|
Post by apeman711 on Sept 5, 2010 15:47:44 GMT
Well, is it?
I think yes, mainly because it is a personal choice, and it doesn't effect anyone else, other than the two gay people.
What are your views on this?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 5, 2010 17:00:01 GMT
Yes, as long as you don't impose your homosexuality on other people.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Sept 5, 2010 17:37:16 GMT
Yes, definitely. I'd say it's absolutely FABULOUS to be gay.
...Okay, bad pun, but yeah, it's fine.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Sept 5, 2010 18:52:37 GMT
Oh God... I don't even know how many times I've flamed and argued about this on chat... I'm just gonna say "It's not ok" and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Sept 5, 2010 23:10:51 GMT
And why? Can you provide any reason at all?
It's not like it's a choice. Is it okay to have blue eyes? Or is that a 'choice' too?
|
|
|
Post by noodlesoup on Sept 6, 2010 0:37:36 GMT
I'm going to agree with Gaèoèdoæ.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 0:58:24 GMT
Yes, as long as you don't impose your homosexuality on other people. That basically says no gay person should be gay. A primary reason why society logically should disallowed gays is because gays are a blantant defiance and deviation from the norm, something society grills everyone else about. To be as anti-pro-gay as I can in a statement, in order for any part of society to not be a house divided by itself in essence it must hate gays, as they too are a purposeful deviation from the norm, or more simply defined, something different. Of course, my standings note that if about 5.9 billion people are either abstinent, not interested in intercourse, hermaphroditic (therefore being both gay and straight upon having sex), or heterosexual, then the .3 billion or so would be obviously victim to either massive psychologically traumatic events, or be victim to the Rebel Gene, part of the human psyche that, according to my research, preserves free will by forcing there never to be a 100% bias to a single viewpoint, but that human nature drives people to natural have a 99% on one viewpoint and 1% on the other, minimum.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 6, 2010 1:34:09 GMT
Let me rephrase myself: No one should impose their sexuality on someone else.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 1:55:06 GMT
Yeah? Well, I posed a fine logical argument.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 6, 2010 3:06:15 GMT
That basically says no gay person should be gay. A primary reason why society logically should disallowed gays is because gays are a blantant defiance and deviation from the norm, something society grills everyone else about. To be as anti-pro-gay as I can in a statement, in order for any part of society to not be a house divided by itself in essence it must hate gays, as they too are a purposeful deviation from the norm, or more simply defined, something different. Of course, my standings note that if about 5.9 billion people are either abstinent, not interested in intercourse, hermaphroditic (therefore being both gay and straight upon having sex), or heterosexual, then the .3 billion or so would be obviously victim to either massive psychologically traumatic events, or be victim to the Rebel Gene, part of the human psyche that, according to my research, preserves free will by forcing there never to be a 100% bias to a single viewpoint, but that human nature drives people to natural have a 99% on one viewpoint and 1% on the other, minimum. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition, or did I misread the post? A house divided cannot heal simply by one faction ostracizing (let alone outright hating) another faction: indeed, two people silently ignoring each other would be better than two people shouting at each other and disturbing the peace of uninvolved neighbors, at least from the perspective of those uninvolved neighbors. For a house divided to heal, its family members must become tolerant of their beliefs without forcing those beliefs upon one another. If you don't push, you don't get shoved back. If you push, then by Newton's Third Law of Motion (literally and figuratively, which seemingly applies surprisingly well to psychology), you will be shoved. If you enforce your beliefs upon someone who doesn't want to accept them, that person will resist those beliefs.
What is so bad about the existence of differences? The "large minority" would only be problematic if the majority were idiotic enough to cause that minority to desire a schism, a fight, or a revolution, or any other conflict. Besides, in communities that adopt Voltaire's beliefs of tolerance, there exist a wide variety of religions, sexual preferences, marital stati, ages, ethnicities, intelligence, disability stati, or any combination of the listed. Until some idiot "in the majority" provokes one of the groups, there is relative peace.
Worried about your purposeful deviations from the norm? Mandarin Chinese constitues the plurality (and maybe the majority, although I have yet to check those statistics) of all spoken languages on Earth. English, difficult to learn and yet ironically the second most popular spoken language, intends to remain English and does not constitute a majority of the world; ergo, English is a "purposeful deviation from the norm." Should Mandarin Chinese speakers hate the English speakers so that spoken language will not be a house divided? Don't worry, this isn't a False Analogy logical fallacy: there are too many similarities to your own argument for this analogy to be false.
