Logical fallacies much?

[Perspective]

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence?

I guess that those who employ logical fallacies believe they are being clever. I also think that fallacies are easy to recognize, at least when pointed out, but they are utilized anyway, suggesting a lack of maturity or intelligence on the part of the fallacy user.

Yeah, I suppose it’s like willful blindness when someone is aware of logic yet engages in logical fallacies anyway.

[Perspective]

…But, this contradicts you also claiming that 'another's perspective' is 'so anal' and/or 'with little relevance'.
Again, what you find so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' another may not, and vice-versa, what another finds so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' you may not.
It is like unless 'the other' has the exact same 'perspective' as another individual, people are not Truly happy with one another.

That’s like saying all approaches of anything are equally valid. This is not a grammar forum so obsessing over grammar while ignoring basic thinking (logic/philosophy), is indeed obsessing over the irrelevant.

To me anyway, if absolutely any one even thinks about, let alone wants to 'out another down', or even 'tries to' 'out another down' in my case, then, really, a 'philosophy forum' is not the Right place for them…

Yes, in an ideal world.

Okay, and again thanks for clarifying, I agree with and accept 'this definitions', however, why would any one want to come to a 'philosophy forum' to 'debate' and/or 'genuinely debate'?

To me, a philosophy forum is certainly not 'the place' for 'debating'. And, considering the fact that just about every other forum or so-called 'social media' places are just about 'full of debates and/or debating', would it not be better if there were just one place left, which was for the sole purpose of just having actual 'peaceful, and open and honest, discussions, where through 'logical reasoning' alone the whole purpose was to discover and find what the actual answers in Life to the Truly meaningful 'age old' philosophical questions are, exactly, could actually take place, instead?

To me 'debating' involves just 'picking a side', or just 'already having a position', which one then tries their bardes to 'fight for'. And, obviously if one already has, and/or is holding, 'a position', already, that not absolutely every one could agree with, and accept, then 'that position' is not even worth repeating, let alone worth 'fighting for'. And, obviously, if some one wants to 'fight' for 'a view' or 'a position', then they do not want a Truly peaceful discussion anyway.

But, if some one does know of 'a view' in which every one could agree with, and accept, then through just a Truly open and honest 'logically reasoned', peaceful discussion, then 'that view' could be shared, and agreed with and accepted by absolutely every one. However, and of course, every one in 'the discussion' would first need to be completely open, and thus not already be of pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, nor of assumptions and beliefs. Each and every would also obviously be of wanting to learn and understand more, and of anew.

Isn’t that unrealistic? No 2 people agree on everything. Disagreements are inevitable. What can help all involved learn rather than call names, is utilizing critical thinking, logic & basic good manners.

To just never ever allow the attempted attacks to effect 'you' emotionally in any way whatsoever.

To actually 'respond to' 'the attack' will usually have no positive effect at all, a yway, as any one who even wants to and/does make an 'ad hominen attack' has not yet 'grown up' and/or 'matured' enough to 'take on', 'the responses', nor 'to respond' again, in any actual beneficial way anyway…

That is your choice alone.

'i', personally, do not block absolutely any one at all. As 'i' can only learn more and 'grow more' from 'listening to' and 'hearing' what every one has to say.

But, I do also have the ability to not be affected in any way at all emotionally by absolutely any thing that is said and written, here.

You are without emotion? Are you a robot?

In the several years I have frequented forums, I have rarely blocked anyone until recently. I have had experiences that taught me to avoid certain patterns of behavior - for my own mental health.

What 'they' say, teaches 'me' how to communicate better with all people. But, in saying this obviously no one 'has to' 'listen to', nor 'take on', what 'the other' is 'saying'. But, if one does not 'listen to' 'another', then what they are 'really saying and meaning' could never be heard, nor understood. See, a lot of the time what people are 'saying' is not what they are 'actually meaning', and it is only through 'Truly listening' what is actually being 'said, and meant' can be Truly comprehended, and understood.

