Posts: 2013
Threads: 28
Joined: January 1, 2017
Reputation:
15
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 4, 2017 at 2:06 am
(January 4, 2017 at 2:03 am)robvalue Wrote: There is a name for this kind of technique, where you bombard someone with so much crap that they can't respond to it all and end up overwhelmed: "Gish gallop". The person's confusion and inability to address it all is taken as victory.
It's often employed by scummy money making apologists like Ray Comfort.
I heard about that, except it wouldn't revolve around questions, just basically unwarranted assumptions. Basically like someone who was invited to a party inviting a bunch of their friends who weren't invited and aren't welcome but they barge in anyway. I guess it's too similar to other fallacies to have its own name, but I feel like it should be under a specific label even if I can't put my finger on it.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 4, 2017 at 2:08 am
It's sort of a slippery slope fallacy I guess, as well. If this is true, then this other thing which is a bit like it is also true, and then this other thing is also true and...
Posts: 2013
Threads: 28
Joined: January 1, 2017
Reputation:
15
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 4, 2017 at 2:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2017 at 2:14 am by Astonished.)
(January 4, 2017 at 2:08 am)robvalue Wrote: It's sort of a slippery slope fallacy I guess, as well. If this is true, then this other thing which is a bit like it is also true, and then this other thing is also true and...
Huh. I thought slippery slopes were used in a different context, but I can see how that would make sense. The minute you let one little point into a category that is favorable to them, it opens the floodgate to all the other bullshit they want to ascribe to it arbitrarily. Actually that sounds more like "Give them and inch and they take a mile". But that's not exactly a fallacy, more like a cliche. Or is there a fallacy that covers that idea?
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 4, 2017 at 2:18 am
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2017 at 2:19 am by robvalue.)
Exactly, yeah. I can't think of a specific name for that. It's one of a number of dishonest techniques.
Like Thump said, it's a string of non sequiturs.
Posts: 2013
Threads: 28
Joined: January 1, 2017
Reputation:
15
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 4, 2017 at 2:35 am
(January 4, 2017 at 2:18 am)robvalue Wrote: Exactly, yeah. I can't think of a specific name for that. It's one of a number of dishonest techniques.
Like Thump said, it's a string of non sequiturs.
You know, I've really got to start talking with some more of my friends who are interested in reforming the English language to accommodate the evolution of words. We can invent new ones for things like that, and what with new gender identity terms and such, there's room for new words in other contexts too. Personally I'm more interested in reforming the standard English alphabet, and giving each sound its own character, and getting rid of some of the unnecessary things like C, which can easily be replaced by 'S' and 'K'. But that's kind of off-topic. Still, it would be nice if this particular set of fallacious add-ons had a formal name, possibly even if there are certain specific variations of it. Like if you're just trying to sneak one extra caveat in, or if you shoehorn several. And if they're at least closely related or completely disconnected non-sequiturs.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Posts: 23858
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
105
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 4, 2017 at 8:46 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2017 at 8:50 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 4, 2017 at 2:08 am)robvalue Wrote: It's sort of a slippery slope fallacy I guess, as well. If this is true, then this other thing which is a bit like it is also true, and then this other thing is also true and...
The way I learnt of the Gish Gallop, many years ago, is that it is a bombardment of questions, one after the other, giving one no time to answer one question in particular because each have complex answer. In that sense, it's a rhetorical device used to shut down conversation by shoveling on so many assumptions that unraveling them takes so much time that the audience does of boredom, losing sight of the original point: "Aha, but you didn't answer this, therefore I'm right!" is the explicit or assumed conclusion.
(January 4, 2017 at 2:35 am)Astonished Wrote: (January 4, 2017 at 2:18 am)robvalue Wrote: Exactly, yeah. I can't think of a specific name for that. It's one of a number of dishonest techniques.
Like Thump said, it's a string of non sequiturs.
You know, I've really got to start talking with some more of my friends who are interested in reforming the English language to accommodate the evolution of words. We can invent new ones for things like that, and what with new gender identity terms and such, there's room for new words in other contexts too. Personally I'm more interested in reforming the standard English alphabet, and giving each sound its own character, and getting rid of some of the unnecessary things like C, which can easily be replaced by 'S' and 'K'. But that's kind of off-topic. Still, it would be nice if this particular set of fallacious add-ons had a formal name, possibly even if there are certain specific variations of it. Like if you're just trying to sneak one extra caveat in, or if you shoehorn several. And if they're at least closely related or completely disconnected non-sequiturs.
The beauty of the English language is that it is so malleable. "Gish Gallop" is an example, recruiting the metaphor of a horse at full speed to describe a barrage of questions launched so quickly that invariably one or more gets missed, launching the "Aha!" phase.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 5, 2017 at 6:43 pm
It's often equivocating two vague definitions of the word "God".
So I'd say it's the equivocation fallacy. It's also a non-sequitur because technically every single fallacy involves non-sequiturs.
I think.
Posts: 67875
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
January 12, 2017 at 5:44 pm
Are formal fallacies -are- non sequiturs. That which does not follow.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
