The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for compromise on same-sex marriage > Comments

Time for compromise on same-sex marriage : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 22/6/2017

The lull in the debate over recognition of same-sex marriage provides a valuable opportunity to consider the ‘end game’ to this long-running controversy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
oh-oh, AJP is back on his fallacy train.

This is where you assert that someone is wrong because, in the seemingly unending list of 'fallcies' one such can be made to fit the argument made.

eg he writes:

"2. Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition "

ie..you raised tradition -> there's an 'Appeal to tradition' fallacy -> therefore you're wrong. No argument or reasoning, it seems, is required.

You know, there's such a things as the Fallacy Fallacy - the fallacious use of the fallacy meme. AJ commits this fallcy as a matter of coarse.
_____________________________________________

We aren't going to get a plebiscite because the powers that be are too afraid that the deplorables might not vote the way their betters dictate. So next election, or the one after that or the one after that, we'll get a left wing government,(or should I say a more left wing government) and parliament will give effect to what the homosexual community wants.

Sticking fingers in the dyke :) sometimes works, but not this time. Once the change is made, whole careers and libraries of books will be made telling us how the assault on marriage didn't really have deleterious effects the same way as we are told that previous assaults on marriage (single parents payments, no fault divorce) didn't have, we are told, deleterious effects on society
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 22 June 2017 2:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You’ve got that right, mhaze.

<<oh-oh, AJP is back on his fallacy train.>>

And why “Uh oh”, too? You make it sound like it’s something to be ashamed of. But, as you learned the hard way a few weeks ago (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238221), understanding the common fallacies is a useful tool in critical thinking.

There’s a really easy way to avoid having me get on “my” fallacy train (How is it mine, by the way?), though, and that is to not commit the fallacies in the first place. But, for so long as people do, I will continue to point them out.

<<This is where you assert that someone is wrong because, in the seemingly unending list of 'fallcies' one such can be made to fit the argument made.>>

No, it’s where I DEMONSTRATE that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed. That person may still accidentally be right, but they haven’t yet demonstrated that they are until they can present sound reasoning for their argument.

<<ie..you raised tradition -> there's an 'Appeal to tradition' fallacy -> therefore you're wrong. No argument or reasoning, it seems, is required.>>

No, that’s not it at all. I only point out the fallacy (in this case, the Appeal to Tradition) when an argument relies on tradition alone as the entire reasoning for the position. The link should have highlighted that. Obviously, you never clicked it.

<<You know, there's such a things as the Fallacy Fallacy - the fallacious use of the fallacy meme.>>

Yes, I’m aware of that.

To be precise, it is the assumption that a conclusion is necessarily wrong simply because it was arrived at through fallacious reasoning. Which is why I never assert that someone is necessarily wrong because they have committed a fallacy. I only point out fallacies to demonstrate that a position has not yet been rationally supported.

<<AJ commits this fallcy as a matter of coarse.>>

Do you have an example of that?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 22 June 2017 6:21:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the bigoted violent regressives shouting threats at 70 year old Margaret Court in Melbourne today. What pathetic cowards they are who hate free speech.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 22 June 2017 7:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is the author looking for a job on the public payroll?

He is asking for yet more clerks working on yet more forms, sucking more of our tax money.

Government should have nothing to do with marriage and all references to 'marriage' and its grammatical derivatives must be kicked out from all legislation.

Marriage is a personal matter and so it should stay. Let every one interpret what it means for themselves.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 June 2017 10:38:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ

"No, it’s where I DEMONSTRATE that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed. "

Well that might be what you think you do. But in regards to the example I mentioned you're entire point was that there was a fallacy that was about tradition. That's it. No attempts to define or discuss why tradition might not be a valid argument.

Now I can see why you'd want to avoid such a discussion given how badly you handled that point last time around and how foolish you came across. But just linking to the fallacy bible as your sole argument doesn't cut it. Perhaps to avoid further embarrassment, whenever you see someone mention tradition as a reason to question SSM you ought to look the other way and walk away from the keyboard...you know for your own self-esteem,

"But, as you learned the hard way a few weeks ago..."

I must say I'm in awe of your chutzpah here. I've seen you often assert that your merely asserting something is the equivilent of proving it. Such high self-worth. Perhaps that's why you can't bring yourself to admit or even acknowledge error.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 23 June 2017 11:52:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not quite, mhaze.

<<… in regards to the example I mentioned you're entire point was that there was a fallacy that was about tradition.>>

My point was that the argument the author presented fallaciously appeals to tradition because it doesn’t explain why tradition is important in this instance.

<<No attempts to define or discuss why tradition might not be a valid argument.>>

The link explained that.

<<Now I can see why you'd want to avoid such a discussion …>>

You haven’t yet provided an example of me ever avoiding discussion.

<<… given how badly you handled that point last time around and how foolish you came across.>>

Really? Do tell. Again, you’re rather lacking in the quotes and links department.

You wouldn’t be talking about the time you fallaciously appealed to authority and tradition, would you?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734&page=0#238221

Who knows? You seem to prefer to keep these things a mystery.

<<But just linking to the fallacy bible as your sole argument doesn't cut it.>>

Why not? Do you need me to explain it to you like a child? It’s really quite simple:

If someone claims that tradition is a reason to not legislate for same-sex marriage, without explaining why tradition is important in that instance, then they have fallaciously appealed to tradition, as tradition on its own is not a reason. The link I provided explains this and expands on why.

<<I've seen you often assert that your merely asserting something is the equivilent of proving it.>>

Really? Do you have an example of this? Feel free to disprove my claims in this instance if you think this is the case. I use such language and tone to goad others into challenging my claims. You should take up the challenge sometime, instead of your usual assertions and slander.

<<Perhaps that's why you can't bring yourself to admit or even acknowledge error.>>

Really, now? Again, with no examples.

Speaking of examples, how’s finding an example of me committing the Fallacy fallacy going? Surely it shouldn’t be too hard to find one since I supposedly commit this fallacy “as a matter of coarse.”
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 23 June 2017 1:43:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy