Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

Greg@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨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