The Ten Commandments of Logic

36 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2022-06-17 10:41

Pondering

I thought it might be fun to occasionally illustrate examples of the following on the board as an educational endeavor. All in good fun I hope. I am sure I will figure brightly among the examples.

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.
Straw man fallacy — Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.
Hasty generalization — Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.
Begging the question — Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true.
Post Hoc/False cause — Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause.
False dichotomy — Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
Ad ignorantum — Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false.
Burden of proof reversal — Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
Non sequitur — Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection.
Bandwagon fallacy — Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.

PS. I'm willing to be the first example.

Fri, 2022-06-17 14:40

JKR

Fri, 2022-06-17 14:40

JKR

Sat, 2022-06-18 01:04

oldgoat

I wonder if someone could break all 10 of these in one medium sized paragraph

Thu, 2022-10-27 01:45

Pondering

Okay well I offered to be the first example but I guess I will have to give the first examples.

This post is from https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/activism/class-struggle?page=3#comment-5725207

Post 140

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

<p>Manufacturing cocaine is work. Something being work doesn’t automatically mean it should be protected under labour law no matter how happy or well-paid the worker is if that work is considered detrimental to workers or society.</p>

Manufacturing cocaine is illegal and a serious crime. It’s an indictable offence. Are you saying sex work should be an indictable offence in Canada? As it is, sex work is legal work in Canada, so why shouldn’t it be covered by labour laws?

My comment spells out that I am using an example of work that is not protected by labour law not suggesting that prostitution should be an indictable offence.

Straw man fallacy — Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.

The post also makes a false claim that “sex work” meaning prostitution is legal in Canada.

Begging the question — Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true.

Thu, 2022-10-27 01:49

Pondering

Post 154 from the same thread

(My comment which was addressing someone else. )

Pondering wrote:
You keep saying safety first but you support policies that endanger women so I don't believe you.

laine lowe wrote:
<p>How does a safety first approach endanger women? There is a puritanical subtext that seems to influence these discussions.</p>

An approach that endangers women is obviously not a safety first approach.

Straw man fallacy — Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.

The “puritanical subtext” accusation is a sexist stereotype thrown at women who object to the establishment of prostitution as an industry.

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Thu, 2022-10-27 20:32

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I am sorry you felt that I was attacking you as a person, Pondering. That wasn't my intent and the puritanical observation is something that I had observed among literary critics and discussed in literature courses back in the ancient age when I was in school. It has always stuck with me because it applies to more aspects than just literature but it policy making and criminal justice.

Thu, 2022-10-27 21:02

Pondering

Thank you Laine.

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:10

Pondering

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/protection-communities-and...

Posts 17 and 19 - Stephen Harper

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Indirect ad hominem attacks attach a viewpoint to an unpopular person or movement. If you share a viewpoint with that person you are condemned by association. I hope Harper doesn't like pizza.

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:12

#10

JKR

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:14

#11

JKR

Does Harper have special laws for pizza store workers?

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:23

#12

Pondering

Anyone who likes pizza is now associated with Harper. Anything Harper likes is automatically wrong therefore pizza must be rejected.

Thu, 2022-11-10 17:07

#13

JKR

Do we have to reject pancakes too?

Thu, 2022-11-10 17:27

#14

JKR

He seems to be dubious about poutine so I guess we're allowed to eat that.

Fri, 2022-11-11 01:22

#15

Pondering

You can joke about your ad hominem attacks but it doesn't make you any less of a troll. You treat prostitution like a big joke.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/protection-communities-and...

Posts 17 and 19 - Stephen Harper

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Indirect ad hominem attacks attach a viewpoint to an unpopular person or movement. If you share a viewpoint with that person you are condemned by association. I hope Harper doesn't like pizza.

Fri, 2022-11-11 02:52

#16

Pondering

deleting in favor of addressing in another thread

Sat, 2022-11-12 00:53

#17

susan davis susan davis's picture

I didn't even see this.... jeez

Sat, 2022-11-12 02:19

#18

Pondering

You are arguing it is a good law and others are arguing it is a bad law and pointing out which government passed what they think is a bad law. If you think Harper passed a good laws then why is it wrong to say you support his polices on the issue. Your pretzel logic is amusing but hard to follow. If one did not keep track of which government passed which laws what would one have to base voting on.

