Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Should saturated use ...
  • Subject: Should saturated use ...
Subject: Should saturated use ...
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Of logical fallancies be prohibited?

I find it irritating how often people attack the user making the arguement rather than the arguement itself, and other underhanded fallancies.

I mean as we speak I gave a arguement with examples/logical backing and just as the evidence was getting more and more conclusive to the point where it was getting undeniable I make one exaggeration and the user I'm debating with uses that as a cop out and says that he's sick of arguing with someone who argues nothing but exaggerations and lies.

I mean it wasn't even a arguement for the main topic, it was a sidebar exaggeration.

[Edited on 06.29.2011 5:12 PM PDT]

  • 06.29.2011 5:08 PM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten

No, if they were wouldn't I be banned?

  • 06.29.2011 5:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
No, if they were wouldn't I be banned?

I dunno, do you intentionally use logical fallancies repeatedly to make your point in any discussion? because if so than yes.

And maybe not make it bannable but at least link a page listing logical fallancies in the rules and reccomend reviewing it before the person starts posting.

  • 06.29.2011 5:11 PM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: MURDUR 587
Posted by: spartain ken 15
No, if they were wouldn't I be banned?

I dunno, do you intentionally use logical fallancies repeatedly to make your point in any discussion? because if so than yes.

And maybe not make it bannable but at least link a page listing logical fallancies in the rules and reccomend reviewing it before the person starts posting.


I don't intentally use logical fallices but I am human, I make my fair share of mistakes.

But, if a statement or thread makes no sense and wants to spark a flame war, it should be locked.

  • 06.29.2011 5:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

|Ask Your Ninja |
Any questions about anything, PM me. The only stupid question, is the one never asked.
"But, doctor...I am Pagliacci."
Posted by: bobcast
I hate you unless I'm drunk.

That would be flaming;

'Attacking the user instead of the idea'

  • 06.29.2011 5:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
I don't intentally use logical fallices but I am human, I make my fair share of mistakes.

But, if a statement or thread makes no sense and wants to spark a flame war, it should be locked.

"Well you're dumb and by extension so is your arguement!"

As long as your main forum of discussion isn't something like this you should be ok, as long as it's not blatantly obvious that you're intentionally trying to disprove a point using something unrelated to it or that simply doesn't make any logical sense.


Actually this rule would make sense, I mean saying things like "You wouldn't understand, you're just a major" and you cannot attack the user, just the ideas represented by him, the rule is already implies technically that logical fallancies shouldn't be used to make a point, it's just not official.

  • 06.29.2011 5:18 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Rokitz
  • user homepage:

Want to know more about me? Check out my Community Joes interview.

Trying something once will increace your chances of success, because you tried it. Try someting twice, and your chances increase yet again - seeing as you've done it. Try something a few thousand times, and your chances of success is exponentially increased; this increase would likely provide success every time

In my honest opinion, it depends on the situation and what the fallacy said is. I've used some while I've been here, but it's usually only if I'm using someone else' logic against them.

While it's an effective way to get through to someone, it's a double edged sword that should be tread on carefully. As on the other side, you may not only be making an ass out of yourself, you may also find yourself in a wii-bito trouble.

Should they be prohibited? Definitely not, but some people would be a lot better off not using them.

[Edited on 06.29.2011 5:34 PM PDT]

  • 06.29.2011 5:18 PM PDT

there is no way to monitor everybody in this manner and no official way to get them.

  • 06.29.2011 5:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Dammit Rokit! You and your edits.

Posted by: green1234
there is no way to monitor everybody in this manner and no official way to get them.


You'd get them the same way you get regular rule breakers, if someone uses Ad Hominems as the main points of their arguements for several pages then you hit them with a backsmack!

[Edited on 06.29.2011 5:25 PM PDT]

  • 06.29.2011 5:21 PM PDT

I don't see a problem with them. The only misuse of logical fallacies I've seen is the Flood, Halo 3, Reach, etc. forums.

  • 06.29.2011 5:25 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.


Posted by: MURDUR 587
Of logical fallancies be prohibited?

I find it irritating how often people attack the user making the arguement rather than the arguement itself, and other underhanded fallancies.

I mean as we speak I gave a arguement with examples/logical backing and just as the evidence was getting more and more conclusive to the point where it was getting undeniable I make one exaggeration and the user I'm debating with uses that as a cop out and says that he's sick of arguing with someone who argues nothing but exaggerations and lies.

