File: homo-superior.png (1.56 KB, 215x215)
Rhetorical Fallacy/Paradox General
09/26/22(Mon)20:25:21
No.60951
I'm hoping to start a general thread, like a humor thread, collecting rhetorical fallacies and paradoxes, and perhaps some discussion on when they are and are not valid, and any resources to follow up on.
---
I'll start with my favorite fallacy, The Politician's Fallacy:
1. We must do something! (for the purposes of this fallacy we assume this part is actually true and everyone agrees)
2. My policy is something! (ditto)
3. Therefore we must do my policy! (fallacious; why can't we do a different policy that is also something?)
I see this fallacy being strongly effective at influencing which platforms people use.
1. Twitter is a biased microblogging platform! (true)
2. Truth Social is an alternative to Twitter! (true)
3. Therefore switch to Truth Social! (fallacious; why not switch to fediverse?)
or
1. USD is a manipulated currency! (true)
2. Crypto is an alternative currency! (true)
3. Therefore switch to crypto! (fallacious; why not switch to a sane currency?)
---
I have recently become interested in rhetorical fallacies.
I used to be turned off by fallacies because people always used them in stupid ways. For example I'd say I'm not taking health advice from someone that weighs 300 lbs and people would be like hurr durr ad hominem.
Or people would provide an example of a fallacy that made sense but that was so abstract and stupid nobody would ever actually make it or fall for it.
But now I think fallacies can be useful if you are careful to realize that they sometimes are valid and sometimes not, and I've been noticing more situations where people are actually falling victim (not hurr durr they disagree with me therefore they're a victim but they actually legitimately are fucking over their own self-interest and priors because of misplaced trust) to fallacies by manipulative leaders.
here is a fallacy>I want to live so I consume and destroy things>I live and love it but I am a human>Someone else consumes me>He does it to live longer and loves it>He is a monster
>>61368>We want to do something government doesn't like>There might be a fed between us>The fed wants to do what government doesn't like to prove he is not a fed>You want to do something the government doesn't like>You are a fed!
>>61368>>61369
This is good, sounds connected to tu quoque
This is good, it's like witch trial logic, I can't find a name of it though.
Reminds me of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/49 and how you can't evaluate the truth of a hypothesis in a vaccuum, you have to compare it to a competing hypothesis. Differential analysis.