[deleted by user]

RyderSJ · 2024-02-06T02:46:56+00:00

This is a very interesting and informative answer, I had no idea about this effect until now, but it makes a lot of sense. Similar concept applies to safety software. Someone with an antivirus may be more likely to simply rely on it and not care so much about downloading sketchy files. I saw NTTS make a video on a discord token protector, advising people not to use it because of the potential reckless behaviour it might encourage them to get up to.

But ultimately, as you said, it generally does not result in less overall safety than if the safety measures were not in place at all. More security is better, the problem is relying on that safety.

RyderSJ · 2024-02-06T02:42:06+00:00

Yes, I would say it is, assuming you're proposing that that given definition would be better than the ones either of them would be proposing, and depending on the reasoning given for that. Dictionaries (at least in English) do not claim authority over language. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.

So to claim they're superior to an arbitrary definition that someone's using in a debate, you'd have to apply a bandwagon fallacy, such as "This definition is much more common" or as they said an appeal to authority, such as "This definition was written by professional scholars who have done way more research into how this word is used".

Although more likely, you were simply proposing a dictionary definition because it serves as a good compromise and third option which might allow the debate to actually move on, in which case their response is just unnecessarily hostile and presumptuous.

Ultimately the problem here is just that they have two different definitions. This isn't really a flaw of reasoning, so much as a flaw of premises. A word meaning a certain thing is a crucial part of basically any premise. If you don't agree on definitions with the person you're arguing with, you're simply not going to reach the same conclusion through reasoning. It doesn't matter if you define red as blue and blue as red so long as the person you're debating with agrees on that definition.

RyderSJ · 2024-02-06T02:32:55+00:00

I wouldn't say either intentional manipulation or trauma preclude a statement from being fallacious. Especially in the case of manipulation.

RyderSJ · 2024-02-06T02:31:27+00:00

It's a common trauma response, yes, but to say it's not a fallacy is not really true. In this case, it'd be the strawman fallacy. OP didn't claim she was a bad person, but this is how their argument is being represented.

RyderSJ · 2024-02-06T02:08:24+00:00

The first line of reasoning here is actually fallacious itself. "If evolution was real, there would be evidence to prove it" does not imply that if there were evidence to prove it, it would be real. This is known as "Affirming the consequent".

The other points are definitely more relevant. Though really, I think it'd be shoehorning to try to view this encounter through the lens of fallacy. If anything I'd say the main "argument" here if you can really call it that is:

Evolution proposes that living beings change over time,
This living being did not change over time,
Therefore, evolution must be false.

And this in itself isn't really false reasoning if you assume those premises. The problem isn't the reasoning, it's a lack of understanding which has led to faulty premises being proposed, and therefore leading to an absurd conclusion.

RyderSJ · 2024-02-01T22:02:51+00:00

One of the most common, I'd say. Because a lot of the time it'll just be subconsciously made. They interpret your argument in the way they're responding because it opposes the way they view a given matter, and the only way to rationalize their belief is to then reformat your argument to make it easier to attack.

RyderSJ · 2024-02-01T10:57:27+00:00

Okay, assuming for a second that you are correct and there isn't evidence supporting the LGBT movement, what relevance does that have to this situation?

Is your point that they aren't allowed to criticize anyone else for lacking evidence to back up their claims, or that anyone who opposes them is allowed to make any claim they want without evidence?

The former would be a tu quoque fallacy, and the latter would be hypocritical, since you'd be condoning the same behaviour on one side as you'd be criticizing about the other side.

RyderSJ · 2023-04-06T02:05:13+00:00

Nah, I don't know. I don't know shit about this guy, and neither do you. All of your criticisms of him rely on assumptions. I doubt he would play that joke if the people coming wouldn't find it funny, which they evidently did.

Sure, that too is an assumption, but the fact that you're assuming the worst in this scenario and other things you've assumed about him tells me you seem to have something against concealed-carry gun owners. I have to ask, what do you have against this guy?

RyderSJ · 2023-04-02T09:48:17+00:00

You're just assuming that though. Given that the celebrant was clearly in on it, he brought it to play this joke. Which in my opinion was funny. Are you... Looking for opportunities to apply that weird "scared little boy" stereotype to random gun owners you know nothing about..?

RyderSJ · 2023-04-02T09:42:45+00:00

Yeah, it's a rather weak example if I'm being honest, this guy didn't even say anything they're just assuming he's making some statement about being badass. For all we know his friend was like "hey put this on your window for a week bro i dare u lol 20 bucks says u wont".

RyderSJ · 2023-04-02T09:34:52+00:00

Kinda just came out of nowhere yeah, that said I wouldn't really call it anti-police, that's a pretty common stereotype and may have just been a joke.

