Bring back logic and rhetoric as a principle subject in schools..

I really feel like the fact logic and rhetoric is no longer a primary school subject is most of the reason our population is so easily propagandized..


I bet even 100 years ago nearly EVERY educated person could recite the list of logical fallacies by heart..... and I do not think that is the case today AT ALL.

Propaganda is fairly easy to see through usually, especially if you know the list of things that sound good but mean nothing..


blog.hubspot.com...


Here is a list of the most common with examples.




Here is an example of a blatant logical fallacy that is constantly parroted.. and I AM ABSOLUTELY not making a comment on the overall issue, ONLY the talking point itself..


“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

Obviously no one is saying guns float off the table solo and go on rampages.. why people will say this and feel like they “nailed it”. I have no idea.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Probably because those the argument is used against are making the simplistic argument that disarming the population will end mass murder incidents as thought removing the legal right to own firearms will remove the ability to procure firearms illegally, remove the ability to simply mow people down with motor vehicles, remove the ability to use explosives, remove the ability to use bladed weapons, remove the ability to create chemical attacks, etc.

All of those other methods are equally accessible to the person wishing to carry out mass murder. All of those routes have been used, highly successfully by those wishing to carry out mass murder in countries with strict firearms control laws.

So it seems the people making that claim are not the only ones lacking the ability to think logically or deeply about the matter.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Depends on what you call "educated." There is no less a percentage of the populace today who understand logic than there was 100 years ago; the difference today is people think they understand it and have an easier ability to prove to those who actually have an educated grasp of the subject that they do not understand it.

Even your example of "obviously no one is saying" is chocked full of logical fallacies.

originally posted by: JustJohnny


“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

Obviously no one is saying guns float off the table solo and go on rampages.. why people will say this and feel like they “nailed it”. I have no idea.

perhaps because it takes a person who has lost their marbles to pick up the gun, get in the truck, or build the bomb, to kill the innocent folks. One key factor in all those examples is the nutjob who can't seem to exist without trying to go down in famous flames.

I believe the logical fallacy in claiming guns kill people would be an argument from ignorance.

When I went to school we had to analyze situations and write a text about it, unbiased, with pro and contra and a personal conclusion if you wanted to. That was delivered on a different sheet of paper if you wanted. The personal conclusion was not used for marks.

Then we would discuss the delivered conclusions with the ones that wrote it. The one would stand in front of class like the teacher does. Sometimes conclusions changed, sometimes not.

With that we were trained to look at things without bias. The one in front had the chance to sharpen their rhetoric skills. The ones in the audience could get a different opinion and reflect.

I started elementary school in the early 90s.

a reply to: JustJohnny

I bet even 100 years ago nearly EVERY educated person could recite the list of logical fallacies by heart..... and I do not think that is the case today AT ALL.

Teachers dont get paid enough to deal with a room full of kids that smart.

As far as I'm concerned, NO.

The people who learned that garbage are obnoxious as all fk.

If you were a kid that was on debate team and you try to nullify arguments by shouting ad hominem! I win!

You might as well be trying to get me to join the Glee club while singing Livin La Vida Loca.

Equally annoying. People who learn that crap think they have some kind of cheap code at life, and it makes them a different form of being an entitled little piss ant.

The responsibility of fixing forum double posts should not be on the poster.

Even 4Chan has duplicate post detection. Come on...

However, I do agree that classes in logic and critical thinking would be better than what we currently have which is teachers telling kids how to think.

One of the most valuable assets I had to this day was a part of my Gifted curriculum where we spent months out of the year on basic logic itself. "If all eagles are birds, are all birds eagles?" That sort of thing, getting more complex.

originally posted by: underwerks
Teachers dont get paid enough to deal with a room full of kids that smart.

Considering what I see coming out of the schoolhouse and entering the workforce these days, teachers are highly overpaid.

a reply to: ketsuko


Playing ball is stupid since I specifically said I was making no comment on the over all position.. simply that specific talking point... but you literally used a logical fallacy in your answer to a post about logical fallacies lol..



All those methods are not equally efficient..

Which is why countless things are all restricted based on their ability to cause destruction..


If that logic was sound nothing would be illegal, because “they could always find something else”..

That is what makes it a logical fallacy.. your selectively applying your logic..

Which logical fallacy is it when you say ..


“Since guns can kill people, and other stuff can kill people.. then all those things must be equally deadly..”


I mean literally an exact copy of the example from the website I posted

a reply to: Identified

But it isn’t a primary subject today.. so it is a side elective most people don’t even take..

Literally a third your education would have been in logic and rhetoric.:

a reply to: network dude

Did you seriously just pretend that I am saying that “guns float off the table and kill people solo”, when I specifically said that no one believes guns float off the table solo..


I think the actual argument is ..



“It is way easier to kill people with a gun than if you do not have one..”

And it is rea hard to come up with a more efficient death dealer..

Which is why cops and soldiers carry guns into battle not Mazda’s.

a reply to: JustJohnny


And this is generally when the person comes back and says, "Perhaps then we ought to address the root of the issue instead of trying to ban everything that could be used to kill people since we agree that it would be impossible to do."

Somehow, guns have always been in our society, and this thing about people literally not caring about others enough to go out and kill as many as possible has only been a real problem in the recent decades. Perhaps we ought to examine what it is about society that has changed. The guns certainly haven't.

originally posted by: ketsuko
this thing about people literally not caring about others enough to go out and kill as many as possible

It's a product of our society. People need to be allowed to single out these broken a-holes and beat the ever-living-tar out of 'em. The ramifications and repercussions of solving a problem at the lowest level cause people to step away from a problem they could fix ... and let it manifest into a mass shooter.

I'm still wondering what 'they' know about the Vegas incident.

And Johnny ... I don't like the argument about guns not killing people very much either. However, the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as a natural right in America. You can't take away a right. The 2d Amendment Crowd has given way more than we should. When you start seeing people leveling accusations of broken oaths against people drawing paychecks from local, state, and federal coffers ... it might be time to bunker-up.

a reply to: Archivalist

Then spouting an ad hominem doesn’t mean they win the debate, but it does mean the ad hominem attack doesn’t count...


It sounds good, but means nothing..


Just like slippery slope arguments.. and every other logical fallacy.. which is why it is on the list lol..


They are arguments that sound good to stupid people, but are not valid arguments.

Assuming you know the list by heart, and actually apply it. You are impossible to propagandize..


Why??

Because you don’t fall for arguments that sound good, but mean nothing.