1 Topic by lyra (edited by lyra 2006-04-24 12:34:37)

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Topic: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

Okay, here it is, The Compilation.  In the spirit of Dreamosis' "Red Flags of Mis/Disinformation" and "How to Read People" threads, here is the compilation of the most common logical fallacies and manipulative tactics used by people when attempting to debate on a forum.   Many of these are ones that I have personally experienced...multiple times.....so long time posters will probably recognize specific instances within certain items.  But it isn't just me, these things happen to others.   And the purpose of this thread is to prevent it from happening anymore.....although it would have been nice to have this list like, oh say, a year and a half ago.  wink  From here on out, in the event that somebody engages in any of the below referenced tactics, people can just post a link to this thread and be all "Excuse me, um, Item #5, thank you..."  wink or whatever.   And then move on! Think about it............it could seriously save a lot of arguing time and energy.  Instead of using up time and energy in trying to point out a person's illogical fallacies and manipulative tactics, just point them to the list which says it all. 

Enjoy.  And if you can think of any others, feel free to add to the pile.

-----

1. Red Herring. Throwing out a lot of side tracking diversion nonsense designed to confuse and befuddle and lead the opponent astray.   Think of it as a "spin off argument."   This is probably one of the most common fallacies that people do, the inability to stay on point, where they keep side tracking wildly onto irrelevant spin off topics.

2. Straw Man. Rather than addressing the topic at hand, a person builds up a side argument diversion, then proceeds to tear down the side argument instead of the actual real argument, then triumphantly declares themselves the victor.   ??!  You haven't won anything when you've failed to address the main points at hand.   

3. Putting words in people's mouths. Self explanatory.   Insinuating or flat out saying that somebody has said or written something they haven't.  On a related note is...

4. Making assumptions/Putting words in mouth.  Just because somebody doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean they’re not aware of it.  Just because a poster/author/famous person/etc. criticizes X, Y & Z, doesn’t mean that they’re not also aware of A, B & C which might be just as bad.   So be careful not to put words in people's mouths by making assumptions about what they do or don't believe solely based on the fact that they haven't mentioned something.

5. Twisting stuff around / taking something out of context / quoting out of context. Can be done accidentally, out of misunderstanding...but when it’s done deliberately, to frame the other person’s argument in a negative light and to make yourself look better, then it’s manipulative. 

6. Confusing the idea of "not considering" something...with not accepting it.  You can't say that somebody is refusing to consider something just because they won’t agree with you.  Chances are, they have considered it…and still don’t agree or accept it.   !

7.  "Just because your head's up your ass....!" The fallacy that should anybody even so much as point out that there are people in this world who seem empty, like puppets and robots, (some use the term "OP" ) that they’re promoting "hatred", "division", "prejudice", etc.   "Don’t you know….we're ALL ONE!"   We're "ALL ONE", sure...but it doesn’t mean we’re all wired the same way, playing with the same set of tools, and going in the same direction.   And most importantly...just because people would notice that some are empty and robotic doesn't mean they "hate" them, or wish ill will or harm on them.  It's okay to notice when something or someone is acting off.   Conclusion:  Just because your head’s up your ass doesn’t mean the sun don’t shine. 

Or, another way to put it:   Don’t blame the theory for its misapplication.

8. Lack of proof isn’t proof to the contrary.   This one is commonly employed by the skeptics.   If your proof isn't anything that can be given over a messageboard, well, too bad, looks like your theory/belief is invalid!   Ties into ignoring people’s personal proof.  Those who do that typically are the same people who tend to keep raising the bar higher and higher, until eventually it’s so high, nothing will suffice as proof.

9. Those who can’t disentangle themselves from their own sacred cows and personal biases.  "Aliens are good!"  "Hey, I’m Jewish, so I don’t want to hear anything about Zionism or Israel..."  etc.  When the facts are the facts, take heed.   

10. Mr. and Mrs. Sensitive Top Popper. On a related note are those who get easily offended and insulted, the hyper sensitive and emotional top poppers who get enraged over "politically incorrect"  statements...even if they do have validity.   Relates to a later point in this list about whether you're reacting to the facts at hand...or just the "tone" of the post?  Are you able to get past your own emotionalism and neutrally look at the facts being presented?

