Comments on: ...then the conversational terrorists have already won.

...then the conversational terrorists have already won.

PinkStainlessTail — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:13:45 -0800

Conversational Terrorism Protect yourself from responding to or using these rhetorical cheats. (via the lovely boingboing)

By: PenDevil

PenDevil — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:20:52 -0800

Now besides grammar nazi's we'll also be subject to the logical argument gestapo....

By: chandy72

chandy72 — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:22:26 -0800

Do they hand this to every talk radio jock on their first day: "Well, you might not have a well-founded opinion on every issue, so just close your eyes, point to one of these little babies and you're all set. Now go get 'em kid!"

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:29:12 -0800

One of these days I'm going to set up a Argument Certification system, basically converting introductory philosophy course material into a way of preparing people to argue well, specifically on the net. You can then wear your certification level as a badge. There could even be negative levels, as punishment for poor arguments. You could go from neophyte to master debater depending on your dedication to your arguments. And one could have a central certificate authority that would handle the ratings, and the ability to report good or bad arguments made by the participants. Kind of an online equivalent of a reputation. If this were the late nineties I'd have VCs at my door by now.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:31:01 -0800

I'd like to respond to this thread, but taking into account your background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that you would not be able to understand.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:33:14 -0800

These are great. I've studied logic, but can never remember the various fallacies, etc. Now I can look them up, and the examples are really enjoyable. Now that I've conceded that this is a good site, perhaps I can be allowed a critcism without being told I'm doing a sleight of mind nitpick - why oh why must this web page feature dark blue text on black background.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:33:43 -0800

Seriously, thanks for the link. Interesting and informative.

By: PigAlien

PigAlien — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:12:53 -0800

Great link! I recognize so many of these tactics and am embarassed to have used many of them. I try as much as possible to eliminate them from my discussions with people, but it can be very difficult. At least now, I'll be able to throw them back in people's faces when they use them as 'conversational terrorists'. Where would that tactic land?

By: tolkhan

tolkhan — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:15:43 -0800

orange swan, try here. It's a bit less Fallacies for the Layperson, but does provide examples of each without that blue-on-black text.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:28:48 -0800

Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies This is not an exhaustive list. There are longer ones which I can find at the moment. But one of my favorite fallacies, which "Stephen's" neglects is....... "Und So Weiter" - Literally, in German, "And so on", and serves as shorthand for "And so on, and so on, and so on....": The is the Fallacy of Assumed Continuity. Meaning: we can NEVER assume the continuation of trends. In fact, the geological record is full of catastrophes which ended longstanding trends -- abruptly. We all know this implicitly, of course. We know, for example, that the "trend" of our lives will one day, sooner or later, end abruptly. But we normally forget the wider implications, or even vehemently deny them, as in: "Director of Woods Hole warns of Sudden Climate Change brought about by Global Warming - "We are walking towards a cliff", says Bob Gagosian... "That's just nuts!" is the common response. This news is "nuts", course, because of the emotional weight of the "Und So Weiter" fallacy.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:33:00 -0800

Too bad all the fun tactics, like "Forehead Fun" ("whilst your opponent is talking, switch your gaze momentarily to his forehead and then back to the eyes") are the ones you can't use on the internet.

By: LouReedsSon

LouReedsSon — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:43:54 -0800

So there! :)

By: chandy72

chandy72 — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:55:39 -0800

I might have missed it, but I didn't see the "Am Not/Are Too" tactic. I've totally had people use the looking at the forehead, then, back to the eyes and that's just plain wrong. Almost as bad as someone looking over your shoulder while you're talking and them muttering 'uh-huh, uh-huh' impatiently till you have to take a breath and then having the conversation hijacked. I should probably come up with a catchier name for that...

By: briank

briank — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:56:04 -0800

Well, I think that just about wraps up MetaFilter once and for all, so thank you ladies and gentlemen and plese proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exits!

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:59:02 -0800

Almost as bad as someone looking over your shoulder while you're talking and them muttering 'uh-huh, uh-huh' impatiently till you have to take a breath and then having the conversation hijacked. I should probably come up with a catchier name for that... I call this the K.C. and the Sunshine Band Technique. The "non-apology apology" is my fave. "I'm sorry you didn't understand." "I'm sorry you got upset." "I'm sorry that confused you." Classic assholery.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:27:32 -0800

I didn't see 'guilt trip' on the list, or did I miss it? "What a retard." "That's not funny. My sister is retarded." "What kind of stupid name is 'Olga'?" "My mom's name is Olga."

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:37:43 -0800

Do you want to ruin mefi? Is that what you want?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:37:50 -0800

Thanks for the link PST. The "non-apology apology" is my fave. I heard Donald Rumsfeld use this very tactic in his "apology" to Vietnam veterans.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:54:01 -0800

"Why, that's Calvinism!"

By: son_of_minya

son_of_minya — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:42:32 -0800

Interesting link and all, but you have to admit that Huey Long would trounce any well-mannered MeFier in a public debate. He was so good, they're teaching classes today to discredit what he said over 50 years ago. Now that is how one debates properly.

By: wanderingmind

wanderingmind — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:05:19 -0800

There should be people who're equipped with this list and wander around wearing striped jerseys, carrying flags to throw in the air and whistles to blow when they hear a conversation being hijacked this way. *fweet!* "Ad Hominem, five yards." And then the offender would be forcibly moved five yards away from their conversation partner.

By: woil

woil — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:06:34 -0800

Alex, I'll take "Things my girlfriend should read, but I don't have the guts to send her." for 300

By: Termite

Termite — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:35:50 -0800

You could go from neophyte to master debater... Am I the only one with a dirty imagination here? This made me smile...

By: Holden

Holden — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:52:43 -0800

Termite, what would your father say if he could read you now? (Selective Quotation)

By: Holden

Holden — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:57:32 -0800

Have you noticed that professional athletes, in TV and radio interviews, invariably use the "Like I said..." gambit?

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:59:53 -0800

These are NOT logical fallacies. These are tactics that people use to dominate an argument when they don't necessarily have a good argument. This is sophistry.

By: jaded

jaded — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:22:43 -0800

You could go from neophyte to master debater... Where does cunning linguist fall on that scale? Hildago: some of them *are* logical fallacies. The ad hominem, and the authority by association are both logical fallacy tactics. The thing about logical fallacies is that they all LOOK exactly like sophistry because they *are* sophistry, but they only make up a subset of its many methods...

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:22:59 -0800

Yeah, a couple are, but 90% of them are just bad debate techniques, and I don't want someone telling me I've made a logical mistake when in reality I'm just being an asshole...

By: jaded

jaded — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:06:06 -0800

Maybe they're just trying to be nice...by not calling you an asshole, I mean ;-)

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:54:54 -0800

You have to be cruel to be kind. ...Studies which you've never heard of prove this.

By: wobh

wobh — Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:38:46 -0800

This thread this thousands of years old! The best strategy for endrunning the sophists is the Socratic Method. It's used intuitively by little children to drive their parents nuts! You've probably used it yourself without realizing it. Just keep asking questions, clarifying definitions, and asking to see evidence. If your opponent's position is fallacious or not in your best interests, it'll be exposed sooner or later. Play humbly and simply, let your opponent underestimate you. Think Columbo!

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:38:13 -0800

Ahh Columbo. The last truly great cop show...... *breaks out of reverie, remembers purpose for being here* Oh yeah, A list of fallacious arguments.