mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
So your disdain counts as an actual argument...
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
You're accusing me of accusing you of...
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
No.
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
Some... Yes.
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....
(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage
mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁
It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?
Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.
Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.
Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...
If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.
Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.
Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.
So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.
Let's move on to the next thing.
Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.
When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.
Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.
Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.
Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.
That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁
Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣
That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....