Do you consider fallacies of irrelevance as replies to be trolling?

Let's define what we're discussing first:

An explanation of fallacies of irrelevance.

Here's a list of some fallacies of irrelevance.

The definition of "troll" that I'm using in this post:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
Internet troll

My personal belief is that replying to someone using a fallacy of irrelevance qualifies as trolling according to the definition above. Why? Well, the posts often upset me because they dilute discussions and sometimes send them off on a tangent. That's certainly sowing discord in my book. There are some other criteria that must be met in order to call using fallacies of irrelevance "trolling":

1. Are fallacies of irrelevance "extraneous"?

Yes.

2. Do posters replying with fallacies of irrelevance have "the deliberate intent of...disrupting normal on-topic discussion"?

I think if a poster is using a fallacy of irrelevance, it is deliberate (assuming normal intelligence and with all other things being equal). People should know what is relevant to a topic and what isn't. If they can't even make that distinction then I would say they have no business giving their opinion on the topic. That's why I assume that fallacies of irrelevance as replies are almost always trolling. It's true that that is a subjective call on my part and I feel that's where this thread could get controversial.

Of course it's going to get controversial because the people who do it will either be uncomfortable you've pointed it out, or give you reasons why it's mature responsible behavior ( which it isn't).

Next up it'll be pointed out you don't have to read things that you don't like.
While I agree with there is something to be said for that, having to skim 50% of posts like cliff notes gets old.

a reply to: Profusion
I always thought trolling was hiding under a bridge and demanding money of anyone who wants to cross it. I guess I was wrong.

originally posted by: Caver78
Of course it's going to get controversial because the people who do it will either be uncomfortable you've pointed it out, or give you reasons why it's mature responsible behavior ( which it isn't).

Next up it'll be pointed out you don't have to read things that you don't like.
While I agree with there is something to be said for that, having to skim 50% of posts like cliff notes gets old.

My biggest disappointment with this forum is that there's no ignore feature.

It's a NEW, strange time. Frickin internet. Your latest sound byte is taken as true. Trump saying he doesn't know Dave Duke? False. You can say the same for the rest of them. The latest news byte is taken as true no matter what is said. Then the search for BS is on. Even if the true # is played out it doesn't matter. The lie has been there long enough for those that want to to believe it. Then propagate it..... as truth.

originally posted by: Profusion
Do you consider fallacies of irrelevance as replies to be trolling?

Sometimes, perhaps.
People, on the average are rather illiterate/ignorant and cannot help naturally injecting all sorts of fallacies into their rendition of 'logic'.
Ignorant people are not necessarily trolls at all!
That is almost like bigotry via intellect.
Many trolls are ignorant misanthropes;

"We are what we pretend to be!"

But not all illiterate ignorant folks are trolls!
Fallacies of irrelevance are no different than any logical fallacy, and do not necessarily carry implied trolldom/misanthropy!

Sometimes an 'uncomfortable' GOOD response is summarily dismissed as trollery, when the ego cannot deal with the real problem, and goes into deny/retreat mode.

Irrelevance and Truth are both in the eyes of the beholder....nowdays. Its a believe what you want to believe and you can back anything up with a mere Google search world.
We live in interesting times. Check the meaning of that statement (alleged) in Chinese.

a reply to: Profusion

2. Do posters replying with fallacies of irrelevance have "the deliberate intent of...disrupting normal on-topic discussion"?

No sometimes people really are that ignorant...Not ignorant in the sense that their stupid,just that they're unaware that the information that they brought up is irrelevant to the topic due to ignorance.

Also if someone brings up irrelevant information in a discussion and you agree with not only their position but the off topic info. Would you still call them a "troll"?

originally posted by: Gothmog
Irrelevance and Truth are both in the eyes of the beholder....nowdays. Its a believe what you want to believe and you can back anything up with a mere Google search world.
We live in interesting times. Check the meaning of that statement (alleged) in Chinese.

