![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How do you speak effectively at rallies?
To effectively speak at rallies you have to be able to relate to your audience, give rational arguments, and non logical ones to appeal to their emotions because emotions aren't always logical.
What is a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is a statement that's logic is undermined by some failure in reasoning.
The animal experiments case was a fallacy, why?
It was an ad hominem attack because it insinuated that the whole study was wrong and should be dismissed because it might have had poor experiment design. The entire experiment should not have been dismissed for that reason.
Joshua Nash's Nobel Prize, logical fallacy?
Yes, just because he has schizophrenia doesn't invalidate his work.
Amy Winehouse 27 Club, logical fallacy?
Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.
Jimi Hendrix 27 Club, logical fallacy?
Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.
Irving's Project Idea, logical fallacy?
Yes, the degree of someone's coolness doesn't determine the quality of one's idea.
Parent smoking, logical fallacy?
Yes there's a logical fallacy there. Just because someone asserts something they don't practice doesn't mean that what they're asserting can't be true.
Al Gore's house, argument against global warming?
No, it's not an argument against global warming. Just because Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't mean that his assertions that global warming is real are false.
Al Gore's house, argument against reducing CO2 output?
No, it's not an argument against reducing CO2 output, the fact that Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't negate the need for CO2 reduction.
Scenario 1a, logically okay or logical fallacy?
Logically okay, someone being paid to defend or argue against someone should be viewed with some skepticism, it could mean that they are giving false arguments but it's not okay to dismiss them entirely.
Scenario 1a pt. 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?
Logical fallacy, dismissing someone's argument entirely because they're being paid to do a job is an ad hominem attack. Being paid to defend someone doesn't make their argument entirely dismissable.
Scenario 1b, logically okay or logical fallacy?
pt.1 is logically okay for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.1, it's okay to argue that someone's argument should be viewed with healthy skepticism as money is a motivator to not tell the complete truth.
pt.2 is a logical fallacy for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.2, it's not fair to dismiss someone's argument entirely due to them being paid to do a job.
Scenario 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?
Pt.1: Logically okay, it is understandable to view someone's defense of a company they got paid by with skepticism.
Pt.2: This is a logical fallacy because they're asserting that their defense of the company is entirely false due to them getting paid by the company.
Is using an ad hominem attack in your argument ethical?
No, it's not ethical because your argument is not based in logic and reason. If there is not a way to make your argument without an ad hominem attack then is it a fair argument?
Women giving opinion on football/sports, logical flaw?
The logical flaw is determining the woman's opinion as false simply because she is a woman.
Is it ethical?
No, saying that a woman's opinion is invalid simply because of gender is not logical. One's gender does not determine the validity of their opinions.
Ad feminam, scenario 1:
Yes this is a logical fallacy. Arguing that a woman's opinion is wrong about football because she doesn't know football is an invalid argument. Just because someone doesn't know everything about a subject doesn't mean that they can't have insight into it.
Ad feminam, scenario 2:
No, this is logically okay. If someone doesn't know anything about a subject then it is logically okay to determine that their idea could be false.
Ad feminam, scenario 3:
This is a logical fallacy, someone's experience in the sport no matter how vast does not instantly determine that their argument is right or wrong.
Ad feminam, scenario 4:
This is a logically okay argument. Having experience in a field does give your argument more weight.
PR Spin, to the man?
Yes this is an ad hominem attack.
Is it logically fallacious?
Yes it is. Just because he's paid to say something doesn't mean that everything he says is false.
Does the adversarial approach affect believability of an argument?
Yes it does. It incentivizes politicians to argue what their side believes regardless of fact.
Can you think of a better method?
Yes, if people were to honestly argue their ideals regardless of what they think people will vote for then it would lead to more rational arguments.
We should not reduce troops, logical fallacy?
Iran wanting us to reduce troops does not mean that we should or should not do it.
So your argument is traitorous, logical fallacy?
Yes this is a logical fallacy. Just because you want to or don't want to reduce troops does not mean that you're a traitor. There are many reasons to want both options.
So your argument is wrong, logical fallacy?
Yes this is a logical fallacy. What Iran wants us to do does not determine what we should do.
