Debate user BoxerShorts47 on "strawmans" and logical fallacies, definitions of ephebophilia, how to MAGA, religion, Sailor Moon and more

[SIGSEGV]

How else would a creature like this get dates?

Rohypnol

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

Rohypnol

Dude's so unfuckable he probably has to roofie his hand.

 

[Table Country]

1. I would say this is a 1990s center-left / Civil Rights Activist (CRA) forum.

Wow you really have no idea where you are.

Most of the people here repeat civil rights talking points like racism bad, discrimination bad, bigotry bad without realizing that these ideas lead to social justice.

Okay, maybe you have a point.

If you say black people are the same as white people and white people don't have a right to a white community and anyone who disagrees is a racism/white supremacist/bigot and you use govt to punish these people by firing them from their jobs and forcing them to sell their homes to non whites, that's the same as SJWs saying a transwomen is a women, forcing transwomen into female spaces and attacking anyone who disagrees as a transphobe and paying equal rights for transgenders. So there is very little difference between a 1990s center-left CRA vs a 2010s far-left SJW, both are authoritarian and are using the government and media to control you. They morally justify it because of their equality and individual liberty religion aka values.

Kek. That's a lot of strawmanning from a guy who hates strawmanning, you hypocrite.

2. Not necessary but it could be useful. I name fallacies to train my mind to see them. When you engage in debate, most people will argue in bad faith so they will never admit that you're right. Instead they will use fallacies to derail your argument so it appears they win. I name fallacies to prevent myself from getting distracted. Also sometimes you do need to address a fallacy and debunk it even if it's a fallacy because it might be a legit criticism but they are misapplying it by ignoring your point.

All you have done is used fallacies to derail others' arguments, you hypocrite.

Liberals want to virtue signal about diversity. Wonderful goal toward which we must strive. Diversity is the ultimate good. Racism is the ultimate evil. This is their core morality. To defeat them, you must undercut this narrative. If you can force them to admit a downside of diversity, that'll hurt their narrative badly. The best counter example is that innocent person, that did nothing wrong, will get falsely accused saying or doing something racist and will lose their job. This is called a false positive. Diversity requires human sacrifices, innocent people that did nothing wrong will be punished for diversity. The other example is innocent white people will get killed by disproportionate black or brown crime or Muslim terrorism. Liberals will say, "well all societies have crime." This is a strawman, so you can reframe by saying, "Ya but these deaths are preventable; caused by your diversity policy. You got blood on your hands." To reiterate, you want to show that there are downsides to diversity and force the liberals to take responsibility for the cons. This stops their ability to endless virtue signal their morality.

Homogeneity also requires "human sacrifice", you hypocrite. But that's besides the point.
Have you ever heard of the Pendulum? It's a pretty simple thing to wrap your head around. Every society will eventually sway one way politically after a while, and when it does it will ultimately swing back. There's plenty of evidence of this inevitable backswing to the Right in our society, on this forum, even in your incessant diatribes. It is not necessarily caused by bold revolutions, it's more like the pull of gravity.

Same type of fallacy; maybe loaded question? It doesn't suck to live in japan any more than USA. They got lower crime than us, better public transit, I haven't looked their the suicide rate vs our opiod rate but overall the quality is better than America. I haven't been to Japan personally but most Americans that have gone there generally like it.

Crime, suicide rate, and drug use are not the sole indicators of societal decay, it's especially worthless in a country that runs on the Chinese model of "ass-kissing equals promotion" or a society where organized crime is closely entwined with society. Hell, you wanna talk about a society where there's no crime rate, no drug usage, and few suicides? DING DING DING IT'S NK BABY

PRAISE BE TO OUR DEAREST LEADER

Why was USA a great place to live? Industrial revolution, not diversity.

Well would you look at that; a second point.

 

[Spamy the Bot]

Rohypnol

That would take agency and some level of physical fitness.

 

[Nein Inch Nales]

>wahh, ur arguin n bad faith
>strawmen
>ur losing

 

[Looney Troons]

Dude's so unfuckable he probably has to roofie his hand.