11.  On a smaller note is the idea of "nitpicking semantics."   When people feel the need to whip out the dictionary and post a definition of a word, usually in a snide or sarcastic way.   Nitpicker. Noun.  Someone who would engage in the act of picking apart a word under the guise of trying to clarify, when in actuality it’s usually to be snide and annoying and sometimes derail the conversation off track.   !


When conversation gets personal......

12. Appeal to Others. "...And I’m sure many others around here feel the same way..."  and so on.  Always speak for yourself.  Don’t hide behind imaginary people.  If you have something to say, say it, and stand on your own two feet. 

13.  Picking a fight...then turning around and playing innocent.  Or even worse, playing the victim.   Don’t pick a fight with someone or "bait" someone if you can’t handle the response.   On a related note:

14. Picking a fight, then running away and bailing out.  Those who make false accusations against another poster, and when that poster attempts to show how it’s a misrepresentation or flat out lie, they're told to things like, "You have to have the last word!" or "Let it go...Let it gooooooo....." instead of addressing the issue, as an adult.   If you’re going to make an accusation against another poster, you better be prepared to back up your claims, and see the argument through to the finish line.  Don’t chicken out, cop out, or run away, or try to turn things around on the person, when you're the one who started the fighting in the first place.   Telling somebody to "let it gooooo!" or "You just have to have the last word!" is immature, and a diversion.  I just wonder if these people would feel the same way were the tables turned, and were they being misrepresented or lied about.   hmm   Could they just "let it goooo!" ?  Methinks no.   

15. Personal insults that have no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.   ie, those who won’t argue the points at hand and instead, side track onto personal insults.  Could be bad feelings and a grudge held over from another thread, or, just not liking somebody in general.  Either way, it’s completely irrelevant stuff.  If you can’t separate out the personal dislike from the argument, then you probably shouldn’t be arguing. 

16. Baiting/Stalking.  When posters don't have the nerve to directly challenge somebody, so instead, they reference them indirectly, or in the case of what happened to me recently, I had a snippet of an email posted on the forum and portrayed out of context, which "baited" me to come on and address the email, post the FULL excerpt, and give the full back story to what was said and why.   Then there's stalking, when one poster follows another around from thread to thread to thread, quoting them repeatedly and/or trying to "draw them out," especially when it's been made clear that they're being ignored.   

17. Being unable to differentiate between the perceived "tone" of somebody’s post and the facts at hand.  Are you arguing their points.....or just reacting to the perceived tone of their post? Which one is it?   

18. People who take things personally that have nothing to do with them.  They can’t seem to tell the difference between somebody stating an opinion...that again, has nothing to do with them...versus their own sensitive ego that feels the need to internalize the opinion and then lash out to defend themselves and this imagined "bruising" that took place.   

19.  When off-the-forum nonsense spills over onto the forum. Sometimes, unbeknownst to the other people who post, there's a reason for somebody "going after" somebody on the forum...side gossip and fighting spilling over onto the forum.   Poster A goes after Poster B with a baiting or provocative comment, resulting in Poster B responding with a lot more "gusto" than the comment seems to warrant...then other posters think, "Gee, Poster B sure is a (bitch, jerk, a bit testy!)" ....not realizing that Poster B has had run ins off the forum with Poster A.  Oh, the drama.   Point being, often times there’s more to a situation then initially meets the eye.  Things are not always what they seem to be.  Also, it's unfortunate when people take an off-forum grudge and use it as the basis of going after someone on the forum.  It's deceiving to the other forum members who have no idea what in the frickity frack is happening here.

20. Candy & Daggers. Over complimenting on one hand, with a mix of underhanded insults thrown in.  Like smiling with a clenched jaw, or stabbing someone, but with a smile.   smile 

21.  Related to this is when posters single out other posters to heap all sorts of lavish, ass-kissing praise on them......to the point of totally going overboard.  It's suspicious to begin with, and usually embarrassing to the poster who's the target in the "positive" spotlight, but it also fosters resentment in the other posters who read about how wonderful and marvelous and awesome and super duper stupendifabulous that other poster supposedly is.  In the worst case scenario, that poster getting lavished with heaps of overboard praise usually winds up getting crucified later on....sometimes by  the very same people who were lavishly over complimenting them!   If not by them, then by the other posters who've been building up their resentment.

22. There’s a BIG difference between quoting somebody in order to expand the conversation in a normal way, versus honing in on them to single them out.   Certain posters seem to get this more than others.  But when ten people are saying the same thing, yet, one particular poster gets singled out of the bunch to quote and get chewed out for it, then "something is amiss." 