How does hatred keep a divided house united?
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Sept 6, 2010 4:26:04 GMT
Veers: the new Sandmaster of debate.
I'll just go ahead and agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 14:36:35 GMT
That basically says no gay person should be gay. A primary reason why society logically should disallowed gays is because gays are a blantant defiance and deviation from the norm, something society grills everyone else about. To be as anti-pro-gay as I can in a statement, in order for any part of society to not be a house divided by itself in essence it must hate gays, as they too are a purposeful deviation from the norm, or more simply defined, something different. Of course, my standings note that if about 5.9 billion people are either abstinent, not interested in intercourse, hermaphroditic (therefore being both gay and straight upon having sex), or heterosexual, then the .3 billion or so would be obviously victim to either massive psychologically traumatic events, or be victim to the Rebel Gene, part of the human psyche that, according to my research, preserves free will by forcing there never to be a 100% bias to a single viewpoint, but that human nature drives people to natural have a 99% on one viewpoint and 1% on the other, minimum. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition, or did I misread the post? A house divided cannot heal simply by one faction ostracizing (let alone outright hating) another faction: indeed, two people silently ignoring each other would be better than two people shouting at each other and disturbing the peace of uninvolved neighbors, at least from the perspective of those uninvolved neighbors. For a house divided to heal, its family members must become tolerant of their beliefs without forcing those beliefs upon one another. If you don't push, you don't get shoved back. If you push, then by Newton's Third Law of Motion (literally and figuratively, which seemingly applies surprisingly well to psychology), you will be shoved. If you enforce your beliefs upon someone who doesn't want to accept them, that person will resist those beliefs.
What is so bad about the existence of differences? The "large minority" would only be problematic if the majority were idiotic enough to cause that minority to desire a schism, a fight, or a revolution, or any other conflict. Besides, in communities that adopt Voltaire's beliefs of tolerance, there exist a wide variety of religions, sexual preferences, marital stati, ages, ethnicities, intelligence, disability stati, or any combination of the listed. Until some idiot "in the majority" provokes one of the groups, there is relative peace.
Worried about your purposeful deviations from the norm? Mandarin Chinese constitues the plurality (and maybe the majority, although I have yet to check those statistics) of all spoken languages on Earth. English, difficult to learn and yet ironically the second most popular spoken language, intends to remain English and does not constitute a majority of the world; ergo, English is a "purposeful deviation from the norm." Should Mandarin Chinese speakers hate the English speakers so that spoken language will not be a house divided? Don't worry, this isn't a False Analogy logical fallacy: there are too many similarities to your own argument for this analogy to be false.
How does hatred keep a divided house united? Argument on first section: Hatred towards diversity is the foundation of society. That is what unifies it as a house. If it hates some differences but embraces others, it divides itself, as it no longer purely adheres to the principle of it's eponymous unifying hate. Society is a feudal faction, and alway is warring, so a tranquility is an aberration causing division. It must fight for it's cause, but stand by it's principles. Also, homosexuality is caused by either the Rebel Gene, psychological trauma, or hypothalamic malfunction. Therefore, it's not caused by adhering to the norm of Baynesian thought process. Argument on second section: It's not MY idea, it's society. Society is bound to logical mindset based of the Macrocriion of Chaos, having a hypocritical view of hating difference and shifting constantly at the same time. They are obstinate, because their limited perspective convinces them they exercise control over their free will. That is not the case. All human logic is based of of neuron firing, Axoaxonal movement, Baynesian reaction to data presented data, hormones, chemical composition, DNA, RNA, the Rebel Gene, and hundreds of other factors, producing a massively complex mindset, which can be simulated by producing an artificial brain (That is working AI, however, I can't code anything on computer, so I can't run the 30+ pages of math involved) replicating the ways a human can think. According to my calculation, the number of possible ways to think is over: (IFe)100! E Googolcentilliard peichMeaning: "The calculation of the Infinitius equation times 100 factorial, times 10 to the googol centillionth, peich offset." The number would have more zeros than I could viably explain, but the numbers are really calculated more accurately by determining kots of every factor involved. Argument for the third section: Mandarin isn't the root of all languages. Yes, it's unrelated, but I must clarify that the first language ever was probably Indo-Hebraic (Indo-Mesopotamian Hebrew-Aramaic mix). The last argument is fairly unrelated, as you compare sexuality to lexicography. Now, I don't see much relation there. The end question? Simple. In society's logic, things can be bent. In pure logic, they cannot. I stand opposed to gays because it's simply illogical abnormality in the mind and body, so it means they are in that mindset because of a failure, a malfunction if you will. Since failures mean something went wrong, it's best to not encourage people to develop, ferment, and grow into beings bound to the metaphorical chains of these types, or any types, of malfunction, which may even lead to death. Just because one computer is broken doesn't mean everyone should take a hammer and smash theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Sept 6, 2010 14:46:45 GMT
Or, we could just finish this up and say that we're all idiots.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 14:55:06 GMT
Dude, I just used psychology, math, logic, and the argument itself in my argument. It doesn't get better than 30+ pages of research, years of research in psychology, math and science, and simulated Artificial intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 6, 2010 15:55:40 GMT
Your math...I would have to disagree and indicate that there truly are an infinite number of thoughts to think.