Like, for example, with "phil8659" I think that deep down behind what it says and writes, here, it has actually 'found' some thing, which could be very, very insightful and enlightening. However, getting past 'that one's' grandiose persona, to find out if has actual some actual epiphany, or not, is going to take some time. Which, by the way, I can see behind every one's 'persona', here, there is an absolute brightness of insight and enlightenment, which could and would make a 'world of difference' for humanity and for the betterment of every thing, but because of every one, here, lack of being 'listened to', fully and Correctly, previously, 'we' all have troubles or issues sharing our views properly, and Correctly, 'currently'.

That’s good that you can see the best in people you have little contact with. Could you still see and focus on the good if you had to be with them 24-7, or if you felt more emotions, more easily?

[Age]

…But, this contradicts you also claiming that 'another's perspective' is 'so anal' and/or 'with little relevance'.
Again, what you find so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' another may not, and vice-versa, what another finds so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' you may not.
It is like unless 'the other' has the exact same 'perspective' as another individual, people are not Truly happy with one another.

That’s like saying all approaches of anything are equally valid.

No it is not at all.

What it is actually saying is, because absolutely every thing is relative to 'the observer', 'your perspective' of things might not be the 'same perspective' of things that others have.

It is absolutely certainly not saying , 'all approaches of anything are equally valid', at all. In fact it is not even talking about any 'approach' at all.

I really am unsure as to what 'it' is, exactly, which has led you to have 'seen' and to have 'assumed' what you did there.

This is not a grammar forum so obsessing over grammar while ignoring basic thinking (logic/philosophy), is indeed obsessing over the irrelevant.

1. Just from 'my writings' it can be clearly seen that I do not obsess over 'grammar'.

2. I never talked about 'correct grammar', in relation to you. I was just pointing out to "phil8659" how you, purposely, made a 'grammatical error', to make a point, and I was talking about 'correct grammar' in relation to "phil8659" because,

1) That person 'obsesses over grammar'.

2) That person, actually, believes that it is one of the wisest people throughout all of human history.

3. In regards to you I have been more concentrating on the number of different and even opposing definitions words, themselves, can have.

To me anyway, if absolutely any one even thinks about, let alone wants to 'out another down', or even 'tries to' 'out another down' in my case, then, really, a 'philosophy forum' is not the Right place for them…

Yes, in an ideal world.

1. if one wants to remain in a' non ideal world' and/or in an 'unjust world', then this gives them 'permission' to keep doing what is 'not ideal' and/or what is 'unjust'.

2. In 'any world', if one 'wants to' or 'tries to' 'put any other down', then 'they' do not belong in 'the world' that every one once wanted to live in, let alone belonging in a 'philosophy forum' of all places. If one wants to, or enjoys, 'putting others down', then there are a myriad of 'other places' they can that, and where they can get the same sort of responses. But why come to 'a place' and 'do' the very exact opposite thing of what 'that place' is even about?

Also, if one wants to and enjoys ('trying to') 'put others down', then do not whinge and whine when 'others' do it back, 'to you'.

Okay, and again thanks for clarifying, I agree with and accept 'this definitions', however, why would any one want to come to a 'philosophy forum' to 'debate' and/or 'genuinely debate'?

To me, a philosophy forum is certainly not 'the place' for 'debating'. And, considering the fact that just about every other forum or so-called 'social media' places are just about 'full of debates and/or debating', would it not be better if there were just one place left, which was for the sole purpose of just having actual 'peaceful, and open and honest, discussions, where through 'logical reasoning' alone the whole purpose was to discover and find what the actual answers in Life to the Truly meaningful 'age old' philosophical questions are, exactly, could actually take place, instead?

To me 'debating' involves just 'picking a side', or just 'already having a position', which one then tries their bardes to 'fight for'. And, obviously if one already has, and/or is holding, 'a position', already, that not absolutely every one could agree with, and accept, then 'that position' is not even worth repeating, let alone worth 'fighting for'. And, obviously, if some one wants to 'fight' for 'a view' or 'a position', then they do not want a Truly peaceful discussion anyway.

