AF Hall of Fallacies

[Violet]

Sorry, your verbose explanations are starting to make this a little too complicated for me to understand you now.

I'll pass on that.

Really...? It's quite simple: if reasoning is only possible by using logic... reasoning cannot be illogical.

Essentially: you've removed emotional cause/justification/explanation from being reasoning, you've removed fake logic as cause/justification/explanation from being reasoning. That is to say: unless it uses logic (correctly), it cannot be considered as a cause, a justification, or an explanation for anything, and still be declared 'reasoning'.

Me, I just don't see how activity done (to come up with a cause/justification/explanation for ____) can be superseded by <with what> and the activity declared no longer the activity unless it includes <what>.

Does that make more sense to you? The reason they are verbose is that I'm attempting to explain, self-evidence wasn't working for you before... so I changed tactic. Bolding the next bit for the problem with only logic being reason: What is an emotionally identified cause/justification/explanation if it is not a reason? It's the person's rationale by traditional observation, it's their argument, it's their defense, their vindication, their excuse, their pretext... is not reason simply the observation of "BECAUSE"? The house caught fire because of <this>... <--- that is a reason, as I have been understanding it until now. The reason blueberries killed that man is they are poisonous, and he ate a lot of them. Doesn't have to be sound, doesn't even have to be valid (people leave their reasons hanging and unsupported plenty... what I've seen).

Reason as the power of a mind to think, to understand, and to form judgements... why would anyone need to add "by logic" to this? Has not the power of a mind to perceive cause, to explain, to judge: are not these the identical process that one would engage in WITHOUT being amended by 'by logic'?

Sure looks like the process is identical whether it be by chicken, by emotion, by horrific mutation, or by logic, I would appreciate if you could demonstrate to me the difference in the process by appending <by logic>, as somehow distinct from the process by appending <by emotion> or <by trust> or <by experience>. Would you do so, for me... lest I describe my contention with this by being extraordinarily more verbose than you've ever seen?

I don't believe that is the actual reason.

I am open about my prejudices, but as far as my cause to believe goes: it's far from the most prominent reason. If that's what you refer to by 'actual', then by all means: you're correct

Two senses of the word (three if you're Mexican), I'm being deliberately pedantic with you, but you know that I know what you mean here. First bit: I know what you mean, and think that it isn't logical... also that it's ignorant of process, which is 'really' my concern with the matter

So, you believe that TIberius would do a better job in the essay than me.

Now, what exactly makes you believe that one being sexier than me should imply that he or she would write a better essay than me as well? What is the connection?

Did I say it was a logical reason? I did not... but it certainly is an assumed reason that a person who bathes daily <racism, arabs ain't sexy because they are always dirty*> will be a more 'cultured' individual in The West, where cleanliness is a major factor of whether or not someone gives you the time of day, and also affects how they perceive your argument. It isn't logical, but it happens. Sometimes women get hired because the person's opinion on them is better because they're pretty(er than a man also applying, say: they fancy her), sometimes women do not get hired because the person's opinion on them is that they have to demonstrate that they're better than an equally talented man <sexist economical reasons, and the like... not logical, but reasoning of the employer nonetheless>.

*Not my actual opinion, but nothing about it is unreasoned: I've explained why arabs aren't sexy ('cause you dirty).

And, again, please explain how one's superior sexiness suggest to you that he or she is more likely to be considered correct.

It isn't always that way, but usually it is. Sometimes someone thinks you're just disgusting because you keep things *too* clean... you look outright foppish, like you're a dandy. It's really very subjective.

The having of abs in a guy doesn't translate to shit in bed, but I'm more likely to sleep with him anyway. If there are two strangers in an argument equally bad on both sides, and one is good looking, I'm more likely to take the side of the good looking one than I am the shitfaced drunk. Most likely to wipe out both of their arguments instead, of course.

Of course, man. Everyone is wrong about everything.

And right about everything too. There are not words to explain

... You'll notice that's blank? Point is as demonstrated.

"In their field" ... Well, duh. That's what I already had in my mind when I said that you have a greater confidence in authorities.

Thanks for confirming my point once again.

Unless your point is that 'people do things for illogical reasons', you probably shouldn't be saying that I'm confirming your point.

It's so rare that I get a chance to teach

---

So I guess O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife because the jury said so? Truth is truth, not a highly qualified opinion. No matter how much authority or credentials someone has it doesn't make them a standard bearer for truth.

Well, he didn't. Truth's truth, mang.

---

I feel like I should amend my post with an 'ergo: reasoning is unrelated to cause, justification, or explanation'... but surely I don't have to spell EVERYTHING out?

---

I'd better, just in case:

E
V
E
R
T
A
G
B
V
S

That's spells everything grammatical ... not this is! bounce syntax everywhere gone.