AF Hall of Fallacies

[Violet]

First bit owned you a kudos. Good job I apologize for mistaking your argument

So, an employer hires a women because he has a better opinion of her, i.e. he thinks that she is pretty and sexy.

You said that's not logical - but I disagree. Why? Because logic plays no role here in the first place. That was only an opinion. And there is no right or wrong to it, so it won't be accurate to consider it "illogical." It's only an opinion, a reasoning.

I would offer contention to this point... anything that isn't logical: isn't logical. That has nothing to say about whether it be right or wrong, true or false, a triangle or a bedsheet: it only says that it is free of logic. Logic has nothing to do with it in the first place? Exactly. And that's why it shouldn't be judged on logical grounds, but upon other grounds

It's completely accurate to consider it 'illogical'... but I would agree that the word implies a wrongness, a falseness, a BEDSHEET: there is no reason to call it out on its illogicity, as the only proper response to such is to say 'logic doesn't enter into it.' Insofar as I've applied it to this exchange, it was only to note that there are reasonings beyond logic, and indeed that it was improper and even flatly ridiculous at times (usually) to evoke it's name. So... my contention is on a literalistic observation of tautology, but I agree with you wholeheartedly upon the implications of declaring <arbitrary> illogical.

It won't be illogical unless the man has made a claim of absolute truth such as: "Hey, that girl is very pretty, therefore she must be smart!"

Do you know whether or not he is using that kind of logic? ^ No.

Actually, if you throw in the claim that pretty = smart as a premise (Pretty women are very intelligent, and that girl is very pretty, therefore she must be smart!), he's been quite logical. Logic is to say that, should premises hold true: result is so. If a premise does not hold true, the system registers that the conclusion is not necessarily so. The former system is one that is 'sound', the latter is one that is 'unsound'... but both of these are valid. However, if you swapped only the word 'illogical' with the word 'logical': you would be correct: Nothing could be logical unless a claim of truth is made

Oftentimes, a person will base their conclusions off of premises that they believe to be true. Infact, it's a rare person indeed who would base their conclusions off of anything else.

Maybe he just thinks that she is smart - based on her looks - but you can't say that that opinion is "illogical" because there is no evidence of him making a claim of absolute truth on the matter nor of making any illogical arguments. And because there is no right or wrong to his opinion.

Logic isn't based upon right and wrong... it is only upon that which is and is not. He didn't make a logical argument at all, therefore he must have made an illogical argument if an argument did he make at all

But isn't that subjective (i.e. that Arabs aren't sexy)?

And where you said "cause you dirty," it won't be correct if the "you" was written in reference to me, since I am not an Arab, in case if you didn't know.

I don't consider myself to be that sexy actually ... but it's not like I really care about that, unlike you, hehe.

There are other aspects of myself that I value more than my sexiness.

Of course it is. Everything is subjective, after all.

You're not an Arab?! :0 Well, I learned something new. What are, Mexican?

I actually do consider you to be sexy, and I really do care about that, which is why I would only suggest you be otherwise in jest. What aspects are those?

My point is that you can't call something "illogical" when the action/decision/idea of a person had no application of logic to begin with, and is ... wait for it ... irrelevant to logic. The example that you gave about hiring women falls under "No logic was involved" as opposed to "illogical." It was just a subjective decision, a reasoning. There is no right or wrong involved here - nothing logical/illogical about it - because the issue is purely subjective.

For it to be illogical, it has to be proven wrong, which can only be done if there is evidence of a truth claim.

No logic being involved is identical to no logic being involved... even if logic is claimed but not so (false logic), it is still not logic, and therefore logic is uninvolved My initial argument was wholly off of when you said that one couldn't have reasoning without logic (or something to that effect, been a while and I'm still a bit sick), which I considered to be quite spectacularly untrue, hence I made issue of it

Even purely subjective issues can be logical, infact: how any objective issues involve logic eludes me. Any belief that is subjective could be intersubjective if so much as two subjective beings believe the same. Anyway... it is not upon that which is claimed to be proven false: it is upon that which is claimed to be proven true.