But, if some one does know of 'a view' in which every one could agree with, and accept, then through just a Truly open and honest 'logically reasoned', peaceful discussion, then 'that view' could be shared, and agreed with and accepted by absolutely every one. However, and of course, every one in 'the discussion' would first need to be completely open, and thus not already be of pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, nor of assumptions and beliefs. Each and every would also obviously be of wanting to learn and understand more, and of anew.

Isn’t that unrealistic?
No 2 people agree on everything.

Of course agreeing on everything would be, and is, unrealistic. But, considering the fact that absolutely no one, well no one that I know of anyway, has ever suggested that people even could, let alone even would, agree on every thing,

1. Why did you bring up this obviously completely impossible thing, here?

2. Why introduce some completely off topic thing, and then point out it being unrealistic?

3. (And this question is for any and/or every one, 'Why do so many of 'my writings', here, get so misconstrued and misunderstood, so often?')

Disagreements are inevitable.

So are agreements inevitable.

But, so what?

What can help all involved learn rather than call names, is utilizing critical thinking, logic & basic good manners.

It can come across as a 'very wise' and/or 'very enlightened' remark and statement, to say and claim things like,

Utilizing critical thinking, logic, and basic good manners can help in 'learning'. But, just saying some thing and/or providing advice while not following through with 'that advice' "oneself" besides being hypocritical is self-contradicting, and really not helpful at all.

By the way I found that by just being Truly open, and just seriously Wanting to learn, then one will just keep 'learning' anyway.

To just never ever allow the attempted attacks to effect 'you' emotionally in any way whatsoever.

To actually 'respond to' 'the attack' will usually have no positive effect at all, a yway, as any one who even wants to and/does make an 'ad hominen attack' has not yet 'grown up' and/or 'matured' enough to 'take on', 'the responses', nor 'to respond' again, in any actual beneficial way anyway…

That is your choice alone.

'i', personally, do not block absolutely any one at all. As 'i' can only learn more and 'grow more' from 'listening to' and 'hearing' what every one has to say.

But, I do also have the ability to not be affected in any way at all emotionally by absolutely any thing that is said and written, here.

You are without emotion? Are you a robot?

Firstly, your first sentence, here, is a statement and/or claim, but with a question mark added onto the end of it. Which usually means one is just expressing what they are actually assuming or believing is true, but with the added 'pretence' of 'questioning'.

Secondly, I never ever said absolutely any thing that i am 'without emotions'. As can be clearly seen in what I actually said and wrote above, here. Having 'the ability' to not be affected, in any way, by words alone, is not 'without emotions'. Just like having 'the ability' to 'not think logically', does not mean that 'that one' is 'without thought'. Can you 'now' recognize and see 'the difference'?

Thirdly, 'the question' in your second sentence, here, is moot, as 'i' am 'with emotion'.

In the several years I have frequented forums, I have rarely blocked anyone until recently. I have had experiences that taught me to avoid certain patterns of behavior - for my own mental health.

Okay.
What do you think is a good way to respond to ad hominem attacks?
To just never ever allow the attempted attacks to effect 'you' emotionally in any way whatsoever.

To actually 'respond to' 'the attack' will usually have no positive effect at all, a yway, as any one who even wants to and/does make an 'ad hominen attack' has not yet 'grown up' and/or 'matured' enough to 'take on', 'the responses', nor 'to respond' again, in any actual beneficial way anyway.
Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 11:00 pm
I temporarily blocked Phil because I don’t want to subject myself to more ad hominem attacks. Should I have done that?
That is your choice alone.

'i', personally, do not block absolutely any one at all. As 'i' can only learn more and 'grow more' from 'listening to' and 'hearing' what every one has to say.

But, I do also have the ability to not be affected in any way at all emotionally by absolutely any thing that is said and written, here.

That’s good that you can see the best in people you have little contact with. Could you still see and focus on the good if you had to be with them 24-7, or if you felt more emotions, more easily?

What are you basing this claim of yours on, exactly, that 'i' can not feel 'more emotions', 'more easily'?

And, yes I can still see and focus on the so-called 'good' if I had to be with people so-called 24-7.