This is probably one of the lowest blows I’ve ever read on this site. Please keep up the fine work.

 

[Kaiser Aura]

You're forcing me to live with non whites. You are forcing open borders on me. You are hurting me. Denying me the right to a community that looks like me.

Awwww. Somebody wants a safe space. How cute.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Great to see someone answering. I'll ask further: Do you actually memorize a list of fallacies then since you said pointing out fallacies trains your brain?

I didn't memorize a list. I learned from experience and google searches. Without knowing the fallacies or at least internalizing how to deal with them, you'll hit roadblocks.

I am writing a list to show other people the top fallacies that they need to avoid:

• Bait & Switch (Strawman & Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies)
• Sunk Cost Fallacy // We cannot do X in the future because of Y in the past or present.
• Appeal to Authority // Citing the law or expert testimony, including studies. "That's illegal" or "9/10 doctors believe...."
• Appeal to Popularity // Most voters believe X therefore we should do what they want.
• Appeal to Consequence // We cannot do what you want because I don't like the consequences of your policies.
• Equivocation // Racism is the best example because it means different things in different contexts and is conflated with discrimination and xenophobia. Another example is sexism which is conflated with misogyny,
• Circular Reasoning Fallacy // "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their create with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Also Ad Hominem is NOT always a fallacy. If character traits matters, than ad hominem will work as an attack e.g. (liar, dumb/low iq). Slippery Slope is not always a fallacy, often times it's the deductive conclusion of an axiom. Also anecdotal evident is not always a fallacy, it's a form of inductive reasoning and it's not different from any scientific study, just your own person study based on your "lived experience" and if your sample represents the population than this is a valid form of reasoning.

These words are similar to an ad hominem attack: racist, sexist. bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ablist, communist, socialist, nazi, etc. If you get called one of these words, it can delegitmize you.

Lastly, some of thee fallacies have really profound consequences, e.g. appeal to popularity means democracy doesn't matter since it doesn't matter what the voters believe and you have the right to ignore them or change their minds.

 

[José Mourinho]

I didn't memorize a list. I learned from experience and google searches. Without knowing the fallacies or at least internalizing how to deal with them, you'll hit roadblocks.

I am writing a list to show other people the top fallacies that they need to avoid:

• Bait & Switch (Strawman & Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies)
• Sunk Cost Fallacy // We cannot do X in the future because of Y in the past or present.
• Appeal to Authority // Citing the law or expert testimony, including studies. "That's illegal" or "9/10 doctors believe...."
• Appeal to Popularity // Most voters believe X therefore we should do what they want.
• Appeal to Consequence // We cannot do what you want because I don't like the consequences of your policies.
• Equivocation // Racism is the best example because it means different things in different contexts and is conflated with discrimination and xenophobia. Another example is sexism which is conflated with misogyny,
• Circular Reasoning Fallacy // "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their create with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Also Ad Hominem is NOT always a fallacy. If character traits matters, than ad hominem will work as an attack e.g. (liar, dumb/low iq). Slippery Slope is not always a fallacy, often times it's the deductive conclusion of an axiom. Also anecdotal evident is not always a fallacy, it's a form of inductive reasoning and it's not different from any scientific study, just your own person study based on your "lived experience" and if your sample represents the population than this is a valid form of reasoning.

These words are similar to an ad hominem attack: racist, sexist. bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ablist, communist, socialist, nazi, etc. If you get called one of these words, it can delegitmize you.

Lastly, some of thee fallacies have really profound consequences, e.g. appeal to popularity means democracy doesn't matter since it doesn't matter what the voters believe and you have the right to ignore them or change their minds.

What do you think about the fallacy known as "argumentum ad dictionarium"?

 

[SIGSEGV]

Also Ad Hominem is NOT always a fallacy.

You're a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, cock sucking troglodyte and therefore nothing that comes out of your shit encrusted mouth holds any weight whatsoever.