23. And this one is personal, and I'm going to say it here because I've had at least half a dozen people use this one on me, and I'm tired of it:   Don’t confuse the fact that I will argue you til I’m blue in the face when you’re wrong or misrepresenting me, putting words in my mouth or flat out lying about me, with this whole BS about "Lyra can’t handle anybody who disagrees with her."  People disagree with me every day, people post opinions that differ from mine every day on this forum, in every category, but who in their right mind would waste time going after each and every person that disagrees with their point of view?!    But too often, the "not so bright"  posters will pull this one out of their butts and wave it around.  Again, I’ll argue you til the cows come home…….when you’re lying about me, or misrepresenting something or using logical fallacies left and right in your "argument", and side tracking things.    But don’t be a dumbass and confuse that with me not being able to "handle" somebody disagreeing with me.

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

2 Reply by dreamosis (edited by dreamosis 2006-04-20 18:37:39)

  • Registered: 2005-03-07

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

You beat me to it!  ...This is a great idea.

Here's another common logical fallacy:

The logical fallacy of Circumstances: negating a person's argument because of his or her personal circumstances.  This was used recently against LipstickMystic--her argument that tattoos affect the energy field of a person was attacked on the grounds (or through the insinuation) that she is a professional psychic who stands to make money off of tattooed people.  In other words, because a person stands to profit from their idea doesn't mean that the idea is wrong.

Lyra's circumstances (the fact that she's with montalk) have also been used against her--more in a catty way to derail the thread than to attack her arguments, but I've seen it a dozen times at least.

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

That certainly covers alot of ground. I need to remind myself of some of these points at times. Particularly the one about not taking things personally, being hurt.
I'm not sure this always means one has a big ego, only that one's life experiences, wounds and sore points could be run over roughshod sometimes. However, it's certainly not wise to react to it, you are absolutely correct about that. This and the other points you mentioned, we have seen many examples of "since the beginning." All are very important points to keep in mind.

Is it just me, or is there more diversion than ever these days?

4 Reply by z3n3rg (edited by z3n3rg 2006-04-21 02:49:04)

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

This is somewhat addressed in the points above.  However, I think it should have it's own.  A lot of the time it's not meant to be manipulative or derail a thread.  It's often times meant with the very best of intentions.  But it does sometimes have the effect of frustrating others and/or derailing a thread.

Level Jumping.  I find this is most often used when someone is genuinely giving a higher level concept that does relate to a lower level conversation.  But, the problem is that it's given without a clear transition and is thus not grounded to the discussion.  I urge anyone (especially myself) that gets that spark of a higher level concept related to a lower level discussion to offer a clear transition to how it directly relates to the topic.  Granted, most people can make the connection themselves but there may be those that don't see it and take it wrong.

This can also be used in a negative way to derail a thread or boost an ego.  It may be hard to tell the difference so that's why I'm going to try to ensure that if I do it, I offer that clear transition so others know it's not meant as negative.

Another related attack is using higher level spiritual teachings with a double-standard.

I'll give an example.  I was taking part in a Buddism chat when one of the regulars verbally attacked someone that wasn't a regular.  The person asked why a practicing buddist would feel the need to attack.  The practicing buddist said that it wasn't an attack but it was only the perception of that person.  Granted, if the person didn't recognize the attack then it didn't exist for that person.  However, that does not negate that an attempted attack took place.  The person was using buddist teachings to attack someone and then turned it around by saying there was no attack but only that person's perception of an attack.  Very clever ego boosting tactic right there.


Edit to add...

Oh yea, the level jumping can be used in both directions.  From higher to lower and lower to higher.  And combinations thereof.  In fact, on other boards I seen this a lot.  Certain people would constantly be jumping levels just to frustrate people and slither away unscathed.  This tactic is best used when someone has knowledge of higher level teachings.

It can be used as a bait and switch, as well.  Jump to a lower level and provide bait then jump to a higher level and show how the insuing argument is wrong.

There are so many combinations that can be used with all the tactics that Lyra provided.  Look for subtle twists and unlikely combinations.  There's another board I frequent that has some masters of these tactics and I've seen a lot of combinations.

