Click to expand...

1) In argumentation, what is the purpose or usefulness of saying both A and !A is true? It is not important why it is a tautology. This isn't a forum on the academics of logic. In argumentation, it does not matter. What is important is that if my conclusion is based on a tautology, then it is based on a logical fallacy and my conclusion does not follow. Period. Whether I am or right or wrong, I am still the winner... No?

2) I am not going to engage in link warz here. If you have a quote from your books that contradict something I said, then share it. That is how debate forums work. The quote you provided from the first link does not contradict my definition. In fact, it appears to support it.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
They are obviously the logical fallacies that have been described...

I debate him every few years and immediately regret it...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean he has some substance when discussing tautology where he is not 100% wrong, but he is obviously not totally correct either. However, in regards to the other two fallacies... geez. If he really wrote a book on this subject, then it has just got to be a hot mess. I couldn't even imagine being in this dude's class, assuming he's a professor. It'd be like taking a class where the teacher insists 1 + 1 = 3.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I actual did both quite a few times. That you missed them or failed to understand them is your problem.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I understand your arguments, but I disagree with your reasoning, and I've said why. You've basically just been saying the same stuff over and over, as if I hadn't said anything at all.

Bodhisattva said:
I also never said white privilege simply does not exist...
Click to expand...

Did I ever say you did?

Bodhisattva said:
I said privilege exists and it exists for all sub.groups. Those saying only white exists and others dont are racists.
Click to expand...

I doubt people who think white privilege exists would say that racial minorities entirely lack privilege. The point would be that privilege is unfairly distributed across society based on racial lines. Analogy:

Suppose you and I agree to do a job and split the compensation evenly. But at the end of the job, I kept 90% and gave you 10%. You object, saying my taking that much is unfair. I respond: but you're getting money too! That would hardly be a good response. Similarly, just because everyone has some privilege, doesn't mean one group of folks doesn't have more. The apparent reasons white people have more privilege are also obviously unfair.

Bodhisattva said:
I debate him every few years and immediately regret it...
Click to expand...

I'm sure you didn't mean that as the compliment it obviously could be...if you regret debating me, perhaps it's because you just don't have answers to the issues I bring up. Or perhaps you just "don't want to go there," which is just laziness on your part. Whatever the case, the pattern (as shown in this thread) is that you make a claim, I make a counter claim, you make basically your original claim again, I try to explain why I think your original claim is bad in a different way, and then you say something like "well, if you don't get it, that's your problem." The fact is, if you actually had built your case carefully, you'd have a substantive response to whatever I could bring up. But you clearly don't, and so you and one or two others have to resort to vague insults. That happens when you run out of substantive replies.
 
Last edited:
ibelsd said:
1) In argumentation, what is the purpose or usefulness of saying both A and !A is true?
Click to expand...

No usefulness unless you're into paraconsistent logic.

ibelsd said:
It is not important why it is a tautology.
Click to expand...

No. (A & ~A) is not a tautology. (A v ~A) is a tautology. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Here, try thinking about it this way: tautologies are propositions that are true in every possible world. In that sense, they're kind-of like the bedrock of reasoning. That makes them less informative than propositions that can be true or false, but logic is not really concerned with how informative a proposition is. If an argument is valid, and the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. Such an argument is a sound argument. Tautologies are always true (that's a consequence of their definition), and you can reason validly from them. For example, I can conclude ~(A & ~A) from (A v ~A). That would be a sound argument, and it tells us something about the relationship between "and" and "or".

ibelsd said:
This isn't a forum on the academics of logic.
Click to expand...

Sure, but logic is a tool--it tells us whether we are reasoning correctly, or not. Banish it from any part of your life that affects whether you're able to make a living or not at your own peril. Politics is certainly one such area--of course we should employ logic in reasoning about how political power is to be directed. To do that, it seems pretty clear we have to understand logic.

ibelsd said:
In argumentation, it does not matter. What is important is that if my conclusion is based on a tautology, then it is based on a logical fallacy and my conclusion does not follow. Period.
Click to expand...

No. Your claim is false. Tautologies are all true. You can use them in any argument you want, and as long as your reasoning from them is valid and any other premises you employ are true, your argument is sound, and your conclusion guaranteed to be true.

You can confirm what I say in practically any textbook of formal logic you can find.

ibelsd said:
Whether I am or right or wrong, I am still the winner... No?
Click to expand...

No. Obviously not.

ibelsd said:
I am not going to engage in link warz here. If you have a quote from your books that contradict something I said, then share it.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to type out two or more pages of text that you can easily go read yourself. That's a ridiculous demand.

ibelsd said:
That is how debate forums work.
Click to expand...

Whoever told you they were appointing you as Protocol Chief of debate forums didn't have the authority to do so.

ibelsd said:
The quote you provided from the first link does not contradict my definition. In fact, it appears to support it.
Click to expand...

I never said it contradicts your definition. However, if you think that saying something like "there is consensus in sociology that majority privilege is a real effect" is an example of ad populum, you don't understand the ad populum fallacy.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
No usefulness unless you're into paraconsistent logic.



No. (A & ~A) is not a tautology. (A v ~A) is a tautology. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Here, try thinking about it this way: tautologies are propositions that are true in every possible world. In that sense, they're kind-of like the bedrock of reasoning. That makes them less informative than propositions that can be true or false, but logic is not really concerned with how informative a proposition is. If an argument is valid, and the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. Such an argument is a sound argument. Tautologies are always true (that's a consequence of their definition), and you can reason validly from them. For example, I can conclude ~(A & ~A) from (A v ~A). That would be a sound argument, and it tells us something about the relationship between "and" and "or".



