UMEC Forum Index UMEC
United Mining Exploration Commission: A group of friends playing JumpGate-- "a MMORPG that launched smoothly, breaks from fantasy character setting, emphasizes PvP, and is the first persistent world space simulator that nobody talks about." ~Scorch
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Illogician Tactics

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    UMEC Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 2:06 am    Post subject: Illogician Tactics Reply with quote (updated)
    the inspiration came from Nohbody for the title of the thread/topic.
There are numerous other FAQs about trolls and related subjects in both this, flame and comic relief forums.

Last edited by MuffyBot™ on Thu Apr 03, 2003 7:11 pm; edited 54 times in total
Back to top

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2002 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strawman fallacies are probably the number one most used "complex" argument used by trolls. In an attempt to summarize what a "strawman" attack is i'm going to quote someone else
Michael Wong wrote:
Strawman Attacks
Trolls use strawman attacks very heavily. They don't really understand the subject, so they try to attack something which they think is the subject, but which is in fact not. They are attacking a misrepresentation of the subject rather than the real thing,in the hopes that by knocking down the misrepresentation, they can knock down the real thing as well.
    You can also check an onsite forum thread dedicated to such fallacies, which includes three reference linksPersonally, i've found (on sept11th,2005) a new site that i find is highly intuitive and VERY EASY to get a grasp on the "big picture". please see post dated for sept11th,2005 for link
Leo Kee Chye wrote:
An argument is only be considered an argument when:
  1. Reasons are given to support a certain claim;
  2. The reasons are not opinions but statement of facts.
  3. These statement of facts must have some logical relation to the asserted claim.
If you already think that is confusing, not to worry as you are in good company. Simple as it might sound but difficult when put to actual practice -- one of the major ironies of life. It may not come as a surprise to most that much of our quarrels, conflicts and even wars in human history started out as personal, religious and cultural differences in opinions or values. Nevertheless, being human, we can learn to improve and it’s practice that makes us proficient.
The speaker was explaining how to tell the difference between a mere opinion and a proper argument (which doesn't need to follow strict boolean logic)
    there was an even more fascinating quote about the strictness of logic in deductive and inductive logic...actually, it's a rather nice introduction to logic and argument for the layman.
Types of argument wrote:
There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other arguments. We can also discuss how probable their premises are.

There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive nor inductive. However, this document concentrates on deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.

Last edited by MuffyBot™ on Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:39 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Voltaire wrote:
A witty saying proves nothing

Looking at it objectively that statement seems rather weak compared to the hardcore data store above. But, when you're in the midst of reading a thread something witty is interesting, and being interesting becomes important, and being important usually connotes "good" as long as the warm fuzzy feeling lasts...which is good enough to carry an argument with most folks observing. Folks who really should know better

Voltaire wrote:
Common sense is not so common

French Proverb (often attributed to Voltaire) wrote:
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."
Perfection is the enemy of good; or, Good enough is the enemy of better. (the latter being a Russian Proverb)

Hyperlink to this post
Back to top

PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2003 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote'souza_.cfm
ZNet (Radha D'Souza) wrote:
Both in Austria and India, it may be possible to make the connections between the liassez faire economics and the political neo-Nazism. However, the compartmentalised nature of the arguments and the intellectual hiatus between them allows the ruling and dominant forces in society to represent one argument in preference to the others as the framework within which the debate must occur. The spaces created by the conceptual disjunctures shroud the integrated nature of economics, politics and moral/ethical dimensions of social life. Historically, the empty spaces of conceptual disjunctures have served as the spawning ground for imperialism and colonialism. It remains so.

Last edited by MajorFreak on Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Znet (Edward Hermann) wrote:
The paper did no investigative work and reporting on the truth of the claim of higher Soviet military spending, and their leading journalists dealing with defense issues (Richard Burt and Drew Middleton) regularly conduited claims of a growing Soviet threat. When the Team B report was issued in December 1976, displacing an internal report by CIA professionals that was more restrained, a front page article in the Times took the claims at face value, took no note of any political bias or purpose, allowed no contesting comment, and displayed no hint of the slightest scepticism or investigative effort.