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy. It has no bearing on the merits of Bill 36.

I missed the primary point of the Harper crack. It was to change the subject of the thread from Bill C 36 to lets talk about Pondering. I become the target when I present a strong argument. He doesn't want to talk about the bill.

Sat, 2022-11-12 11:03

(Reply to #18) #19

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy.

It's okay if you do.

Sat, 2022-11-12 11:30

(Reply to #19) #20

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy.

It's okay if you do.

You're right and I was going there next. Associating posters with ideologies or political parties they don't support is a classic babble attack technique for those posting in bad faith. The point is to change the subject from the thread topic to the poster while offending the poster to ramp up emotion.

The second impact is to offend any one who does support whatever affiliation was used as a weapon.

Sat, 2022-11-12 13:02

(Reply to #20) #21

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy.

It's okay if you do.

You're right and I was going there next. Associating posters with ideologies or political parties they don't support is a classic babble attack technique for those posting in bad faith. The point is to change the subject from the thread topic to the poster while offending the poster to ramp up emotion.

The second impact is to offend any one who does support whatever affiliation was used as a weapon.

I've been saying the same thing. You agree with me or you're wrong and an enemy type stuff.

There are policies from Trudeau that I support. There are also ones from him I was against and turns out, I was wrong.

I'm sure Hitler had some great ideas and great policies. Nazi Germany, for all their experiments on humans, we're concerned about vivisection. Germany was huge on animal conservation. So that's a good policy.

Sat, 2022-11-12 19:23

#22

Pondering

I guess this is just straight up attack? No one is obligated to respond to another poster's argument. Again Kropotkin wants to talk about me. He is obsessed.

pondering wrote:
Pivot Legal is a respected group and has been active on prostitution but I find the statement is based in emotional propaganda style arguments rather than legal ones.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Your dismissive attitude towards anything that is not your viewpoint makes discussing anything with you a pain in the ass. Go ahead ignore every argument and then pontificate some more.

You could just say "your response didn't cover these points that I think are significant".

Post 34 https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/protection-communities-and...

Sat, 2022-11-12 23:35

(Reply to #22) #23

JKR

Paladin1 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy.

It's okay if you do.

Exactly. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with supporting Harper government policies. I never stated it was wrong to support policies supported by Harper and his government. I think it’s fair to ask the question, “why did Harper establish this policy into law?”

Sat, 2022-11-12 23:57

(Reply to #23) #24

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy.

It's okay if you do.

Exactly. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with supporting Harper government policies. I never stated it was wrong to support policies supported by Harper and his government. I think it’s fair to ask the question, “why did Harper establish this policy into law?”

It would be fair to ask his wife or his executive team. I've never spoken to the man.

Sun, 2022-11-13 11:50

#25

oldgoat

Y'all know that this is the babble banter forum, right?

Sun, 2022-11-13 15:48

#26

Pondering

I thought it could be light-hearted in here until I realized it was a list of techniques to troll people.

I don't know which forum it belongs in but I would be happy for you to move it. I think the list of examples is going to grow.

Mon, 2022-11-14 12:03

#27

Pondering

This technique is particularly insidious. Each individual post can seem like innocent confusion at first but they build one on top of another. This series leads to the worst most painful attack I’ve ever experienced on any message board. My sincere apology illustrates my naïve. I put my guard down because of the topic. I was going to share personal information that would have been used against me to prove I have issues with sex or with men.

I thought now that I understood the nature of babble trolls my emotions were immune. I didn’t care anymore. I was so wrong.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/sex-labour

laine lowe wrote:
Post 88 Pondering, "recovering from prostitution" is pretty heavy handed. Forced prostitution is abuse and can be viewed as traumatic as rape and other sexual abuse. Are you saying that all sex work should be viewed as abuse that you need to recover from?

laine lowe wrote:
Post 90 You used a catch all phrase of "prostitution" in your statement of giving recovery support.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/activism/class-struggle?page=3

laine lowe wrote:
Post 154 How does a safety first approach endanger women? There is a puritanical subtext that seems to influence these discussions.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/activist-toolkit/left-right-side?page=2

laine lowe wrote:
Post 123 Pondering, I do think you are taking difference of opinion too personally but I thank you for sparking dialogue.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/activist-toolkit/left-right-side?page=2

laine lowe wrote:
Post 141 Why do you say abortion isn't a good thing. It is a safe medical procedure now that it is legal that should be considered one of many advancements made in gynagcological health.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/female-sexuality-and-impact-our-lives

laine lowe wrote:
Post 9 I read in your take that women should always be on the alert when it comes to expressing their sexuality….…(deleted sex abuse story)……. thankfully it hasn't scarred me or prevented me from embracing and enjoying my sexuality.

First you put words in my mouth. I never said anything remotely like that. Then you “counter” a view you projected on me by telling your story of not being traumatized by sexual abuse.

Why project that weird opinion on me before the story? What is the intended implication? It's not there for nothing. It wasn't an idle observation.

laine lowe wrote:
Post 11 Maybe I am a sensitive troll, Pondering. But you did not have the compassion to acknowledge that I shared deeply personal experiences on this thread - things that very few people in my orbit of current friends even know of.

I was a little confused because you said you weren’t traumatized and you gave no details as to what actually happened, but I wanted to apologize right away.

Pondering wrote:
Post 12 I intended to but in a different post after putting more thought into it. I too have had experiences but I didn't want to compare emotional reactions or events. I reread the chest of drawers explanation and it was an excellent way to explain it. I am happy you had such wise adults that could step in when your mother failed you. I am sorry you felt slighted by my not responding to that aspect of your post first. I worked through it from top to bottom and the last section was your personal experience.

I'm glad you gave me the chance to explain myself and I hope you no longer judge me as lacking in compassion.

Then I when I went to respond more fully and really read what she wrote. I was stunned and reacted instantly saying so.

laine lowe wrote:
Post 15 Pondering, first of all I appreciate you supportive words on my sharing my experiences.

Secondly, I am not trying to put words in your mouth but I guess there was something in what you said that led me to believie that you were suggesting a power imbalence that influenced sexual dynamics. I am sorry if I misread what you were expressing.

There was nothing I said that led you to believe anything. I almost shared real personal experiences that would have left me genuinely vulnerable specifically in reaction to your accusation of lack of compassion.

Once I had alerted you to my shock, and I read your response, I knew you would rush to delete the post and feint offended innocence. I captured it minutes or seconds before you deleted it.

You left up your accusation of lack of compassion on my part so you weren’t the least bit sorry for using a sex abuse story to bait and attack me.

I read in your take that women should always be on the alert when it comes to expressing their sexuality

I said women have embraced our sexuality from one night stands to vacation romances and rejected slut shaming. I said there was no one way that all women experienced sex. In every single post in this thread I have gone out of my way to show that I wanted to explore not judge women’s sexuality.

Every single post you have addressed to me was an attack. Not one exception. I have to hand it to you the sex abuse story was perfect. My guard went right down instantly. I didn’t even notice you started your story with putting offensive words in my mouth. What a stellar feminist you are.

For the record, yes, I have suffered very seriously at the hands of men multiple times, even while 8 months pregnant. I was traumatized. I was scarred. Then I married my late husband who was the kindest most non-violent man you could ever meet. He had a scar across his nose from stepping in to stop a man from attacking another woman at a party he was at. He wasn't weak or a coward. He was just a man of peace.

Men are both loving and violent. I don't condemn a man for having these human qualities. Women are also both loving and violent. We are more alike than we are different. Men are just physically stronger because that is the power nature bestows on them at puberty.

No moderator can control the expert troll that uses subtle needling over and over again to ramp up the emotions of another poster.

Mon, 2022-11-14 16:26

(Reply to #27) #28

JKR

Pondering wrote:
JKR wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to point out that I support a Harper policy.

It's okay if you do.

Exactly. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with supporting Harper government policies. I never stated it was wrong to support policies supported by Harper and his government. I think it’s fair to ask the question, “why did Harper establish this policy into law?”

It would be fair to ask his wife or his executive team. I've never spoken to the man.

You don’t think why a prime minister or their government establishes legislation is pertinent to understanding that legislation?

Mon, 2022-11-14 17:10

#29

susan davis susan davis's picture

Pondering, you are attacking Laine - not vice versa - your point by point post shows how much you are investing in attacking her.... you invited us to respond, when we responded you lost it.... and have reposted personal information she deleted when she realized you were not safe to share it with.... as you have proven by reposting it again here without her permission and with no regard for her safety.....

Mon, 2022-11-14 17:58

#30

Pondering

That information is in the premable of the bill. You have participated in multiple discussions on the Bill prior to this. You are experienced in political discussion.

This particlar trolling technique is called smashing. You overload the target with questions that distract from the topic they are trying to address. It has the added benefit of making the target think people are actually interested in the answers.

JKR wrote:
How is wanting to abolish sex work not trying to silence people who do sex work and not make them invisible? Are you being open to the opinions of sex workers when you say their work should be abolished? Are there viewpoints generally held by sex workers that you agree with?

JKR wrote:
Who is telling you you have no right to an opinion? You seem to be expressing your opinions very freely.

JKR wrote:
You seem to think you know what’s better for sex workers than they do. Why not respect what they are saying about their situation from their perspective?

I got sucked into defending myself instead of discussing either of the topics . 1) Comparing the new law to the law that was overturned by the Bedford decision. 2) If street prostitution was justified from the perspective of labor rights.

Mon, 2022-11-14 18:13

#31

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
and have reposted personal information she deleted when she realized you were not safe to share it with.... as you have proven by reposting it again here without her permission and with no regard for her safety...

Except I didn't repost it. I omitted the "private part" which amounted to nothing leaving in only the attacks on me.

I read in your take that women should always be on the alert when it comes to expressing their sexuality....it hasn't scarred me or prevented me from embracing and enjoying my sexuality.

Accusing me of having a problem with women expressing their sexuality is an attack. Convoluted wording doesn't change it. What was the purpose in coupling it with a vague account of sex abuse that wasn't traumatizing?

But you did not have the compassion to acknowledge that I shared deeply personal experiences on this thread - things that very few people in my orbit of current friends even know of.

The event itself wasn't traumatizing but my lack of offering immediate emotional support was so insensitive it required immediate chastisement. It wasn't just shared with me privately.

She left up her post accusing me of lack of compassion for not responding. I'm responding.

Mon, 2022-11-14 23:25

#32

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Thank you Susan for being a supportive ally in these attacks of my being a troll. It's a first in over 20 years of being involved in alternative political forums including being a moderator for close to five years when Alternet had forums.

I think I will take a short term sabbatical from posting. Things are super busy in real life so it is probably a good thing.

And not being permanently scarred by something does not mean not being negatively impacted by an event.

Tue, 2022-11-15 02:02

#33

Pondering

Thank you for your compassionate reply to my confession of multiple traumatizing experiences. Your apology for making me feel tempted but hesitant about sharing my own experiences is particularly touching.

I read in your take that women should always be on the alert when it comes to expressing their sexuality.

Secondly, I am not trying to put words in your mouth but I guess there was something in what you said that led me to believie that you were suggesting a power imbalence that influenced sexual dynamics.

This all happened in posts 1-15 of the thread. There is no long convoluted discussion to untangle.

https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/female-sexuality-and-impact-our...

I was definitely talking about power dynamics but not just in one direction and not in the sense of suggesting men in general were a threat or that women should hesitate expressing their sexuality in any way. I acknowledge that women have exchanged their sexuality to obtain material favors even within the animal kingdom. I don't think it is necessarily a cold unfeeling exchange. We are mammals that can and do overcome our instincts through reason but that doesn't mean our instincts are no longer there and don't impact our behavior. Being aware of instincts is what helps us reject or embrace where they lead based on reason.

I will appreciate your sabbatical.

Tue, 2022-11-15 10:25

#34

susan davis susan davis's picture

Procreation.... is not an animal trait which can be "overcome"..... just saying.... as a person who came from procreation.....lol that instinct is embedded

Tue, 2022-11-15 16:20

#35

Pondering

We call it "The Pill". It needs no other qualifier because it was revolutionary. Many people choose to be childless and until we were blessed with The Pill people used all kinds ways including abstinance to limit their procreative potential.

People use reason to overcome instinct all the time.

You are still trying to find stuff to mock me for, attack me with. Just relax already.

Tue, 2022-11-15 22:06

#36

susan davis susan davis's picture

i am challenging your comments and assertions... am not mocking you at all