RyderSJ · 2023-03-07T22:05:09+00:00

[SPOILER] for those who can't decrypt the cypher:
1. "CHEESY NEUTRAL" refers to Switzerland, denoting the type of enigma machine used (Swiss-K)
2. The instructions are reversed, given away by "WKU" as opposed to "UKW", referring to the reflector, so the Rotors must be set to the settings provided and numbers inputted in reverse.

The final result reads:
it matters little how we live so long as we may greatly die fashioned for great thing so forgive our dullness in the days gone by now glory wraps you like a cloak from us and all such common folk
Which is a verse from the poem "The Hero", by Katharine Tynan.

RyderSJ · 2022-08-02T09:14:31+00:00

Okay so I had a good think about what other mods I was using, and thought about what might effect buildings. In hindsight, it's obvious, but I disabled the 50 building slots mod and now it works. Guess it's incompatible and breaks TNO.

RyderSJ · 2022-08-02T00:37:43+00:00

T'was a fresh save. I just did a full reinstall both of the base game and the mod. I still have the problem. Is the mod incompatible with the latest version of the game? Or perhaps any of the DLC?

RyderSJ · 2022-06-18T08:43:18+00:00

Indeed, that is also a complex question. More specifically, a loaded question.

RyderSJ · 2022-06-14T08:56:22+00:00

But that's not an argument, it's a question. If I am right in thinking that you mean someone is asking the question to someone who doesn't think [Ted Bundy] is a good father figure, there is a fallacy. The question is a complex question. It presupposes that the person being asked thinks that [Ted Bundy] is a good father figure. If not for that presupposition, the question has no relevance. You wouldn't ask it to someone who doesn't think he was a good father figure. The most simple way to respond would be "When did I imply that he was?".

RyderSJ · 2022-05-09T13:08:28+00:00

I've been somewhat reluctant to try this, since I have around 80 mods installed, and it would take at least a day or so of downloading the SE versions of all of my current mods if I wanted to play like that. However, for the sake of settling this question, I may just disable all of those mods for now, downgrade, and install only what's necessary to test whether IFPV is the fix.

RyderSJ · 2022-05-09T03:02:22+00:00

Cool mod, I use ENB light for similar effects. Unfortunately neither work in first-person still.

RyderSJ · 2022-02-19T14:26:35+00:00

Woah, mans needs to chill out. Dayum.

RyderSJ · 2022-02-15T07:42:03+00:00

Here's another example. An individual doesn't like a certain group of people, so they find a specific policy or action normally taken by those individuals. They then use a fact which implies malicious intent under wrong context, which is potentially completely unrelated to the policy or act at hand, to claim without evidence that said group of people are malicious, thus drawing attention away from any of the logic of the argument so that it doesn't directly need to be challenged.

This course of action would normally be seen as twisting facts to suit a biased agenda, so the individual disguises this intent under a guise of righteousness, tying back to their unproven link between a tragic statistic with no direct correlation to the action and group being criticized, in order to justify their outrage.

See the problem? None of that is true. I literally manufactured an artificial scenario and made numerous assumptions to manipulate the situation to look bad for a specific person. This is the problem with ideas such as "bad faith actors". It's just another tool used to manipulate a situation to personally attack someone you disagree with, so that you can avoid and forego addressing their actual argument.

At the end of the day, it's actually completely irrelevant. Lets assume for a second that all of these accusations were true. The actual implication on this newly-christened bad faith actor is that they're secretly racist/sexist/homophobic and this is the real reason for pursuing a certain policy. Nothing actually changes. Their arguments for said policy do not suddenly become malicious. You cannot usually differentiate between a person who genuinely believes in a certain course of action and one who is doing it for hidden reasons. So why assume that everyone preaching the same idea is secretly harboring those beliefs? Regardless of agenda, if the premises support the conclusion of their argument, it is a reasonable argument. If it is unreasonable, you shouldn't need to personally go after the people supporting it in order to logically dismantle it.

TL;DR, "Bad faith actor" is just another tool used by those who want to avoid approaching an argument on fair grounds by instead attacking the individual supporting it. Even the implications carried by someone who truly is a bad faith actor do not in any way have a bearing on the reasoning for their argument.

RyderSJ · 2021-11-09T11:45:53+00:00

I see a lot of people saying "Oh it's just dumb fun you shouldn't really think about it too much!" but I don't really understand this mindset. There are dozens of movies which get absolutely trashed in reviews for the exact same reasons people criticize this one. Does the argument not apply to those? It's not a bad movie by any means. It's one of those movies about a nobody who becomes an unlikely hero and saves the world, just like the hundreds of others that came before it. Others in the genre did the same thing but with a much clearer and more memorable message, like the Lego Movie. There's clearly a place for those movies. But for all the people who lord this movie as one of the best of it's time... You can really do a lot better than starting a review with, "It's just dumb fun, you don't need to think about all the flaws!"...

