jeremiah bailey wrote:
It has... Fallacy is now known as "status quo"
paul wheaton wrote:
communication [s] today [/s] is loaded to the gills with fallacy - it is[s] considered [/s]the normal way we speak.
paul wheaton wrote:I think it is something that should be taught in school. Like math. How can we move forward as a society without this as part of our foundation?
In math 1+1 must =2. If there is a disagreement about this, it can be resolved objectively and definitively.
Emerson White wrote:Anger is a tool for affecting the behavior of ourselves and others, outside of that context it is entirely useless.
The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such.
...saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
Emerson White wrote:
That kind of tautological argument comes up all the time. I think perhaps you are confusing a valid argument with a sound argument.
Emerson White wrote:argumentum at absurdum is on of the fallacies on his list too, and that is not a fallacy technically, it's a valid argument, it's just abused frequently so as to make it often fallacious.
I think it is admirable to stand firmly on your own ground and to not suggest that any person on permies has a position that is anything less than perfect.
Raptelan wrote:Fear is the biggest problem in the world today....IMHO what needs to change is people learning the habit of basing their actions on fear.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
I fear that the fear is but a symptom.
Appeals to emotion rule the day. Emotional bullying is the norm, so that if you do not agree with the bully, you are (enter evil label here). Socialists say that you have no compassion if you don't enslave people.. Rabid conservatives hold that you are "god hating" or "immoral" if you don't support rigid controls on the personal lives of innocents. The religious threaten you with labels like "immoral" or banishment to "hell." Some elites will accuse you of being ignorant, or lowly if you don't accept their position.. Statists tell you that you are responsible for all evils if you don't actively support their evil..
So yes we need to stand up for what is right and true, and of course we need to place reason and truth above all personal desires, while spreading that self-same message.
Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
I see your point, and agree that there's a lot of truth in what you say, but I've learned the hard way that emotions have their own sort of validity. They don't operate in the realm of reason, and using reason to discredit a person's emotions can be just as destructive as using emotions to support one's reasoning.
Perhaps equally important is the decision of whether or not to base one's beliefs in fear. I think that recognizing and validating fear is a good step toward dealing with it in a healthy way: deciding whether it is actionable, or whether it is reasonable, requires that we first acknowledge its existence.
People certainly have the ability to choose their emotions. We prove this every day (the same comment from two different people can elicit two different responses, thus proving that it is not the comment which causes the emotion, but rather a choice by the individual).
Most folks would rather not accept that responsibility, preferring to hide behind false claims that others control their emotional choices.
We should not mistake the lack of willingness to take responsibility for our own choices for an inability to make those choices.
i very basically disagree that humans (on the aggragate) have control over their emotions. humans overwhelmingly lack the ability for true insight, evaluation of internal dialogue, and an evaluation of basic motivations and values.
if this were a regularly occuring process amongst the general population, techniques that seek to expand rational perception while checking one's internal diagnostics and automatic assumptions (like cognitive behavior therapy) would not be such sensationally efficacious treatments for depression, anxiety disorders, traumatic stress, etc.
i truly believe that humans are far more instinctual in our emotions and behavior than we are willing to admit. we are thinking animals, but our ability for in-the-moment self-examination and planning is virtually non-existant without lifetime practice starting as infants.
Storm wrote:in truth it is each of us who chooses to get mad or not.
Storm wrote:most humans have not bothered to learn to exert control over their emotions.
Now, since most of us at some point or another do actively choose our emotional reaction, that is more than sufficient to disprove the universal.