Comment

If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.

So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from “gliders were used to attack small villages” to “gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets” to “a para-glider was referenced in this article”. Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.

There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.

You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had “so many logical fallacies” in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase “logical fallacy” like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.

If you actually think that I’m not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don’t actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.

That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.

Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true. So right back at you again, chief: instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.

What news agencies do you trust?

As someone who has repeatedly talked about “reading critically” you should probably no that it’s not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the articles biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Greg@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Sure, I’ll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you’ve committed in this thread.

1. Ad Hominem

Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.

Quote:

“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

Formal Logic: (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.

2. Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.

Quote:

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

Formal Logic: (Source© = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.

3. Motte and Bailey

Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.

Quote:

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

Formal Logic: Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians” You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza” Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article” Then argue: ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P

It’s a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!

4. Fallacy Fallacy

Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.

Quote:

“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…”

Formal Logic: (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A) Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).

5. Begging the Question

Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.

Quote (from your rebuttal):

“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”

Formal Logic: (You assume: ¬P) Then argue: ¬P [where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]

You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.

6. Poisoning the Well

Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.

Quote:

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

Formal Logic: Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)

This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.

source
- BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Quote: “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.” Formal Logic: (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)
  
  Wrong, that is not the argument I made: strawman fallacy.
  
  “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” Formal Logic: (Source© = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C
  
  Again, not the argument I made: strawman fallacy
  
  “So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”
  
  Formal Logic: Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians” You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza” Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article” Then argue: ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P
  
  Third time: not the argument made, strawman fallacy.
  
  “Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…” Formal Logic: (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A) Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)
  
  lol ok. So now you care about fallacy fallacy? hypocrite.
  
  Quote (from your rebuttal): “Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…” Formal Logic: (You assume: ¬P) Then argue: ¬P [where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”] You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.
  
  Not remotely the argument made, not even close: massive fucking strawman, again.
  
  “Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.” Formal Logic: Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)
  
  For the fifth fucking time: not the argument: strawman
  
  Seems like literally all you can do is strawman.
  
  source
  - Greg@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Formal Logic of Your Attack:
    
    Incorrect, that is not the formal logic form of my claim: strawman.
    
    Strawman Claim: You claim I mis-represented your argument, but I quoted your exact words. There is no misquote or bending of meaning.
    
    Factually incorrect, as you presented a logical form that was neither my exact words, nor an accurate form of my claim: lying.
    
    Exact Quotation: You said, “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” That is indeed rejecting “C” (the claim that paragliders attacked civilians as reported) on the basis of “BBC = bad source.”
    
    Incorrect. Strawman
    
    Formal Logic of Your Rejection:
    
    Not the formal logic form of my claim: Strawman
    
    By saying “not the argument I made,” you ignore that you literally attacked the source (BBC) and drew a conclusion about the truth of its content. Claiming “strawman” here misrepresents what you literally wrote.
    
    False: lying.
    
    Exact Quote: I pointed out that you said, “there are so many logical fallacies in your comments…,” implying “if I committed fallacies, my conclusion is false.” That is precisely the Fallacy Fallacy.
    
    Claims “exact quote”, then adds in things that weren’t said: lying.
    
    You respond by calling me “hypocrite,” which is itself an Ad Hominem
    
    Incorrect, not what an ad-hominem is.
    
    If (∃ Fallacy in Greg’s argument) then (Greg’s conclusion is false). That inference is invalid because identifying a fallacy in Premise ≠ the Conclusion must be false.
    
    Not what I claimed: strawman.
    
    You wrote, “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view…”
    
    Those are are your words: LYING.
    
    “my statement (P: paragliders attacked civilians)” is already false. You treat “¬P” as if it has been demonstrated, rather than proving it.
    
    False: strawman.
    
    That is an attempt to discredit me in advance by labeling me as “in a media bubble” for trusting BBC.
    
    False: strawman
    
    You define: Uses(BBC) ⇒ (I ∈ Fascist/Mediabubble).
    
    False: strawman
    
    Claiming “strawman” here ignores your own words.
    
    False, you are not using my own words, you are using inaccurate formalizations of my claims that are strawmen: lying.
    
    DAMN SON, You REALLY love strawmen. Seems to be all you have!
    
    source

1. Ad Hominem

2. Genetic Fallacy

3. Motte and Bailey

4. Fallacy Fallacy

5. Begging the Question

6. Poisoning the Well