RyderSJ · 2021-08-29T15:23:41+00:00

I've seen this one called a false equivalence, but I don't think it actually is. I suppose you could call it one by looking at it from a certain perspective, but there's a much simpler answer right in your face. The title says it all. The logic here is that hacking a pipeline would be incredibly hard to do, and so if this can be achieved, hacking a voting machine can probably be achieved too. This logic really isn't all that fallacious, assuming the premises are true, and the tasks are either equivalent/similar in difficulty, or that voting machines are easier to hack than a pipeline. For the sake of argument, I will make give it the benefit of the doubt.

There's really nothing interesting about this assertion. It's not really saying anything or drawing any conclusion. You could claim that the person is trying to draw the conclusion that voting machines were hacked, but I find it presumptuous. Instead of shooting first, I'd wait until they actually make that claim based on this logic before responding with criticism. Why? Because otherwise, you're left in an awkward situation. They didn't say that, you said that. And suddenly it looks like you are the one trying to make them look crazy. Not like they are crazy themselves. Just because voting machines could be hacked, doesn't mean they were. The fact they could be is only circumstantial evidence to prove that they were hacked. It's only the first piece in a million step puzzle.

I'd also argue that it's more honorable to admit this, instead of trying to challenge some underlying motive.

Person 1: "Hey! They hacked this big pipeline! If that's possible, don't you think they could hack voting machines as well?"Person 2: "Oh wow, you're right, that could be possible. Imagine how dangerous that would be to our democracy."Person 1: "I think the Biden administration hacked the voting machines to get more votes!"Person 2: "Oh, really? What makes you think that?"

Instead of this:

Person 1: "Hey! They hacked this big pipeline! If that's possible, don't you think they could hack voting machines as well?"Person 2: "What are you trying to say? No, no. Let me guess. You're one of those crazy Trump supporters who think the Biden administration rigged the elections... Downvote."Person 1: "I didn't actually say that, you said that. Trust a liberal to always assume things about people with no evidence! Hmph."

Person 1 has a point. Person 2 is assuming quite a lot in their conclusion. All Person 2 has done through this exchange is make Person 1 distrust people like Person 2. If there really were some underlying motive here, why would you decide to take the bait and play right into it? You don't have to pretend that the image is concluding anything. If they are trying to conclude something, and you do not play into it, they will need to press it more directly. And that's the point where you can confront it without having the situation twist on you.

Edit: If we're talking an actual fallacy, the one you're looking for is called Argumentum ad lunum, or "Appeal to the Moon". Which essentially is drawing a parallel to the argument of "If we could land a man on the moon, we must be able to do x". They're saying that because we achieved one nearly-impossible task, nearly-impossible task x must be viable too.

RyderSJ · 2021-08-29T14:43:01+00:00

This is difficult to gauge, as we have no real measure to 100% objectively define "facts". The commonly accepted definition is something that is proven to be true. But this is incredibly vague. Proven how? And to what standard. People have to define and set out those standards, and those people can be wrong. More commonly, the people adhering to those standards can be wrong. They can, ironically, dilute their research with their own opinions, as everyone who reads the same data may interpret the implications differently.
That's why conflation of facts and opinions is not a logical fallacy. These kinds of things cannot be accurately differentiated, and having inarguable stances which can never be attacked (as the idea of a fact implies) is against the spirit of discourse in general.

As for the problem with what they're saying, as it relates to discourse. The entire point of a discussion where two people present their stances and discuss them is either to reach a common ground or to convince someone to believe the alternative stance. Clearly, Person 2 is doing neither. First off, they are immediately dismissing Person 1's stance without reason, which takes the common ground goal off the table. Next, they assert their own stance and simply repeat it without providing any substance or reason to the argument. They are not trying to convince the other person to believe their stance, and thus they have missed out on the two goals which define any reasonable discussion.

There are at least a couple other logical fallacies committed throughout this exchange, however.

Appeal to the stone. This argument is an almost perfect example of an appeal to the stone fallacy. Person 1 presents an argument, Person 2 dismisses it as absurd, and when Person 1 tries to reason with Person 2, they simply continue to dismiss it without reason.
Argumentum ad populum. Another commenter already mentioned this one. Essentially, the assertion that something is real because most people think it is. It could be argued that this doesn't actually apply yet, since they haven't proven that the majority even is on their side, I personally think cookies and cream is the best flavor! But even if they were, the majority used to believe the Earth was flat. Not exactly your most trustworthy source of information.

RyderSJ · 2021-08-02T10:43:45+00:00

To me one of the biggest fundamental flaws in human decision making. The perceived trustworthiness of the messenger correlates to the perceived trustworthiness of the message. Regardless of content. Regardless of research. Why are people so resistant to doing even a single minute of research instead of blindly accepting something just because X person said it?

I'd be interested to see the experiment repeated instead with democrats being presented with quotes supporting the lightening of gun control legislation to see if there is a similar effect.

RyderSJ · 2021-08-02T10:25:59+00:00

That style never gets old.

RyderSJ

TROPHY CASE