I mean it wasn't even a arguement for the main topic, it was a sidebar exaggeration.


And how exactly do you propose we prohibit it? Have the mods shoulder the responsibility of thinking into a thread much more than they already do to determine whether or not an argument is a logical fallacy?

  • 06.29.2011 5:26 PM PDT

B.U.N.G.L.E. Pro™

ಠ_ಠ

(●̮̮̃•̃)
./█\
..| |

ITT: People incorrectly using the term "logical fallacy" to try and sound smart.

  • 06.29.2011 5:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Posted by: chubbz
And how exactly do you propose we prohibit it? Have the mods shoulder the responsibility of thinking into a thread much more than they already do to determine whether or not an argument is a logical fallacy?

The same way we prohibit everything else, a mod is looking over a thread, sees exessive use of logical fallancies, bans the user.

Typically it isn't a absolute thing like all the other rules, but if it continues and saturates the users posts then a ban would be warranted.

Such as if I bumped this thread once or if I called you a dumbass once I wouldn't be banned, but if I bumped it 1000x and my posts are filled with nothing but insults directed strait at you I'd be banned without question.

  • 06.29.2011 5:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.


Posted by: DeathBringer669
ITT: People incorrectly using the term "logical fallacy" to try and sound smart.


Ad Hominems aren't logical fallancies?

  • 06.29.2011 5:33 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.


Posted by: MURDUR 587
Posted by: chubbz
And how exactly do you propose we prohibit it? Have the mods shoulder the responsibility of thinking into a thread much more than they already do to determine whether or not an argument is a logical fallacy?

The same way we prohibit everything else, a mod is looking over a thread, sees exessive use of logical fallancies, bans the user.

Typically it isn't a absolute thing like all the other rules, but if it continues and saturates the users posts then a ban would be warranted.

Such as if I bumped this thread once or if I called you a dumbass once I wouldn't be banned, but if I bumped it 1000x and my posts are filled with nothing but insults directed strait at you I'd be banned without question.


Yeah, because that's outright flaming, not 'logical fallacies'. It's already covered, bucko.

  • 06.29.2011 5:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Posted by: chubbz
Yeah, because that's outright flaming, not 'logical fallacies'. It's already covered, bucko.

You CAN do it without flaming and I was just listing the most common fallancy, people use other ones like Strawmans and such all the time.

Well ... maybe not prohibit it because bans within that field would be in a little bit of a grey area but at least a little reccomendation at the bottom of the rules like:

We highly recommend you also get accustomed to logical fallancies before posting.

Or something like that.

[Edited on 06.29.2011 5:45 PM PDT]

  • 06.29.2011 5:44 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.


Posted by: MURDUR 587
Posted by: chubbz
Yeah, because that's outright flaming, not 'logical fallacies'. It's already covered, bucko.

You CAN do it without flaming and I was just listing the most common fallancy, people use other ones like Strawmans and such all the time.

Well ... maybe not prohibit it because bans within that field would be in a little bit of a grey area but at least a little reccomendation at the bottom of the rules like:

We highly recommend you also get accustomed to logical fallancies before posting.

Or something like that.


It's more like a huge gray area. You're going to find people being banned because of the way a mod interpreted their argument, which won't go over too well. It requires ALOT more effort on the mods part, considering the things they are required to moderate now are usually straightforward.

  • 06.29.2011 5:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

Posted by: chubbz
It's more like a huge gray area. You're going to find people being banned because of the way a mod interpreted their argument, which won't go over too well. It requires ALOT more effort on the mods part, considering the things they are required to moderate now are usually straightforward.

Actually the rules in general are pretty greyish, I mean I could insult you right now and not get in trouble for it even though it is blatantly against the rules.

Although I suppose this area is a little of the more greyer things to moderate on it could still be done, I would be happy though if just my small "Check out these fallancies and try not to use them!" reccomendation addendum to the rules was added, because at least then it'd be right there and it'll be a little more obvious who is just using fallancies and who's trying to make a point.

  • 06.29.2011 6:02 PM PDT

I dont think this tool could be used resposibly by the halo community due to the fact that this is why this is happening in the first place. But I would love for this tool would be great

  • 06.29.2011 6:11 PM PDT