Dr Rick

Originally posted by long winded fool:
This is a logically unsound argument.

It's not uncommon for those who are just learning about logic to be tempted into labeling everything that they think is wrong as illogical, but what's unusual here is the way lwf perseverates in his errors. Not every wrong idea or concept is illogical; that's a very simple concept, but lwf just can't seem to grasp it.

So what we have here is a false assertion not substantiated but instead simply followed with...

There is a false premise that is assumed without sufficient knowledge that is based on the fallacy of composition.

...another unsubstantiated assertion (it's not a given that slanted eyes are not a sign of evil; I don't believe it myself, but that's not proof to the contrary) leading into a begging the question fallacy ironically followed by...

Not only that, it begs the question.

...misidentifying what is actually begging the question leading into...

Why are slanted eyes a sign of evil?

...an unrelated red herring and then...

Once you answer this, you have your fallacy.

...another false assertion.

What is the fallacy? answer: none. Believing that slanted eyes are a sign of evil may not be rational or correct, but it's not a fallacy nor necessarily based upon a fallacy, either. That 's why Christianity may be labelled irrational by atheists but cannot be called a fallacy.

"A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support." from Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a CD tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0; it would be money well-spent by lwf...on second thought, it would probably be a waste...

You are simply avoiding the argument that contains the fallacy.

This is just funny as hell coming from lwf; he was warned previously that his improper use of the terms used in logic would make him look foolish.

All prejudiced arguments are logical fallacies.

As pointed out before, simply repeating a falsehood does not make it true, and repeating it over and over doesn't do much, either

Arguments with true premises are fallacies of composition.

Gosh, all this time I thought arguments with true premises could lead to many different types of conclusions, some fallacious, some both valid and sound, all depending upon the reasoning employed.

Arguments with false premises are also fundamentally based on categorical rejection (a fallacy which encompasses both composition and division,) even if it is not present in the actual syllogism. (As in the one above.) Manipulation of the syllogism with fallaciously arrived at premises won't make it any more logical.

Of course, arguments with false premises may lead to wrong conclusions but are not all fallacious, as Dr Labossiere and other logicians tell us, becuase premises are not arrived at fallaciously: conclusions are, but what the hell; is not like lwf has got anything else right thus far.

The prejudice is present in the premise "Slanted eyes are a sign of evil." This is an assumption that is based on the fallacy of categorical rejection.

"False premises are not fallacies...false premises are not fallacies...false premises are not fallacies"...I might as well try that; nothing else seems to work for lwf.

You can try to flip flop between division and composition, but as I stated in my very first post on this thread, categorical rejection is always illogical, therefore so is prejudice.

Oh, very nice; a non sequitur leading to an irrelevant conclusion

Biased opinion is not prejudice. :banghead:

It's just not lwf's lucky day:

bias
SYLLABICATION: bi·as
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: bs KEY
NOUN: 1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice...SYNONYMS: bias, color, jaundice, prejudice, warp

You again are trying to expand the definition so that it fits your argument.

Ah...the 'ole "pot-kettle-black" thing...

I remind you that it is logical to use your opponent's definition and not come up with your own, otherwise you are refuting a strawman.

Didn't he post that before, and just like now, assert it without substantiating it?

If we can't agree on the definition of prejudice, we cannot communicate rationally.

Lwf is just being silly, here; with his poor command of logic and irrational reasoning, even agreeing on definitions isn't likely to make him coherent.

Here's another funny one; after I posted: "From the American Heritage Dictionary:

prejudice
SYLLABICATION: prej·u·dice
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: prj-ds KEY
NOUN: 1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
1b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others."

and also: "You're definition of prejudice is not the one I've been using but if we use yours then the answer to the question is still "maybe" in my opinion because illegitimate jugdements are not necessarily evil, and also because prejudicial judgements can sometimes still be valid conclusions. On the other hand, if we use Professor Gordon Alport's definition, who wrote the seminal work, The Nature of Prejudice almost fifty years ago and defined prejudice as "an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group..."

Lwf comes up with this:

If you'd like to define it yourself, then do so and I'll use that one.

..and then he throws in this obsure gem...

However, I will be arguing about an entirely different subject so my argument is likely to change.

...oh sure, but it likely still won't make a 'lick of sense

This is reflective of your stubbornness, not my failure to think critically. Prejudice by the definition and context provided in the op is always illogical.

...yup, he's good at those assertions; now, if he could just make a rational argument, he'd be stylin'...

Now we can change the subject but call it the same term if that's what you want to do so that you can say that prejudice is not always illogical.

Debating lwf must be like hitting one's penis over and over with a hammer: it's pointless, painful, and it only feels better when you finally stop.

long winded fool

Dr. Rick, about 90% of what you say is ad hominem and I'm tired of wading through your egotistical tirade for that 10% that actually contains a reasonable description of the point you are trying to make. I'm not still here wasting my time in order to talk to anyone else, as they apparently can all accept my argument as reasonable, I'm here to talk to you. (That's why I address you as 'you' instead of 'he.') Since you are obviously not interested in intelligent conversation with me, and since you ironically appear to think that you have a captive audience, I'll let you reassure them that you're right, if they exist, and I'll wait for some indication that you wish to continue rationally, rather than respond to incomprehensible emotional attacks laced with erroneous accusations of logical fallacies and childish name-calling.

Whatever I said in previous threads to make you so hostile towards me, I apologize, but I assure you it was honestly what I thought. If honesty makes you angry, then I suggest looking inward rather than pointing fingers and trying to magnify other people's blemishes.

Nowhere357

I don't understand this either. Do you two have a history? Maybe he's cranked up for dk or yguy and you're just taking some friendly fire.

Arkus 02

Bingo.

The most basic rule of society is that people have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Going by this, people have the right to be bigots, however irrational their belief is, so long as their bigotry harms nobody.

Similarly, they have the right to avoid socializing with members of the race they hate, because im sure blacks/Asians/latins/etc dont really care to socialize with a crazy old coot who doesn't want to be there anyway.

The minute someone actually goes so far as to withold a job (or whatever) from someone else on the grounds of age/race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever is the minute they deserve to be hung by their balls, IMO. Not only would that shut them up, it'd also help keep the gene pool squeaky clean.

But the point isthis: as humans, we're entitled to hold any belief we wish. Actions, not thoughts, are subject to moral and social laws.

Apathist

Absolutely. Of course, thoughts lead to actions.