Anyhow, if you are indicating that hating "unifies" factions because all factions are easily capable of hatred, then I will mourn for society while I indicate agreement. I will point out that, even if it brings about unity to hate different factions, this all begging the question. The point, from which I almost abberated, is not whether we should or should not hate homosexually-inclined humans, but whether it is "okay" to be homosexually inclined. Homosexuals can hate heterosexuals as much as they want, but that doesn't make heterosexuality less ethical, and so I hold that heterosexuals can hate homosexuals as much as they want, but that doesn't make homosexuality less ethical.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I am sure that others are clueless to the significance of your argument and I ergo ask you to clarify Baynesian thought processes, the Macrocriion of Chaos, and the Infinitius Equation.
Yes, I am aware that Mandarin is not the root of all languages, but neither is heterosexuality the root of all sexual preferences. Whether it is the first language ever or not is irrelevant to the argument, just as whether heterosexuality was the first sexual preference ever or not is irrelevant to the ethical standpoint of homosexuality, and so I ask you to stop begging the argument. Mandarin is larger than English, but English will not conform to Mandarin; heterosexuality is larger than homosexuality, but homosexuality will not conform to heterosexuality. Should Mandarin speakers ergo hate English speakers, and should heterosexually inclined people ergo hate homosexually inclined people? I hold that my analogy is valid, but that all begs the question: this debate is not about whether homosexuals should be hated, but whether homosexuality itself is "okay."
Your arguments concerning genetics...well, I will avoid argumentum ad Nazium for now; instead, I will just say that, again, whether genetic abberation or the inherent need of some individuals to rebel from the norm and prevent a 100%-0% bias split has nothing to do with homosexuality's "ethical standing." Maybe non-heterosexuals are comparable to "compromised computers" while heterosexuals are comparable to "uncompromised computers," and that may make non-heterosexuals less desirable, but even then, is a bugged computer "unethical"? Is homosexuality in that sense unethical?
If you deem it necessary to hate a homosexual to keep the world unified in hatred, then by all means do so while I cry over the copious hatred; however, is it still ethical to actually be homosexual, regardless of whether it is undesirable?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 17:03:27 GMT
Your math...I would have to disagree and indicate that there truly are an infinite number of thoughts to think.
Anyhow, if you are indicating that hating "unifies" factions because all factions are easily capable of hatred, then I will mourn for society while I indicate agreement. I will point out that, even if it brings about unity to hate different factions, this all begging the question. The point, from which I almost abberated, is not whether we should or should not hate homosexually-inclined humans, but whether it is "okay" to be homosexually inclined. Homosexuals can hate heterosexuals as much as they want, but that doesn't make heterosexuality less ethical, and so I hold that heterosexuals can hate homosexuals as much as they want, but that doesn't make homosexuality less ethical. Ethics are simply analogue values people assign that are arbitrary. However, consenus, not rebel gene arguments, tend to form ethics.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I am sure that others are clueless to the significance of your argument and I ergo ask you to clarify Baynesian thought processes, the Macrocriion of Chaos, and the Infinitius Equation. For Baynesian logistics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian is the disabiguation page and this www.sps.ele.tue.nl/members/b.vries/images/hearclip-bayes-net.png is a simple Bayesian (Just figured out it way spell Bayesian) network for hearing. A Macrocriion is one of 2 extremely large categories that define half of everything each, the Macrocriions being things that never present the same variables twice (Chaos) and the other being things always presenting the same variables (Stasis). The Theorem of Infinitius is extraordinarily complicated, and involves pages and pages of mathematics to explain the full meaning of.