One thing I've learned during the latest presidential election process in the US is that the best place for political commentary concerning what's actually going on is PredicIt. Why? Because people are using real money to gamble on what's going to be happening concerning all sorts of things involving politics, it has a natural survival of the fittest effect.

Those who aren't making their bets on solid reasoning end up failing on the site and quitting. The only people who can win there consistently are those who are unbiased, using good analytical methods, free from logically fallacious reasoning, etc. So, when you're reading opinions there they tend to be excellent-quality opinions based on superior reasoning.

It's the opposite of something like an Internet forum where someone can continue being wrong for years and continue posting as if they were certain about everything, all the time. That's not likely to happen on PredictIt because most people cannot afford to keep losing money.

originally posted by: Profusion

My personal belief is that replying to someone using a fallacy of irrelevance qualifies as trolling according to the definition above. Why? Well, the posts often upset me because they dilute discussions and sometimes send them off on a tangent. That's certainly sowing discord in my book. There are some other criteria that must be met in order to call using fallacies of irrelevance "trolling":

May I suggest that your view is a little tough for this reason.

You assume that respondents to your posts have a good knowledge of fallacies of irrelevance when in all likelyhood its it a very big presumption to make as I suggest that most people wont much knowledge of fallacies of irrelevance.

In recent years there has been a number of threads on ATS on various type of fallacies. Its a very big ask to expect most people who post on ATS to have a good working knowledge of all the various types of fallacies.

Many of us are highly likely to be guilty of using a communication fallacy of one kind or another a good deal of the time.

Perhaps you might like to consider reconsidering your view in view of the above comments.

While I have no evidence of this at all, I suspect that your real concern is with the trolls as they seem to use such fallacies quite openly and that is where your comments are aimed.

To whatever extent my suspicion is correct, I agree and its these people the mods should focus on as its fairly easy for the mods to recognise trolling for what it is when they see it.

I have been dealing with some of them in some recent replies to a thread. I am not an expert in recognising trolls by any means but in some cases it sticks out like a dogs nuts.

a reply to: Profusion

so tell me why do you hate bananas - what have they ever done to you ?

originally posted by: Profusion
My personal belief is that replying to someone using a fallacy of irrelevance qualifies as trolling according to the definition above.

I disagree, because it does not make sense. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense. THINK ABOUT IT. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, which he does, completely nonsensically, then you must accept that the fallacy of irrelevance is not a fallacy at all, that it is relevant, and that anyone employing the use of it is not a troll; they are making a substantial and justified contribution to the thread.

I rest my case.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Profusion
My personal belief is that replying to someone using a fallacy of irrelevance qualifies as trolling according to the definition above.

I disagree, because it does not make sense. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense. THINK ABOUT IT. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, which he does, completely nonsensically, then you must accept that the fallacy of irrelevance is not a fallacy at all, that it is relevant, and that anyone employing the use of it is not a troll; they are making a substantial and justified contribution to the thread.

I rest my case.

You just proved the fallacy of irrelevance.

The majority of what you said after your initial premise has no relevance to the fact that Chewbacca lives on Endor even though he's from Kashyyk, it's conjecture.

And it's irrelevant.

***

To the OP, if it's done intentionally, then yes it's trolling. If not, it's sheer ignorance. That's the simple answer.

a reply to: Liquesence

Thankyou for explaining and therefore ruining the joke =D

On topic,

To the OP, if it's done intentionally, then yes it's trolling. If not, it's sheer ignorance. That's the simple answer.

Absolutely correct and I could not agree more. I wish there was a level of agreement above agreement that I could achieve in order to demonstrate just how much I am in agreement.

Some people are just not aware of their own fallacies. Many people begin to grasp at them unknowingly when they feel the foundations of their beliefs are being challenged or questioned.

Some people are just dicks though, and will troll you with them intentionally. It can be difficult to tell them apart on the surface; all you can really do is point out their logical fallacy and hope for the best.