A logical fallacy is an error in logical reasoning. While the common usage of the word fallacy would include any error in reasoning, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly deceptive argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.[1] The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.
[...]
Logical fallacies are the beloved debating tactic of liberals; for this reason, it is not advised to debate them unless you have to, as you will only end up frustrated when one of them inevitably claims global warming is true because Al Gore said so.
52 comments
So now Andy asserts that pointing out an error in logic or reasoning is nothing more than dirty rotten debating trick by those filthy liberals. Which is in itself two fallacies; one is called the escape hatch and the other is called the appeal to motive.
Oh, and Andy, I see there is new interest in pressing for inclusion of the ERA in the Constitution. Your mom must be going ape shit!
@anothgaimage obviously, we are godless and evil.
(Sangfroid)
Really? Ooo, getting a nice dose of shadenfreude early in the morning is quite refreshing, even if it is at the expense of Mama Shitfly.
Seriously, though, do you know where you heard this? I'd like to go read more about it myself.
Logical fallacies are the beloved debating tactic of liberals; for this reason, it is not advised to debate them unless you have to, as you will only end up frustrated when one of them inevitably claims global warming is true because Al Gore said so.
Most ironic straw man award?
@The Reptilian Jew
I suggest making the flag a tricolour, with the hoist blue for blue-nosed fundies, the fly black for racists, and the... whatever vexillologists call the midsection green or silver for reptilian watchers/tinfoil hatters. And we can call it the "Trifecta!"
that's not even what definitions look like in logic, andy...
(granted, most so-called "logical fallacies" aren't defined in logic, because they're actually rhetorical (mis)steps. as a general rule, most of them have squat to do with symbolic logic. associating them with logic is a rhetorical trick to make them seem more, eheh, fallacious, and as such is technically a fallacy in itself.)
I have yet to see a single liberal use Al Gore as the basis for their acceptance of global warming. Sorry, Andy, but the notion of unquestionable authority figures is a particularly toxic invention of your side.
@The Reptilian Jew
How about FE ?
I have never heard any Liberals (or Socialists, Environmentalists, Communists, etc) claim that global warming is true because Al Gore said so. If you're talking to a young person in Europe, he or she might even say "who's Al Gore?". Rational people claim that evidence all point to global warming happening right now.
In science, it doesn't matter who says anything, but what the evidence says about the claim.
People don't believe global warming is true because Al Gore said so. They believe it because:
(a) the vast majority of climate scientists say so (and if you're not a climate scientist yourself, how else do you come to your opinion?), and
you will only end up frustrated when one of them inevitably claims global warming is true because Al Gore said so.
No-one has ever claimed that, you lying sack of shit.
Once again, Andy proves that you can shove your finger too far up your nose in search of a booger.
I vote for a pen and ink drawing of the Flatiron Building for the flag.
image
Fundie has a point, people do tend to use logical fallacies as "trap cards" in the "debate YuGiOh".
Unfortunately for him, fundies need far less logical reasons to disregard what people say.
@ The Reptilian Jew
I thought that was our flag.
If you need a caption though, I suggest "26" with the quotes. Or, maybe, 26-ish!
Al Gore?
He was the VP under Clinton wasn't he? Not many people listen to him, esp not outside the US.
We claim global climate change is real because the evidence tell us that, not Gore.
@The Reptilian Jew
I liek the "Fe" one.
> I think sonething more... sinister-sounding would be better.
Sangre para dio de sangre!
(I don't know Latin, so I used Spanish. Close enough.)
I've never seen anyone aargue that global warming is true because Al Gore said so.
I have seen a lot of people state that global warming is true because there's actually a ton of evidence that global mean temperature has risen in an unprecendented manner over the past several decades.
Perhaps that was what you meant to say?
@breakerslion
Semper Inlusionis Ambrosious
OK, I give up (and Google translate doesn't help either). What does it mean?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
