DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**forexsoft** · 09-25-2010, 09:23 PM

How to win any argument (part 2)
Garth Sundem
Jul 25, 2010

Today is Sunday and that means Kristi has her sights set on three-dollar bagels from the farmers’ market. I, on the other hand, would prefer to spend this money on important things like our children’s education and/or beer. In other words, we have a marital conundrum.

On Kristi’s side is many years of education leading very soon to a PhD in Clinical Psychology. But on my side is the power of illogic. For more of this extremely important background information, please see yesterday’s post. Or just skip to the strategies below, which will ensure your success in any and all disputes.

Denying the Antecedent: If x, then y. Not x. Therefore not y-”If I had fudge on my chin, you’d know I bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. Do you see said fudge? No. Thus am I exonerated!”
Disjunctive Fallacy: X and/or y. Not x. Therefore not y-”So, I see you accuse both me and the dog. But in fact the dog is allergic to chocolate! Thus am I exonerated!”
Division Fallacy: assuming that all individuals posses characteristics of the group (this is stereotypical stereotyping)–”It’s in the nature of a middle-aged woman to bogart the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. Thus you, my dear wife-and not I-have done exactly that.”
Existential Fallacy: Are there any members in that category?-”Standing before you are all the people who have not bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. You are the only other suspect. Thus, j’accuse!”
False Analogy: A misleading comparison-”Gandhi, a man similar to myself in many respects, wouldn’t have bogarted the last of the jamocha almond fudge.”

09-25-2010, 09:23 PM	#2
forexsoft Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 500 Senior Member	How to win any argument (part 2) Garth Sundem Jul 25, 2010 Today is Sunday and that means Kristi has her sights set on three-dollar bagels from the farmers’ market. I, on the other hand, would prefer to spend this money on important things like our children’s education and/or beer. In other words, we have a marital conundrum. On Kristi’s side is many years of education leading very soon to a PhD in Clinical Psychology. But on my side is the power of illogic. For more of this extremely important background information, please see yesterday’s post. Or just skip to the strategies below, which will ensure your success in any and all disputes. Denying the Antecedent: If x, then y. Not x. Therefore not y-”If I had fudge on my chin, you’d know I bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. Do you see said fudge? No. Thus am I exonerated!” Disjunctive Fallacy: X and/or y. Not x. Therefore not y-”So, I see you accuse both me and the dog. But in fact the dog is allergic to chocolate! Thus am I exonerated!” Division Fallacy: assuming that all individuals posses characteristics of the group (this is stereotypical stereotyping)–”It’s in the nature of a middle-aged woman to bogart the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. Thus you, my dear wife-and not I-have done exactly that.” Existential Fallacy: Are there any members in that category?-”Standing before you are all the people who have not bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. You are the only other suspect. Thus, j’accuse!” False Analogy: A misleading comparison-”Gandhi, a man similar to myself in many respects, wouldn’t have bogarted the last of the jamocha almond fudge.”
	Quote