5 Reply by tenetnosce (edited by tenetnosce 2006-04-22 21:01:14)

  • From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

So I'm standing in my parents' kitchen getting a cup of coffee and I open up the cabinet to se a white cup that says "STS" in big red letters.  Needless to say I had to use it.  Not that it has anything to do with my post. wink  Here's what I've come up with so far:

1.  Assigning special meaning to words.  Also can show up as refusing to acknowledge the correct definition of a word.  The argument is really over the definition of a word as one person keeps using it in an incorrect manner.  The person often tries to defend their special definition by saying "Well this is what it means to me."  I'm sorry, but you didn't invent the English language.  Can also manifest like this:

Person A:  "Bill Cosby is X, Y, and Z."

Person B:  "Bill Cosby may be X and Y, but he is definitely not Z."

Argument ensues back and forth over Z until finally person A posts the definition of Z.

Person B whines because Person A is "nitpicking".  More often than not, Person B is having an emotional reaction to the word "Z" because they are misinterpreting its meaning.   

So yes, it is somewhat nitpicky, and can appear snotty, but if I think the definition of "Z" is "a person of African descent" and you think it is "a person of South African descent", well then the argument isn't really about Bill Cosby, it is about the definition of "Z", and we'd better get that clear before continuing with the argument. 

2.  Absolute relativism.  Everything is whatever we think it is.  We create every single aspect of our own reality.  Objective truth doesn't exist.  Used in all sorts of situations.  One is to make a quick exit from a thread after one's attempt at argument turns sour.  Another time is when somebody has a negative emotional reaction to what another is saying, but can't come up with a valid argument against it.  Also used frequently by Love n' Lighters insisting that anybody perceiving any sort of negativity must be making it up in their own mind.  If you really believe that everything is relative then there is no point in arguing with anybody about anything. 

3.  Love n' Light Turds.  Usually show up in the middle of an otherwise good thread that has begun to gather some heat.  The Love n' Lighter feels some need to defuse the argument, or throw in some positivity, because they feel uncomfortable about two other people arguing on an Internet forum.   So they drop an LnL turd in the middle of the thread, often resulting in the two people who were having a good argument to turn on the turd bearer in unison.  Usually the LnL'er has difficulty recognizing that the people engaged in the argument may be totally fine with each other, and are more annoyed at the fact that they have to address this rose-colored turd stinking up the place.  Sometimes ignoring the turd works as the LnL'er ventures off to go play savior somewhere else.  Other times they just keep crapping out turds over and over again until the entire thread is embedded in a massive pile of steaming wholesome goodness.  If you react that uncomfortably toward argumentation, perhaps you would do better to stay away from Internet forums and the like.  If you secretly get off on derailing threads, try dropping a few LnL turds.  Very effective, and you still get to play the "good guy" when it's over.

4.  Confusing an attack on an argument with an attack on the arguer.  The post looks like this: "So-and-so said such-and-such which I think is a bunch of crap and here's why."  Then somebody else comes in and starts defending the person rather than the statement.  I never said so-and-so was a bunch of crap, only that this one particular statement is a bunch of crap.

5.  Too many references / one obnoxiously long reference.  References are great, but just because you can show that somebody else agrees with you doesn't mean that what you are saying is correct.  Are you providing evidence to substantiate a claim, or simply pointing out that others agree with you?  Also, posting a two-page long quote to "support your argument" does not necessarily make it any more reasonable.  It's your responsibility to go through the reference and find a paragraph or two that directly supports what you are trying to say, cause I'm probably not going to read that whole thing, and nobody else is either.  Where references are concerned, quality trumps quantity.

6.  Ignoring a direct question. The argument is going back and forth at which point one person includes one or more direct questions, the answers of which would settle the debate.  The other party continues to merrily argue along as if the question was never asked, apparantely more concerned with "winning" than communication.  Somewhat ironically, if one were to apply this tactic in an adjudicated debate, they would lose.

7.  Thread dropping.  Sometimes you are just done with a thread, and that's your business.   You said what you had to say, and there is nothing more to be said.  Other times somebody pops into a thread with an argument, gets a discussion going, and then when they hit a wall, they just disappear from the thread, never to be seen again.  If you start an argument, finishing it is the responsible thing to do.

8.  Refusal to make concessions.  The poster will refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that they are incorrect.   Also, the poster refuses to concede a sub-point of the argument even though it is clear they have lost that particular strand of the thread.  Often seen in conjunction with frequent thread dropping.