Yes, I am aware that Mandarin is not the root of all languages, but neither is heterosexuality the root of all sexual preferences. Whether it is the first language ever or not is irrelevant to the argument, just as whether heterosexuality was the first sexual preference ever or not is irrelevant to the ethical standpoint of homosexuality, and so I ask you to stop begging the argument. Mandarin is larger than English, but English will not conform to Mandarin; heterosexuality is larger than homosexuality, but homosexuality will not conform to heterosexuality. Should Mandarin speakers ergo hate English speakers, and should heterosexually inclined people ergo hate homosexually inclined people? I hold that my analogy is valid, but that all begs the question: this debate is not about whether homosexuals should be hated, but whether homosexuality itself is "okay." If heterosexuality wasn't the first choice, which it would be due to every reproductive being's desire to procreate/survive, then whoever were the first two people would have been the last two as well. Unless patheogenesis could occur, they would have been the end of mankind. Heterosexuality was completely required for procreation for thousands of years, which might explain why the rate of homosexuality went up drastically once IVF was introduced.
Your arguments concerning genetics...well, I will avoid argumentum ad Nazium for now; instead, I will just say that, again, whether genetic abberation or the inherent need of some individuals to rebel from the norm and prevent a 100%-0% bias split has nothing to do with homosexuality's "ethical standing." Maybe non-heterosexuals are comparable to "compromised computers" while heterosexuals are comparable to "uncompromised computers," and that may make non-heterosexuals less desirable, but even then, is a bugged computer "unethical"? Is homosexuality in that sense unethical? While the psychological aspects, hormones, and other causes don't have to do with ethicality, it does define possibility. If gays couldn't exist, the ethics wouldn't be in question. It is unethical because they use their homosexuality as a giant kanabo essentially. They have in the past abused their standing in society, and changed the goal of their campaign from rights to rule. It's not ethical for a schizophrenic to murder, so it's not ethic for a gay to rape (And believe me, most courts you could walk in on a circumstantial rape charge and be acquitted by claiming you are gay).
If you deem it necessary to hate a homosexual to keep the world unified in hatred, then by all means do so while I cry over the copious hatred; however, is it still ethical to actually be homosexual, regardless of whether it is undesirable? As explained above, it's unethical. I don't partake in hate for unification purposes as much as I hate for the gays for the fact they think they can do whatever they want and sue anyone interfering for being "discriminating". It's societies own stupid fault for the idea of hating to unify.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 17:05:45 GMT
Oh, and no, there aren't unlimited thoughts. You can only think by a ridiculously complicated process, which depends on quantity of objects existing. The number is extreme in every way where size is concerned, but eventually, thinking stops.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 6, 2010 19:11:13 GMT
Yes, ethics are not as objective as math, and that is why debates on ethics are even possible. We are providing personal beliefs and trying to sway each other to our respective sides. I believe that it is "okay" for someone to be homosexually inclined, even if it is a minority and are hated by a plurality of the world.
Alright, I think I understand the general concept of macrocriions as a classification of things as chaotic or repeatable, and it seems to me that Bayesian math is simply fuzzy logic (i.e. statements ranked on a spectrum rather than with finite, discrete "true or false") for beliefs, but surely you would be able to state the Infinitius Theorem in your own words in an abstract if you are able to use it in an argument?
As this part no longer bears significance to whether homosexuality is "okay," I will refrain from continuing in this section.
Logical Fallacy: Hasty Generalization Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope / Straw Man Logical Fallacy: Guilt by Association
You blame homosexuals for using their sexual preference as some Japanese weapon without giving any concession to the few/many who haven't. Obviously it's not okay for homosexuals to rape, and it's not okay for heterosexuals to rape, either. That doesn't mean that homosexuality or heterosexuality is unethical. The crime may be unethical, but the person who committed the isn't necessarily unethical as a direct result of the crime's commission.