 

[Doctor Placebo]

The reds fucked off because we'd spent several years actually killing their asses. Whether you think this was justified or not or what the causes may have been are irrelevant because the fact that we were fucking killing them is true. Besides, if your logic is that all outsiders of an invading race should be shipped back to their homeland, then by that logic all whities should get yeeted back to the old world so the red man and the spic can have their backyards back. Are you sure you aren't some kind of La Raza spokesperson trying to undermine White Nationalism? Also what about the Heebs?

I'd like to point out something about this. Another reason the reds got fucked was because initially many of them saw whitey as a potentially powerful ally against rival tribes. That's the real reason that natives saved the Jamestown residents from starving to death, not out of the goodness of their hearts. They wanted those magic firesticks that were so good at killing. That's why some powerful tribes sided with the American colonies against the French. There were always some tribes willing to side with the whites, because their "fellow reds" had been trying to annihilate or enslave them for generations. Or they just wanted to do some annihilating or enslaving for themselves.

On top of going against the Social Justice narrative, this completely undoes any point Boxershorts is trying to make using Amerindians, because despite being all of the same race, they weren't united. As far as "low trust societies" go, they were a lot worse than Brazil, since you don't see Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo in full blown wars of enslavement and annihilation against each other. The tribes were they same race, but they didn't consider themselves the same people at all.

This backs your point that without race, people find other reasons to divide themselves. If the far right actually managed to set up a white ethnostate, I'd bet dollars to donuts that a Catholic/Protestant split would rend it in two pretty quickly, probably with Pagan larpers and fedora tippers as a third faction. If you've ever been involved in far right forums and servers, ethnonationalist or not, you'll know how bitterly divided these people are about religion.

 

[snailslime]

I didn't memorize a list. I learned from experience and google searches. Without knowing the fallacies or at least internalizing how to deal with them, you'll hit roadblocks.

I am writing a list to show other people the top fallacies that they need to avoid:

• Bait & Switch (Strawman & Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies)
• Sunk Cost Fallacy // We cannot do X in the future because of Y in the past or present.
• Appeal to Authority // Citing the law or expert testimony, including studies. "That's illegal" or "9/10 doctors believe...."
• Appeal to Popularity // Most voters believe X therefore we should do what they want.
• Appeal to Consequence // We cannot do what you want because I don't like the consequences of your policies.
• Equivocation // Racism is the best example because it means different things in different contexts and is conflated with discrimination and xenophobia. Another example is sexism which is conflated with misogyny,
• Circular Reasoning Fallacy // "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their create with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So all of the arguments that you disagree with are fallacies

Also Ad Hominem is NOT always a fallacy. If character traits matters, than ad hominem will work as an attack e.g. (liar, dumb/low iq). Slippery Slope is not always a fallacy, often times it's the deductive conclusion of an axiom. Also anecdotal evident is not always a fallacy, it's a form of inductive reasoning and it's not different from any scientific study, just your own person study based on your "lived experience" and if your sample represents the population than this is a valid form of reasoning.

Lol ok

These words are similar to an ad hominem attack: racist, sexist. bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ablist, communist, socialist, nazi, etc. If you get called one of these words, it can delegitmize you.

Lastly, some of thee fallacies have really profound consequences, e.g. appeal to popularity means democracy doesn't matter since it doesn't matter what the voters believe and you have the right to ignore them or change their minds.

Can you tell me who in this thread even called you a nazi, bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ableist, communist, socialist, or even racist? Sounds like you subconsciously know you're a lot of those so you accuse us of name calling

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

What do you think about the fallacy known as "argumentum ad dictionarium"?

*sound of furious googling* "That doesn't apply to meeeeee" - @BoxerShorts47 , probably.

EDIT: but you can bet your ass he's gonna use it repeatedly in the future, like he has with every new phrase he's learned ITT.

 

[Table Country]

I didn't memorize a list. I learned from experience and google searches. Without knowing the fallacies or at least internalizing how to deal with them, you'll hit roadblocks.