9.  One Source Wonder.  This person has only one source, ususally some spiritual guru-like individual, or possibly a channeled body of information, that they use to argue everything.  They operate under the assumption that any information coming from their source-of-choice is somehow superior to anything else, usually because they believe their source is uber-"pure" or specially chosen, or because they happen to have written a book or have a following.  The poster throws around the name is if it confers extra weight to the argument.  Well Amitakh says. . . . I don't even know who "Amitakh" is, and I really don't care.  Amitakh is free to become a member of NR and argue with me directly if he/she desires.

10.  Misreading emotional tones.  Especially at NR, most of us are "people readers" and are quite adept at picking up emotional overlays, hidden agendas, and unspoken agreements.  However, I think we all know that this is exceedingly difficult to do over the Internet.  Rather than assume that a person is writing with a particular emotional tone and then starting a side-argument over it, why not ask the person for clarification?  Here's another thing.  Let's say I send you an email at 1:11 and you read it at 2:22. . are you picking up on my emotions at the time I sent the email, or at the time you read the email?  Assume neutrality until proven otherwise.

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

tenetnosce wrote:

1.  Assigning special meaning to words.

Seriously, so many energy-wasting debates end up being about misunderstandings over definitions. The problem isn't with using unconventional words or meanings, but with failing to clarify them in the first place. The term "STO" is an example. As long as both sides of a debate can agree on the definitions, then discussion can be productive. Dictionaries may give suggestions but cannot be the final authority because certain concepts are unknown to the scholars writing them. Look up "loosh" in the dictionary, or see if "matrix" is defined anywhere in the dictionary as a control system. So even for unconventional concepts, make sure you're all even talking about the same thing when debates go nowhere.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

7 Reply by SednaSphere (edited by SednaSphere 2006-04-21 12:40:16)

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

tenectose wrote:

Love N' Light Turds...

and I burst out lauphing. You are on a motherload there.:D

8 Reply by tenetnosce (edited by tenetnosce 2006-04-22 11:15:57)

  • From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

montalk wrote:

Seriously, so many energy-wasting debates end up being about misunderstandings over definitions. The problem isn't with using unconventional words or meanings, but with failing to clarify them in the first place. The term "STO" is an example. As long as both sides of a debate can agree on the definitions, then discussion can be productive. Dictionaries may give suggestions but cannot be the final authority because certain concepts are unknown to the scholars writing them. Look up "loosh" in the dictionary, or see if "matrix" is defined anywhere in the dictionary as a control system. So even for unconventional concepts, make sure you're all even talking about the same thing when debates go nowhere.

Definitely agree in cases of unconventional words, or words that carry a distinct connotation when used in a particular context.

"STO" is a great example.  While you can't look up "STO" in the dictionary, there still is a particular idea that is being conveyed by use of the term.  As far as I am aware, the terms "STO" and "STS" are sourced in the Law of One / Ra material, which very explicitly states that both are equally valid interpretations of the Law of One.  To someone who isn't very familiar with the material, it is easy to assume that "STO" is better than, or higher than, "STS".  It is not, and to frame the entire STO/STS thing in terms of good and evil or better and worse is to miss the point entirely.

Frequently, groups of words exist on a spectrum, and confusion as to where on the spectrum the word falls leads to unnecessary argumentation such as:

Incorrect vs. wrong.  I frequently use the word incorrect to indicate that I think a certain position is incomplete though partially correct, or only valid in a special case.  More often than not, the word gets read as wrong which would suggest that I think the position is entirely invalid, resulting in an argument when there really isn't any disagreement. 

For many, certain words carry an emotional charge because some judgment has been assigned to them in their own mind.  This distorts their reaction to a particular argument, and while they are ostensibly arguing about the concept in which the word is applied, the argument turns out just to be a defense mechanism against the negative reaction to the word itself:

Bondage.  Nobody wants to hear that they are a slave, though like Neo, we were all born into bondage.  If you are a United States citizen, you are living in bondage.   Don't believe me?  Look it up in a law dictionary. 

Contract.  Some people don't like the word contract so whenever the subject of soul contracts comes up somebody inevitably jumps in and says something to the effect that they don't believe in soul contracts.  A few pages of argumentation later, you find that they do believe in soul "agreements" or soul "something elses" which is essentially the same thing as a soul contract.

Abduction. This one comes up with a good deal of frequency on NR.  Abduction is being taken against your conscious will.  Not your superconscious or subconscious will.  Your conscious will.  So unless the grays materialized by the bedpost and asked your permission before they took you, it is an abduction, and an abrogation of free will.  End of story.