To effectively speak at rallies you have to be able to relate to your audience, give rational arguments, and non logical ones to appeal to their emotions because emotions aren't always logical.
What is a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is a statement that's logic is undermined by some failure in reasoning.
The animal experiments case was a fallacy, why?
It was an ad hominem attack because it insinuated that the whole study was wrong and should be dismissed because it might have had poor experiment design. The entire experiment should not have been dismissed for that reason.
Joshua Nash's Nobel Prize, logical fallacy?
Yes, just because he has schizophrenia doesn't invalidate his work.
Amy Winehouse 27 Club, logical fallacy?
Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.
Jimi Hendrix 27 Club, logical fallacy?
Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.
Irving's Project Idea, logical fallacy?
Yes, the degree of someone's coolness doesn't determine the quality of one's idea.
Parent smoking, logical fallacy?
Yes there's a logical fallacy there. Just because someone asserts something they don't practice doesn't mean that what they're asserting can't be true.
Al Gore's house, argument against global warming?
No, it's not an argument against global warming. Just because Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't mean that his assertions that global warming is real are false.
Al Gore's house, argument against reducing CO2 output?
No, it's not an argument against reducing CO2 output, the fact that Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't negate the need for CO2 reduction.
Scenario 1a, logically okay or logical fallacy?
Logically okay, someone being paid to defend or argue against someone should be viewed with some skepticism, it could mean that they are giving false arguments but it's not okay to dismiss them entirely.
Scenario 1a pt. 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?
Logical fallacy, dismissing someone's argument entirely because they're being paid to do a job is an ad hominem attack. Being paid to defend someone doesn't make their argument entirely dismissable.
Scenario 1b, logically okay or logical fallacy?
pt.1 is logically okay for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.1, it's okay to argue that someone's argument should be viewed with healthy skepticism as money is a motivator to not tell the complete truth.
pt.2 is a logical fallacy for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.2, it's not fair to dismiss someone's argument entirely due to them being paid to do a job.
Scenario 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?
Pt.1: Logically okay, it is understandable to view someone's defense of a company they got paid by with skepticism.
Pt.2: This is a logical fallacy because they're asserting that their defense of the company is entirely false due to them getting paid by the company.
Is using an ad hominem attack in your argument ethical?
No, it's not ethical because your argument is not based in logic and reason. If there is not a way to make your argument without an ad hominem attack then is it a fair argument?
Women giving opinion on football/sports, logical flaw?
The logical flaw is determining the woman's opinion as false simply because she is a woman.
Is it ethical?
No, saying that a woman's opinion is invalid simply because of gender is not logical. One's gender does not determine the validity of their opinions.
Ad feminam, scenario 1:
Yes this is a logical fallacy. Arguing that a woman's opinion is wrong about football because she doesn't know football is an invalid argument. Just because someone doesn't know everything about a subject doesn't mean that they can't have insight into it.
Ad feminam, scenario 2:
No, this is logically okay. If someone doesn't know anything about a subject then it is logically okay to determine that their idea could be false.
Ad feminam, scenario 3:
This is a logical fallacy, someone's experience in the sport no matter how vast does not instantly determine that their argument is right or wrong.
Ad feminam, scenario 4:
This is a logically okay argument. Having experience in a field does give your argument more weight.
PR Spin, to the man?
Yes this is an ad hominem attack.
Is it logically fallacious?
Yes it is. Just because he's paid to say something doesn't mean that everything he says is false.
Does the adversarial approach affect believability of an argument?
Yes it does. It incentivizes politicians to argue what their side believes regardless of fact.
Can you think of a better method?
Yes, if people were to honestly argue their ideals regardless of what they think people will vote for then it would lead to more rational arguments.
We should not reduce troops, logical fallacy?
Iran wanting us to reduce troops does not mean that we should or should not do it.
So your argument is traitorous, logical fallacy?
Yes this is a logical fallacy. Just because you want to or don't want to reduce troops does not mean that you're a traitor. There are many reasons to want both options.
So your argument is wrong, logical fallacy?
Yes this is a logical fallacy. What Iran wants us to do does not determine what we should do.