Sure, but logic is a tool--it tells us whether we are reasoning correctly, or not. Banish it from any part of your life that affects whether you're able to make a living or not at your own peril. Politics is certainly one such area--of course we should employ logic in reasoning about how political power is to be directed. To do that, it seems pretty clear we have to understand logic.



No. Your claim is false. Tautologies are all true. You can use them in any argument you want, and as long as your reasoning from them is valid and any other premises you employ are true, your argument is sound, and your conclusion guaranteed to be true.

You can confirm what I say in practically any textbook of formal logic you can find.



No. Obviously not.



I'm not going to type out two or more pages of text that you can easily go read yourself. That's a ridiculous demand.



Whoever told you they were appointing you as Protocol Chief of debate forums didn't have the authority to do so.



I never said it contradicts your definition. However, if you think that saying something like "there is consensus in sociology that majority privilege is a real effect" is an example of ad populum, you don't understand the ad populum fallacy.
Click to expand...

As I noted, in argumentation, we are focused on the ability to express a conclusion supported by premises. Using a tautology to defend a conclusion is a logical fallacy. As you noted in answering my question, whether my point is true or is false, then I win. Obviously, you cannot disprove my conclusion with those premises since, even showing my premise is false leads to a positive conclusion.

I am not the Protocol in Chief, but I am aware of forum etiquette. Certainly you could provide a link to the appropriate text and supply a quote or two which is specific to your claim. I could cite all sorts of information from books I've read on other topics. Should I expect that everyone has read every book I've read? You are being a bit absurd.

Finally, your claim was that my definition of ad populum was wrong (as well as my definition for appeal to authority). So, if you are now backtracking on this, then I accept your concession. We can move forward.

Understand, my argument about your claim was two-fold. First, I argued that your appeal to a consensus in sociology was unfounded. You still have not even begun to address this rebuttal. Second, I noted it was an appeal to popularity. I explained why, even if such a consensus existed, that your argument was based on this logical fallacy. In science, arguing that something is true because there is a supposed consensus is meaningless. At one time, there was a scientific consensus that the earth was flat, that the sun rotated around the earth, and that black people were mentally inferior to white people. Consensus does not make your claim stronger. If there is any sociologist who disagrees with the premise of white privilege, then we are forced to contend with the question of why. Simply noting that most sociologists believe X does not make X true. I do not misunderstand the fallacy. Rather, you have attempted to create a straw man by reducing my argument and ignoring the actual premises I've laid out.
 
ibelsd said:
As I noted, in argumentation, we are focused on the ability to express a conclusion supported by premises.
Click to expand...

Not exactly how I'd phrase it, but OK.

ibelsd said:
Using a tautology to defend a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Nope.

ibelsd said:
As you noted in answering my question, whether my point is true or is false, then I win.
Click to expand...

I wrote no such thing.

ibelsd said:
Obviously, I cannot defend my conclusion with those premises since, even showing my premise is false leads to a positive conclusion.
Click to expand...

Tautologies are always true. You cannot show a tautology is false, because then it would not be a tautology. I get the sense you're confusing truth and validity. Look:

1. Truth is a property of propositions (or if you prefer, statements). Propositions can be either true or false. No one knows exactly what it means for a proposition to be true. There are lots of theories, but no consensus about which is correct. Whatever the case, human beings are apparently capable of telling whether a proposition is true or not most of the time. Truth has two values in classical logics, true and false.

2. Validity is a property of arguments. An argument consists of at least two propositions, at least one of which is a premise and at least one of which is a conclusion, such that the conclusion is putatively true because the premises are true. An argument is valid if and only if the premises plus the negated conclusion form an inconsistent set. If the premises of a valid argument are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

An argument whose premises are all true, and whose form is valid, is a sound argument. It is, of course, possible for an argument to be valid but one or more of the premises false, and contrariwise, for an argument to have all true premises but lack validity. Anyway, thinking about these points, it's easy to see why using a tautology in an argument is no fallacy, since tautologies are always true. Now, someone might reason from them incorrectly--but in that case, it's the incorrect reasoning that is the fallacy, not the use of a tautology.

ibelsd said:
I am not the Protocol in Chief, but I am aware of forum etiquette. Certainly you could provide a link to the appropriate text and supply a quote or two which is specific to your claim.
Click to expand...

In this case, other than typing out a few pages of text (which I will not do), no I cannot. The book in question is a good introduction to logic (and no, it's not the one I wrote). You can't link to the page of the Amazon "look inside" feature, so I gave you what I could.

Pages on the internet that discuss fallacies are all flawed that I've ever seen. They do not give a reader a good understanding of fallacies, and often claim some kind of argument is a fallacy when such is not the case. If you want to actually learn logic, there's no substitute for good, old-fashioned books.

That said, I've also posted arguments about why I'm describing the fallacies correctly, and can continue to do so. I'm not relying on authority or merely making proclamations. I've been giving reasons for

ibelsd said:
I could cite all sorts of information from bank I've read on other topics. Should I expect that everyone has read every book I've read?
Click to expand...

Obviously not, but if your interlocutor takes the debate seriously, you can expect her to make a reasonable effort to read a book you cite--especially if that can be done through the Amazon look inside feature.

ibelsd said:
Finally, your claim was that my definition of ad populum was wrong (as well as my definition for appeal to authority). So, if you are now backtracking on this, then I accept your concession. We can move forward.
Click to expand...

I never claimed your definition of ad populum was wrong. I think you're applying it incorrectly. No concession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom