Logical fallacies much?

[Eodnhoj7]

Is there an rationality as to why logical fallacies are a bad thing without relying on emotion?

Good & bad are relative to an objective.

The credibility of an argument, does not rely on it's utility or value to the one examining it.
The credibility of an argument, relies on whether it's possibly true - and whether there's evidence supporting it.
(Things like berkeley's razor - and whether there are better alternative explanations
speak to whether an argument ought be adopted - not whether it is credible)

If it's self contradictory - based on our understanding, that makes it in discord with reality.
There are infinite concepts in discord with reality, and there's little reason for the rational mind to give them energy.

What has utility to the rational mind, the one with preferences, is to focus on understanding reality.
Understanding reality, enables one to utilize the patterns of reality to one's own ends.

A self contradiction is not a pattern of reality - but of imaginary concepts.
The ideas of these concepts exist, but the contents of these concepts don't necessarily exist.
It is believed reality does not contradict itself - thus, no contradiction is believed to not exist in reality.

Any self-contradictory claim is thereby considered non-credible - i.e. safe to dismiss.

--

I believe to raise the question of whether logical fallacies are a bad thing is a bit of red herring, given the spirit of this thread.
The thread appears to be about detailing types of fallacies - common poorly constructed arguments -, such that they may be avoided.
I think it assumes one wants to make sound, constructive arguments.

Whether one ought make sound, constructive arguments - is not the question at hand.
It's moving the goal posts from 'What are logical fallacies?' to 'Are logical fallacies bad'?
Which I suspect you already know is entire different can of worms.

This makes me question your incentive to raise this question.
Do you seek only to cloud discussion?

If you think your question was clever, it wasn't to me.
I'm extending you the benefit of the doubt -
done so in good faith,
but it's on a thin line which I'm ready to cut,
if I suspect you only seek to cause derailment.

You claim utility and yet I see irrational impulse guiding it.

If good and bad are relative than under some contexts fallacies are good and necessary. What you consider a poorly constructed argument is merely a matter of impulse driven taste.

The question of whether fallacies are good or bad is the inherent offbranching of question of what fallacies even are...you say I am clouding but you seem to be suffocating things.

[Ben JS]

I disagree with you, but calling a raincheck.
I only have so much tolerance per day.
I will respond.

[Eodnhoj7]

I disagree with you, but calling a raincheck.
I only have so much tolerance per day.
I will respond.

Apparently you do have a low tolerance for differences. The points stand:

Logical fallacies derive their value from consensus of emotions hence make the faultiness of fallacies illogical.

[Ben JS]

You claim utility and yet I see irrational impulse guiding it.

You asked why logical fallacies are bad beyond one's emotions [preferences].

My answer was not utility, which you assert.
My answer is that all good/bad value assessments are based on emotions/preferences.
Absolutely everything we prefer can be boiled down to emotions - this is a complete aside.

The OP asked if people realized when they're engaging in logical fallacies,
listed some, and invited others to share other logical fallacies.

Your critique of one's opposition to logical fallacies is completely trivial and irrelevant.
You introduce a tangent, and imply you're addressing the topic at hand.
Every impulse is fundamentally irrational - this has no relevance to the discussion though.
But we can react to our impulses in a rational manner:

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic

Logical fallacies are prone to producing illogical outcomes -
which is why they're avoided.

If one founds reason in one's preferences, then acting in according with those preferences is rational - by definition.

Thereby, in this instance, avoiding logical fallacies would both be based on reason - and maintaining logic.

So, rational on both fronts. Not irrational.

Delusional people see all sorts of things - you have my sympathies.

If good and bad are relative than under some contexts fallacies are good and necessary.

If one wants to lose the respect of their peers, then logical fallacies are a good thing to adopt.

you seem to be suffocating things.

More weasel language.
You're not even pretending to justify the shit you're slinging.
This further supports the angle that you're here to simply inhibit conducive discussion.

I'm highlighting your conduct.

===

Is there an rationality as to why logical fallacies are a bad thing without relying on emotion?

Good & bad are relative to an objective.

The credibility of an argument, does not rely on it's utility or value to the one examining it.
The credibility of an argument, relies on whether it's possibly true - and whether there's evidence supporting it.
(Things like berkeley's razor - and whether there are better alternative explanations
speak to whether an argument ought be adopted - not whether it is credible)

If it's self contradictory - based on our understanding, that makes it in discord with reality.
There are infinite concepts in discord with reality, and there's little reason for the rational mind to give them energy.

What has utility to the rational mind, the one with preferences, is to focus on understanding reality.
Understanding reality, enables one to utilize the patterns of reality to one's own ends.

A self contradiction is not a pattern of reality - but of imaginary concepts.
The ideas of these concepts exist, but the contents of these concepts don't necessarily exist.
It is believed reality does not contradict itself - thus, no contradiction is believed to not exist in reality.

Any self-contradictory claim is thereby considered non-credible - i.e. safe to dismiss.

--

I believe to raise the question of whether logical fallacies are a bad thing is a bit of red herring, given the spirit of this thread.
The thread appears to be about detailing types of fallacies - common poorly constructed arguments -, such that they may be avoided.
I think it assumes one wants to make sound, constructive arguments.

Whether one ought make sound, constructive arguments - is not the question at hand.
It's moving the goal posts from 'What are logical fallacies?' to 'Are logical fallacies bad'?
Which I suspect you already know is entire different can of worms.

This makes me question your incentive to raise this question.
Do you seek only to cloud discussion?

If you think your question was clever, it wasn't to me.
I'm extending you the benefit of the doubt -
done so in good faith,
but it's on a thin line which I'm ready to cut,
if I suspect you only seek to cause derailment.

[commonsense]

The reason should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Define reasonable...

The definition is readily understood by any reasonable person.

[Eodnhoj7]

You claim utility and yet I see irrational impulse guiding it.

You asked why logical fallacies are bad beyond one's emotions [preferences].

My answer was not utility, which you assert.
My answer is that all good/bad value assessments are based on emotions/preferences.
Absolutely everything we prefer can be boiled down to emotions - this is a complete aside.

The OP asked if people realized when they're engaging in logical fallacies,
listed some, and invited others to share other logical fallacies.

Your critique of one's opposition to logical fallacies is completely trivial and irrelevant.
You introduce a tangent, and imply you're addressing the topic at hand.
Every impulse is fundamentally irrational - this has no relevance to the discussion though.
But we can react to our impulses in a rational manner:

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic

Logical fallacies are prone to producing illogical outcomes -
which is why they're avoided.

If one founds reason in one's preferences, then acting in according with those preferences is rational - by definition.

Thereby, in this instance, avoiding logical fallacies would both be based on reason - and maintaining logic.

So, rational on both fronts. Not irrational.

Delusional people see all sorts of things - you have my sympathies.

If good and bad are relative than under some contexts fallacies are good and necessary.

If one wants to lose the respect of their peers, then logical fallacies are a good thing to adopt.

you seem to be suffocating things.

More weasel language.
You're not even pretending to justify the shit you're slinging.
This further supports the angle that you're here to simply inhibit conducive discussion.

I'm highlighting your conduct.

===

Is there an rationality as to why logical fallacies are a bad thing without relying on emotion?

Good & bad are relative to an objective.

The credibility of an argument, does not rely on it's utility or value to the one examining it.
The credibility of an argument, relies on whether it's possibly true - and whether there's evidence supporting it.
(Things like berkeley's razor - and whether there are better alternative explanations
speak to whether an argument ought be adopted - not whether it is credible)

If it's self contradictory - based on our understanding, that makes it in discord with reality.
There are infinite concepts in discord with reality, and there's little reason for the rational mind to give them energy.

What has utility to the rational mind, the one with preferences, is to focus on understanding reality.
Understanding reality, enables one to utilize the patterns of reality to one's own ends.

A self contradiction is not a pattern of reality - but of imaginary concepts.
The ideas of these concepts exist, but the contents of these concepts don't necessarily exist.
It is believed reality does not contradict itself - thus, no contradiction is believed to not exist in reality.

Any self-contradictory claim is thereby considered non-credible - i.e. safe to dismiss.

--

I believe to raise the question of whether logical fallacies are a bad thing is a bit of red herring, given the spirit of this thread.
The thread appears to be about detailing types of fallacies - common poorly constructed arguments -, such that they may be avoided.
I think it assumes one wants to make sound, constructive arguments.

Whether one ought make sound, constructive arguments - is not the question at hand.
It's moving the goal posts from 'What are logical fallacies?' to 'Are logical fallacies bad'?
Which I suspect you already know is entire different can of worms.

This makes me question your incentive to raise this question.
Do you seek only to cloud discussion?

If you think your question was clever, it wasn't to me.
I'm extending you the benefit of the doubt -
done so in good faith,
but it's on a thin line which I'm ready to cut,
if I suspect you only seek to cause derailment.

If good and bad are purely emotional then noone can claim logical fallacies are bad without relying on emotional claims, thus there is little one can logically claim about not using them given there value is emotionally oriented.

To argue about logical fallacies using strictly logic would result in a logical fallacy being a limit of logic. The logical fallacy justifies the logic in this point, making it a necessary part of the reasoning process, given the limits of logic allows logic to be distinct as logic.

But as pointing to the limits of logic they observe that things exist outside of logic as illogical things occur.

If logic occurs and illogic occurs and we experience only what occurs than we cannot claim existence is strictly logical or illogical and a paradox ensues as this statement is a use of logic.

[Eodnhoj7]

The reason should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Define reasonable...

The definition is readily understood by any reasonable person.

Understood? Define that. And you could. Then define the thing that defines that. And you could.

So what would happen if we kept repeating this process?

A spiral.

One definition would point to another in a perpetual line.

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

The process of defining would be linear and circular, thus pointing to a form through which the psyche occurs.

We would merely be observing forms. A form in the process. A form in the words. Thus reasoning merely is an image...it has little substance in form and function other than the relationship of things.

If adopting logical fallacies are merely a means of gaining respect, then your logic is merely an expression of emotional bandwagon thus resulting in you practicing fallacies to be logical.

[Age]

Define reasonable...

The definition is readily understood by any reasonable person.

Understood? Define that. And you could. Then define the thing that defines that. And you could.

So what would happen if we kept repeating this process?

Eventually 'we' would arrive 'back' with a perfect explanation and understanding of the Universe, Itself, or what I refer to as just the G.U.T.O.E.

As has already happened, and occured, but which you are obviously unaware of.

A spiral.

Yes, a 'spiral' that ends back on itself formulating a Self-explanatory understanding.

One definition would point to another in a perpetual line.

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

you express 'this' as though there is some thing wrong or bad, here, correct?

.

[commonsense]

Define reasonable...

The definition is readily understood by any reasonable person.

Understood? Define that. And you could. Then define the thing that defines that. And you could.

So what would happen if we kept repeating this process?

A spiral.

One definition would point to another in a perpetual line.

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

The process of defining would be linear and circular, thus pointing to a form through which the psyche occurs.

We would merely be observing forms. A form in the process. A form in the words. Thus reasoning merely is an image...it has little substance in form and function other than the relationship of things.

If adopting logical fallacies are merely a means of gaining respect, then your logic is merely an expression of emotional bandwagon thus resulting in you practicing fallacies to be logical.

Thank you for finally understanding.

[Eodnhoj7]

The definition is readily understood by any reasonable person.

Understood? Define that. And you could. Then define the thing that defines that. And you could.

So what would happen if we kept repeating this process?

A spiral.

One definition would point to another in a perpetual line.

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

The process of defining would be linear and circular, thus pointing to a form through which the psyche occurs.

We would merely be observing forms. A form in the process. A form in the words. Thus reasoning merely is an image...it has little substance in form and function other than the relationship of things.

If adopting logical fallacies are merely a means of gaining respect, then your logic is merely an expression of emotional bandwagon thus resulting in you practicing fallacies to be logical.

Thank you for finally understanding.

I understand...fallacies are wrong because:

1. Fallacies are wrong (circularity)
2. because x, x is bad because of y...unto infinity (linear regress)
3. It is assumed as such (assumption).

They are the munchausseen trillemma.

[Ben JS]

there is little one can logically claim about not using them

One can logically predict potential outcomes of an action,
without the requirement to decide / determine whether that outcome is good/bad.
Logic is a predictive tool, and one we can use to eliminate false possibilities (i.e. things that may seem possible, but logically determined to be impossible).

By doing this, we reduce possibilities, and get a closer sense of what reality is - the cards we have.

Engaging in logical fallacies, risks undermining logic & it's utility, by giving false results -
thereby giving undue weight to false possibility, or not enough weight to genuine possibility.
As logical fallacies have been demonstrated to risk producing false results - i.e. they aren't reliable arguments / ways to understand reality.

You're continually conflating one's value judgement of logic with the potential utility of logic.

If one sets a goal, then the utility of logic will be self evident, and logical fallacies risk of detriment so too may become evident.

-

I'd also direct you back to Age's (possibly rhetorical) question:

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

you express 'this' as though there is some thing wrong or bad, here, correct?

I'd go further, and says the circularity is useful feature - one of it's fundamental purposes.
Not an error at all or cause for any concern.

[Perspective]

Thanks for the posts.

It would be great to discuss the list presented in the OP. There’s been mainly focusing on individual trees in another forest.

What is 'it', exactly, that would be great to discuss?

you have presented a list, but what about 'that list' would you like to discuss, exactly?

Whether the list makes sense - since I compiled it myself.

[Perspective]

Truth of the content of the idea rather than the contents truth. First, ask what is truth, Pilate asked how many accusations? Second, Jesus focused on truth. Learn what truth is and then, live by it. Be certain in your responses, do not just discredit the person. Most of these arguments are pooh poo arguments because they lack serious consideration, and I do not even finish reading them, or just pass over the posts. Fallacies are invalid arguments.

Thank you.
I love philosophy - practical wisdom - to help me live & love better.
I hate stupid pedantic bs formulaic premise “A, B” bla bla bla verbal ejaculation for no other purpose.

[Perspective]

Is there an rationality as to why logical fallacies are a bad thing without relying on emotion?

Logical fallacies are as much assertions as logic itself.

Actually that’s a good question. It implies, why bother learning about logical fallacies?

In practical ways - logic is clear thinking.
Lack of logic is unclear thinking.
Unclear thinking is what often produces problems like feeling overly upset, believing another deserves punishment based on your feelings, etc.

Logical fallacies are like cognitive distortions (distorted thinking). It is the root of a lot of bad decisions & negative consequences. Eg., Media is often extremely biased - especially when portraying eg., US presidential debate. Understanding each time a person engages in logical fallacies makes you more informed as to their capability (or lack), intentions & can help you make a more educated opinion & vote with more awareness. More relevantly, understanding eg., appeal to emotion & emotional reasoning can even save your life as happened when media tried to medically coerce the masses into taking experimental gene therapy shots (coronavirus shots). My dad died from a booster. Many others were hurt. Many received saline/placebo so they were not hurt. Russian roulette if you knew enough to think for yourself rather than believe so much bs/logical fallacies.

[Perspective]

Good & bad are relative to an objective...

Excellent point!
Sometimes applying logic is a kill-joy. Eg., during sex, singing, dancing or any way of being creative.

But since we think 24-7, generally, logic is an essential tool to navigate the world through our mental filters.