In fact even when those adults who hurt, maim, rape, and/or kill children, deliberately, I can still see and focus on what you call 'the good'.

See, once you learn and understand, fully, why all human beings do what they do, and also understand, fully, why they do what they do, then seeing and focusing on 'the good' remains extremely easy and extremely simple, indeed, and no matter what emotions are arising, within.

[Ben JS]

I would suggest that if people were to just be Truly Honest and open, here, then through fully 'logically reasoned' discussions, only, then people would also uncover and work out the solution in how to find the actual irrefutable answers to all of what I call and label 'the meaningful questions, in Life', as well.
[...]
would it not be better if there were just one place left, which was for the sole purpose of just having actual 'peaceful, and open and honest, discussions, where through 'logical reasoning' alone the whole purpose was to discover and find what the actual answers in Life to the Truly meaningful 'age old' philosophical questions are, exactly, could actually take place, instead?
[...]
What 'they' say, teaches 'me' how to communicate better with all people. But, in saying this obviously no one 'has to' 'listen to', nor 'take on', what 'the other' is 'saying'. But, if one does not 'listen to' 'another', then what they are 'really saying and meaning' could never be heard, nor understood. See, a lot of the time what people are 'saying' is not what they are 'actually meaning', and it is only through 'Truly listening' what is actually being 'said, and meant' can be Truly comprehended, and understood.
[...]
I can see behind every one's 'persona', here, there is an absolute brightness of insight and enlightenment, which could and would make a 'world of difference' for humanity and for the betterment of every thing, but because of every one, here, lack of being 'listened to', fully and Correctly, previously, 'we' all have troubles or issues sharing our views properly, and Correctly, 'currently'.

These messages feel quite uplifting and hopeful, and strike a chord.
Thanks for sharing them.

===

Perspective,

This is an informative thread.
Your name is apt for what you've contributed here...
appreciatively,

[Martin Peter Clarke]

All's fallaciously fair in hate and rhetoric. Talking of which, mine own pet fallacy is fine tuning, viewtopic.php?t=44012.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I would suggest that if people were to just be Truly Honest and open, here, then through fully 'logically reasoned' discussions, only, then people would also uncover and work out the solution in how to find the actual irrefutable answers to all of what I call and label 'the meaningful questions, in Life', as well.
[...]
would it not be better if there were just one place left, which was for the sole purpose of just having actual 'peaceful, and open and honest, discussions, where through 'logical reasoning' alone the whole purpose was to discover and find what the actual answers in Life to the Truly meaningful 'age old' philosophical questions are, exactly, could actually take place, instead?
[...]
What 'they' say, teaches 'me' how to communicate better with all people. But, in saying this obviously no one 'has to' 'listen to', nor 'take on', what 'the other' is 'saying'. But, if one does not 'listen to' 'another', then what they are 'really saying and meaning' could never be heard, nor understood. See, a lot of the time what people are 'saying' is not what they are 'actually meaning', and it is only through 'Truly listening' what is actually being 'said, and meant' can be Truly comprehended, and understood.
[...]
I can see behind every one's 'persona', here, there is an absolute brightness of insight and enlightenment, which could and would make a 'world of difference' for humanity and for the betterment of every thing, but because of every one, here, lack of being 'listened to', fully and Correctly, previously, 'we' all have troubles or issues sharing our views properly, and Correctly, 'currently'.

These messages feel quite uplifting and hopeful, and strike a chord.
Thanks for sharing them.

===

Perspective,

This is an informative thread.
Your name is apt for what you've contributed here...
appreciatively,

You're very kind Ben JS.

[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.

[Age]

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?

[puto]

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

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.

[commonsense]

I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

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.

Logical fallacies are illogical. That’s what makes them bad.

[Eodnhoj7]

I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

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.

Logical fallacies are illogical. That’s what makes them bad.

Last time I checked stating something is bad without reason is quite illogical...it almost seems as if having fallacies is fallacious.

[commonsense]

The reason should be obvious to any reasonable person.

[Ben JS]

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

The reason should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Define reasonable...