You also advocate that heterosexuals should hate them. I would say you were an unethical hypocrite, but that would be rude and that would be introducing the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy.
Logical Fallacy: Hasty Generalization
Again, you blame the group without giving thought to the individuals who don't fit your description.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 21:00:32 GMT
The last two I find most relevant now.
Second to last section: A kanabo is a large club, Veers. Also, my main point is a heterosexual could CLAIM he is gay to get out of a rape charge. That's easy, if no DNA evidence exists to say otherwise.
Last section: I mainly said that they are unethical because they decide to use their social status to damage lives, families, and communities. Their selfish and self-centered goals make them stop at nothing to get what they want, no matter what the cost, no matter what destruction they leave in their wake, nothing is sacred, and nothing is of any worth but themselves. That's what I truly hate. People who tear everyone's lives apart to get what they want, people who think they are above all, people who think everything deserves hate and everyone is an obstacle, and that they will do anything they possible can to be as cruel and hateful to the world. Here is a thought: See what they have done, open your EYES, and maybe, God forbid, you'll get to see the world, the cruel, cruel hateful world through a victim's eyes! You side with them because you haven't been a victim, you get to be safe in your little glass box, but you'll want every one of those pieces of vile, slimy maggots to writhe in agony and die a horrible and slow and painful death, so they can experience everything they did to you. You never truly hate a rapist until you've been a victim. You never truly hate gays until you've been a victim. You will not feel any love or compassion for them, once you get to see just how truly demonic their souls and hearts are, and what they can, and will, do to you. You will need to live longer if you want wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 6, 2010 21:47:29 GMT
Having read your paragraph in response to the last section, I rest my case with confidence: you react irrationally to an entire group for the fault of a few individuals. I feel more and more inclined to bring up the argumentum ad Nazium, especially since it would be so fitting, but I must resist that logical fallacy.
If anyone else would like to continue the debate, by all means take my place: I think I am done here. It's a shame, because you still haven't paraphrased the Infinitius Theorem, which I would very much have liked to see.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 6, 2010 21:56:05 GMT
Unfortunately, that involves a complex diagram I lost.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Sept 7, 2010 1:16:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 7, 2010 21:24:45 GMT
According to the vast majority of that diagram, homos are mainly in it for sex. If love was part of the equation, it would also be part of an argument. That chart has "against" arguments as extremist views, whereas "for" arguments seem to gravitate towards the immature, hormone driven, teenager-type response of "I will do what I wish, regardless of what happens, good or bad." Is it really a very effective argument at all to say they should be because they can be? Of course not. You must remember that A): Sex isn't love, you can hate someone you have have sex with, B) Gays are the way they are through imbalances in psyche, chemical composition or hormones, but it's always because something has got wrong with their minds, C) It's not ethic to use sexuality as a way to oppress people and get your way, sexuality isn't a lottery ticket, D) People go to such extremes for sex, there is no way it could possibly be worth the trouble, E) If everyone was gay, women would die off, and then humanity would end, meaning straight people are needed to keep the human race going.
People who are gays consider love as motive as much as rapists find sex a motive. They both just want power: Power over lives, power over themselves, power over all. It's because they were either deprived of their power, or suffer from a condition known as megalomania. Sex is obviously a primal instinct we have as we make ourselves slaves to our hormones. In fact, a person can be made gay or straight simply by weak or strong will and a change in diet. By changing hypothalamic hormone levels, you can control most humans, except for cacodaemomaniacs and people who don't use their hormones as a crutch, though both are prone to depression. But that is the price to pay for mental freedom.