I am writing a list to show other people the top fallacies that they need to avoid:

• Bait & Switch (Strawman & Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies)
• Sunk Cost Fallacy // We cannot do X in the future because of Y in the past or present.
• Appeal to Authority // Citing the law or expert testimony, including studies. "That's illegal" or "9/10 doctors believe...."
• Appeal to Popularity // Most voters believe X therefore we should do what they want.
• Appeal to Consequence // We cannot do what you want because I don't like the consequences of your policies.
• Equivocation // Racism is the best example because it means different things in different contexts and is conflated with discrimination and xenophobia. Another example is sexism which is conflated with misogyny,
• Circular Reasoning Fallacy // "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their create with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Also Ad Hominem is NOT always a fallacy. If character traits matters, than ad hominem will work as an attack e.g. (liar, dumb/low iq). Slippery Slope is not always a fallacy, often times it's the deductive conclusion of an axiom. Also anecdotal evident is not always a fallacy, it's a form of inductive reasoning and it's not different from any scientific study, just your own person study based on your "lived experience" and if your sample represents the population than this is a valid form of reasoning.

These words are similar to an ad hominem attack: racist, sexist. bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ablist, communist, socialist, nazi, etc. If you get called one of these words, it can delegitmize you.

Lastly, some of thee fallacies have really profound consequences, e.g. appeal to popularity means democracy doesn't matter since it doesn't matter what the voters believe and you have the right to ignore them or change their minds.

Tone policing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Spamy the Bot]

Can you tell me who in this thread even called you a nazi, bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ableist, communist, socialist, or even racist? Sounds like you subconsciously know you're a lot of those so you accuse us of name calling

As a resident nazi, bigot, transphobe, homophobe, ableist, communist, socialist, or even racist I disavow BoxerShorts47, for posting cringe and losing subscriber.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

What do you think about the fallacy known as "argumentum ad dictionarium"?

Appeal to authority fallacy or circular logic fallacy depending on the usage. Dictionary is an authority source and it's treated like the Bible by many people. But the true meaning of words is determined by context, how people actually use them, not because of what some dictionary writer states. This fallacy is taught to most kids in most nations because of public education. Humans had language before dictionaries.

This is an important fallacy because it effects most civil rights or social justice words like sexism or racism or discrimination. e.g.

Sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

So 2 gender norms = sexism = cisgendered. A sexist is a man that treats a women like a women and a women that treats a man as a man. So anti sexism, equality, means non-binary or uni-sex behavior; anti-sexism infringes upon my right to treat a women as women, I'm denied 2 gender norms. I'm denied the ability to express cis-gendered hetro-normative culture because of the feminists.

This creates the foundation for transgenderism, you don't have a right to treat a transwomen any different from a women = you don't have the right to treat a women any different from a man. To go back to what I said, I find 1990s center-left liberals aka civil rights activists to be just as crazy and insane as SJWs today, but I didn't realize this until about 1 year ago because I was brainwashed by the propaganda in public education.

 

[SIGSEGV]

But the true meaning of words is determined by context, how people actually use them, not because of what some dictionary writer states

"Words don't mean what the dictionary says that they mean"
Spoken like a true SJW

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

Appeal to authority fallacy or circular logic fallacy depending on the usage. Dictionary is an authority source and it's treated like the Bible by many people. But the true meaning of words is determined by context, how people actually use them, not because of what some dictionary writer states. This fallacy is taught to most kids in most nations because of public education. Humans had language before dictionaries.

Oh good, we're back to "I'm smarter than the dictionary because it suits me to say so." It's only been 100 pages or so since you trotted that one out.
I'll give you this much, sweetheart: you must have an adamantium asshole; I haven't seen someone fucked this hard since A Serbian Film. Yet you keep coming back and presenting.

 

[snailslime]

A Serbian Film

I wonder if they'll allow this in the ethnostate, since it's oh so based and all White

 

[Stardust]

This guy is using 'fallacy' more often now. What happened to 'strawman'? Did they leave you for Tyrone?