Originally posted by Supercertari
A well written piece, unfortunatey you will be preaching to an ever diminishing choir as liberalism's relativism is so advanced it cannot begin to
comprehend the many errors many ways lead to.
A whole culture now asks "quid est veritas?" without understanding the answer as virility has been reduced to a functional commodity, a joke
or removed to a petri dish.
Well, you just might want to hide and watch. There are still many who know what a bad case of bipolarism some folks have when they take drugs all
their lives. Liberalism is thought of as a sickness by many practitioners. I wonder? I wish we knew for sure.
More stuff to ponder.
Methods of Leveraging the Human Mind for Political or Academic Power and Control
Primary source: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Informal fallacy is an error of reasoning or a method of hoodwinking an unknowing audience or group. It is often a method of verbal acrobatics to
persuade audiences that through reasoning and argument an issue can be correct, when upon evaluation it is not correct but a lie. This is a means of
hyping an issue and spinning it as a truth. Still, it is a lie.
Genetic fallacy is a means of persuading individuals upon the goodness or badness of an issue by using something unrelated but similar by showing the
goodness or badness of the issue. A genetic fallacy is often used with a personal attack and serves to reinforce a lie. It will be used to condemn a
prior thesis by condemning the base source as the point where an issue goes wrong. The base source may not have any relationship to the end product.
Argumentum ad populum or argument to the crowd or people is a prime example of the statement that everybody is doing it. It is also a statement that
is the appeal to the gallery for support of its contention. Some say this is not unlike the mob appeal. What goes wrong with this argument is when
exaggeration of the crowd is hyped beyond its real scope. Mass enthusiasm via cheerleading can be a lie when evidence shows the impetus was created by
coercion rather than genuine appeal. Many call this the bandwagon effect.
Argumentum ad misericordiam is a methodology used with heaps of pity and emotional blackmail for an apparent wrong done to persons when in essence the
facts do not support a need for such high levels of compassion. Using emotionalism to pressure an audience for a weak case is often called false
witness for high benefit. Many times it is in reality a threat of becoming miserable or worse to force an issue. Some will even threaten suicide or in
a laughing manner say something is to die for. It is an effort to position others as mean and wrong for creating miserable conditions for the one who
is threatening. Others may use this method to point up the plight of a constituency to leverage for a change in political behavior…such as asking
for tolerance when it already exists.
Fallacy of construction or composition of issues is a means of arguing from the make up of parts that have no relationship to the whole. But, by
virtue of known parts the whole should follow.
Fallacy of division is the opposite of the above. It is arguing from the whole and its image to portraying the whole as the part when the part has no
overall relationship to the results of the whole.
The fallacy of false cause also called post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The wrong in this argument is the weight
given the causal condition. The quantification and formula may be coincidence and outside sources might cause the coincidence. At times, a third party
is hidden and may be the ultimate source of the cause.
The fallacy of secundum quid or arguing from a general condition to a specific outcome or again it is also known as the fallacy of accidental
relationships. It is also know as the argument of hasty generalizations where a specific condition is apparent.
Argumentum consensus gentium or the argument of all nations or sources for a point of agreement. This argument is typically utilized by the scientific
community when they are presenting a theory about some topic. It is usually an assumption rather than a proven fact though many scientists support the
concept. Everyone believes this statement therefore it must be true. Its best utilization is as a point of departure for a later proven fact.
Argumentum ad hominem or refutation of the man and what he/she stands for as a character issue in the arena of ideas. This fallacy is usually used to
defuse the character of an opponent and position them as less desirable than the attacker. This method is used to poison the well of an opponent with
information that is usually fallacious. If he has been wrong in the past, he is sure to be wrong now. Positioning of dirty laundry in the arena of
ideas. When attacked by the ad hominem methodology, many come back with the old What about your stance or tu quoquo.