Abuse.  A wider issue than abduction with the same problems.  I've been abused and I've abused people.  Same goes for you and you and you.  There.  We are all equally "weak" and equally "bad".  The sooner you can recognize an abusive pattern, the sooner you can break it.  So stop arguing and call a spade a spade.  Everything else is a justification which only serves to perpetuate an abusive pattern.

There are obviously many others. . .

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.
  • Registered: 2005-03-07

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

z3n3rg wrote:

I'll give an example.  I was taking part in a Buddism chat when one of the regulars verbally attacked someone that wasn't a regular.  The person asked why a practicing buddist would feel the need to attack.  The practicing buddist said that it wasn't an attack but it was only the perception of that person.  Granted, if the person didn't recognize the attack then it didn't exist for that person.  However, that does not negate that an attempted attack took place.  The person was using buddist teachings to attack someone and then turned it around by saying there was no attack but only that person's perception of an attack.  Very clever ego boosting tactic right there.

I've seen this again and again and again.  When I was 14-years-old or so, my dad asked me to take a personality-type class series.  I was the only kid among fifty divorcees.  Everybody learned whether they were a "Child," "Parent" or "Adult."  I believe the system has merit, but after everybody learned it what I saw is that they used the system to play the same games they were playing before the class.

Example: everybody learned the verbiage of the Adult.  They learned how to "actively listen" and use the "I-Form" when speaking ("I feel," "I believe that...").  So, well, particularly, I watched my dad continue to be an asshole with the women he dated while using the correct Adult phrases.  And he was usually dating women in the courses, so they would programmatically respond to the Adult language. 

"Oh, huh, my intuition must be off--I mean, he's talking like an Adult, so I must be wrong.  He isn't being manipulative.  Something must be wrong with me."

...I've seen people attack other people and then when they're retaliated against, they pull the spiritual card.  "How unspiritual of you!" (Meanwhile the indignant one continues their assault).

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • Risen
  • Risen
  • The Anti-Ism
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2005-09-30

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

LOL -- I also busted out laughing (crying?) about the LnL Turd!!

Anyway, great observations all.  Sorry I don't have more to add at the moment.

/me walks away crying hysterically

This is no time for the righteous
Only the wicked survive
Bake up a batch of the Yellow Cake
Bake up a batch of the lies
- - - - -[ Yellow Cake - Ministry - Rio Grande Blood (2006)
  • Registered: 2004-04-10

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

Tenetnosce  lol

I must admit I too laughed out loud with the "Love and Light" turd definition.  Maybe you could incorporate this on a tee shirt ?????$$$$$

What would a LnL Turd avatar look like.......hmm......  yikes

If there is no time
      Then you have time for everything.
   You're never in a hurry.
That's true freedom.
  • Registered: 2004-10-15

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

manyeagles wrote:

What would a LnL Turd avatar look like.......hmm......  yikes

A bit like Mr Hankey - but with a halo?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Hankey

Thought Manifestation

Marcus's Website

  • From: USA
  • Registered: 2005-10-18

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

Posting pseudoscience as fact.  This is used to confuse people who don't know much about science and make the poster appear smart.  The poster will throw in a bunch of scientific words into his post, like benzene, quantum leap, mitochrondria, etc., but the post is actually nonsense.

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

Mutant Mouse wrote:

Posting pseudoscience as fact.  This is used to confuse people who don't know much about science and make the poster appear smart.  The poster will throw in a bunch of scientific words into his post, like benzene, quantum leap, mitochrondria, etc., but the post is actually nonsense.

I beg your pardon, but I happen to know a lot about benzene-based quantum mitochondria!!!

big_smile

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

15 Reply by tenetnosce (edited by tenetnosce 2006-04-22 20:53:36)

  • From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards

Mutant Mouse wrote:

Posting pseudoscience as fact.  This is used to confuse people who don't know much about science and make the poster appear smart.  The poster will throw in a bunch of scientific words into his post, like benzene, quantum leap, mitochrondria, etc., but the post is actually nonsense.

Oh definitely!  My absolute fav is the one about people evolving to "twelve-stranded DNA".  Really?  That's pretty sweet since it would defy pretty much everything we know about chemistry.  I have yet to see a working model of this amazing new development. . .

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.