In sum, the really important lies are imbedded in a structure of word usages, frames of reference, and selection of facts and qualified commentators.
Znet (David Cromwell and David Edwards) wrote:
The <mainstream media> spies no such straightforward realpolitik at work, preferring instead to see something far less sinister: ... 'They do not know what they are doing or why they are doing it'

k. let's completely ignore the substance and stick to context, otherwise we get lost in nomeclature. the article was good, but i'm paying particular attention to the illustration of reporting methods NOT used.
  • Displacement
  • Face Value
  • Taking no note of Political bias or purpose
  • allowed no contesting comment
  • displayed no hint of scepticism
  • no investigative effort
that last one. In an age of corporate media propaganda, is there really examples of "pulitzer prize" level journalism? and even, has the pulitzer prize ever been about freedom of the press or THE award for cowtowing? In that context, what IS investigative journalism? or more proper: what does "investigation" mean as contrasted to "propaganda"
    "To make a detailed inquiry or systematic examination" - ie. questioning base assumptions. (how far does one go to doing that? go too far and it becomes counterproductive, just as doing none at all damages. What constitutes a base assumption worth questioning? I believe it becomes, not the stated assumption, but looking to the core of the matter and seeing the context. (i'm nattering on at the moment, forgive the tangent, but i can't help thinking this tangent is the core of the matter...unfortunately the words elude me for now)
well, woop dee freakin doo...who cares? Well, tell you what, that list i posted? well, think of it in terms of JumpGate SP/RE in a "how-to" for instilling believable intrigue, and especially the attitude to use against counter-roleplayers (not anti-roleplayers): one must marginalize countercomments while still being polite (as you would a "backtalking" child; seen and not heard), but of course this threatens to bring an IC discussion OOC.
    i'll attempt to wrest some form of "how-to" for that without backfiring on your SP/RE by being too transparent (and how to spot poor roleplayers; avoiding OOC whine-fests)...Seeing as how i'm notoriously lacking in rapid-fire wit, i'll be hard pressed to even notice a good quote about that, but i'll try.
I think the aim of this post is to try and pin down a decent approach to take for creating "roleplay" without falling into the same old traps i've outlined here. I don't think this is a marginal issue, because not only do we all have trouble with this sort of stuff, i believe the only reason RP is marginalized is because it's so misunderstood.

Power = Role (and visa versa)...i believe this is where alot of folk fall flat on their face; the inability to realize the issues of real power inherent to "that silly RP" - i mean, let's ignore the deeper sociopolitical issues, roleplay really is the coolest part of MMOGs. Why it isn't, why it's marginalized, is of deepest interest to me ever since i read BaadF00d's rant. (course, i'll bet he's pissed cause it's been my manifesto for ages)
    on that note, i'll attempt to finish that PDF he referred me to here
Back to top

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2003 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think, "willing suspension of disbelief" goes hand in hand with "base assumptions" when one deals with propaganda.
Back to top

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dave Markell wrote:
I have no problems with occasional ad hominem attacks, personally. People who throw this term around and claim it invalidates the attacker are missing the point. Sometimes, one of the most telling arguments against a position is one that points out the biases of the one doing the arguing--ie, a personal attack. Personal attacks can make the difference between a well-reasoned position and a rationalization very clear.

What cracks me up is when folks like Cleve complain about being subjected to ad hominen attacks after unleashing dozens of their own. You gotta laugh at hypocrites.
Back to top
Chief WO4
Chief WO4

Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 473
Location: Tripoint

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this site is amazing. i've not seen such an intuitive grasp of the need for "the big picture" when dealing with different types of logical fallacies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    UMEC Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson.
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group