Edit: Ah, just as I thought. Looking again, your diagram has "for" arguments mainly trying "Jenga" arguments and defiance based arguments. They don't have a peaceful nor loving elements involved, and also mainly focus on ulterior motives, personal stabs at uninvolved parties they dislike, and their goal of sex. Now, if they weren't too busy using a "Boss Tweed" strategy, they might not suck in those arguments.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Sept 7, 2010 22:08:15 GMT
You realize that diagram's a joke, right?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 7, 2010 22:13:35 GMT
I note several fallacies in Qwerty's and Veers arguments:
Appeal to novelty (Basis) Appeal to motive (GV end) Appeal to ignorance (GV II, III, IV, Q I) Appeal to spite (GV All) The Horse Laugh (GV Madarin inclusion, setup to Poisoning the well) Ad hominem: (Q Diagram) Misleading Vividness (Q Diagram) Loki's Wager (GV and Q all) Regression Fallacy (Q I) Reification (GV all) Red herring (GV Mandarin example) Prosecutor's Fallacy (GV and Q all) Moving the Goalpost (GV all) Middle ground (Quote: "Or we can all admit we are idiots and move on.") Gish Gallop (Q Diagram) Demanding negative proof (GV II, IV, end) Square logic (Q Diagram) Petitio principii (GV I, III, IV) Argumentum ad nauseam (GV end basis) Teleological fallacy (GV all) Nirvana fallacy (GV and Q all) Homunculous fallacy (GV I, IV, End) Is-ought fallacy (Q I) Texas Sharpshooter (GV All basis) Argument from fallacy (GV All supporting basis) Tu quoque (GV II, III, IV and Q I) Definist fallacy (GV I)
I think I got the specifics right in terms of where they were used. Try not to be swiss cheese.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Sept 7, 2010 22:17:31 GMT
The diagram isn't an argument at all. Just a joke. Now, I'll allow Veers to stop by over here and shoot those down, or maybe put up a large list of your fallacies. Even I know the slippery slope fallacy (People who rape will use being gay as a way to get out of it? What kind of logic is that?), but I don't really know a bunch of others. What I do know is that your posts are so full of hate and anger I can't stand reading them.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Sept 8, 2010 4:16:12 GMT
(People who rape will use being gay as a way to get out of it? What kind of logic is that?) Hey hey hey, now you're the one using fallacies: Meet the contextomy fallacy. You know perfectly well how I logically came to that accusation. Don't quote it out of context like that.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 8, 2010 5:29:41 GMT
Before I go on, let it be known that nothing in this post is intended as argument or rebuttal for the debate that ended several posts ago.
I suggest you read kuraikiba's posts, especially towards the latter half of what we have posted. I understand if you do not agree with me, but do you agree with his arguments?
Kuraikiba, I am somewhat glad that you have tried to bring in evidence to support your position, but evidence is no good if no one can understand it. In future debates, you should try to explain the relevance of your evidence. On the same note, my logical and emotional appeals are no good if I can not back up my claims and thought processes with external evidence. Overall, our goal is to sway the audience of a debate to, or at least make the other debater understand, a particular position. - If evidence is too high above their heads, no one can be swayed by it unless they fallaciously believe that anything that sounds smart is good. One also runs the risk of being accused of making stuff up on the spot, especially if the evidence is advanced, bears little connection, and not properly cited.
- If evidence is not explained, there may as well be no evidence, as the audience will not comprehend the connection between the evidence and the position except when the evidence is blatantly obvious.
- If there is no emotional appeal and much evidence, then the audience will tune one out in approximately 15 minutes.
- If there is too little evidence and too much emotional appeal, then the audience will not be swayed unless they are weak minded and responsive to "hypnotic rhetoric" (like what dominated a peculiar Austrian's speeches). One also runs the risk of being played the so-called "Hitler Card."
- If there is very little of anything, one may as well not even debate the issue.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Sept 8, 2010 20:41:50 GMT
Several fallacies there:
Argument from fallacy (Fallacy isn't a synonym for false) Argumentum ad nauseam (You state you are tired of arguing, therefore it must end) Slippery Slope (Look at bulleted list) Non sequitur and Red herring (Bullet IV) Argumentum ad populum (The majority isn't right, and the majority no longer is on the against side due to either argumentum ad metum or argumentum ad verecundiam) Argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well (Comparing me to Hitler, really?) Argumentum ad Hitlerum (It's called play the Nazi card) Appeal to spite (My hate of gays has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments) Prosecutor's Fallacy (a low probability of something having happened in the past does not mean a low probability of something happening in the future, also see the "Rock floating upwards" metaphor by Hume) Demanding negative proof (Don't ask for more from me, while doing nothing more yourself)
I suppose you could accuse me of Homunculous fallacy, but it's not very non sequitur.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 8, 2010 21:03:38 GMT
Before I go on, let it be known that nothing in this post is intended as argument or rebuttal for the debate that ended several posts ago.
|
|
|