List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

[Poptech]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum

900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%900 out of how many papers total?

2. Ad hominem

I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

3. Ad hominem

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely.

4. Ad hominem

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement

5. Ad hominem

Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.

6. Personal Attack

you

7. Personal Attack

So basically you are accusing me of something, then being a punk ass and not backing it up.

I will say again:

you.

8. Personal Attack

If there is, they will think you are a selfish, short-sighted , who should have listened to the warnings you were given. I do not think they would be very kind about it, e.g. Luddites.

9. Personal Attack

Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.

10. Red Herring

Thread Topic: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life

LET'S PLAY:

GUESS THE COMMON THEME OF THE HERITAGE TRUSTEE PICTURES [...]

Can anyone spot the common theme? [...]

Nothing screams "traditional American values" like ruling bodies deviod of representatives of certain segments of the population.

11. Straw Man

All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.

Yeah, he really deflected on the topic of climate change science, by talking about .... climate science.

12. Personal Attack

PopTart. Heh, that's funny too.

[RandomGuy]

There is no irony as the numerical total of the list is factual. No argument is made that this is more or less than something else as you did with your argumentum ad populum.

That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

This also got ignored.

You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html


If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?

Yes, the use of a defined logical fallacy to attempt to prove/disprove something is a logical fallacy.

Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.

It was directly implied...

That, again, is not an answer to my question, nor does it show the structure of your underlying charge. You saying it is implied, especially when it is not explicitly stated, nor even directly intended on my part, does not make it so.

We both know the logical answer is, yes, it is logical to reject your statement.

Your charge is rejected.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3489

[RandomGuy]

1. argumentum ad populum

The default skeptical position is to reject something until it is reasonably proven.

Jumping up and down like a monkey and repeating the same thing over and over and over after being asked to show proof, does not make something and more true the 100th time ... well, see the "Apollo hoax" thread in the club forum.

You'll loooove Cosmored.


... and by love him, I mean hate him with the burning heat of a thousand blazing hot suns.

[RandomGuy]

as you did with your argumentum ad populum.

[bla bla bla, big long exchange]

My opinion on this...

You are right to walk that back.

Or did you forget to say "it is my opinion that your..."



Awfully convenient to forget things like stating an opinion as a fact.

Man, I wish I could wave my magic opinion wand and make them into facts. Can you share your magic power with me?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3495

[clambake]

damn random, got your own thread.

you make this guy blow a gasket?

[RandomGuy]

1. argumentum ad populum

2. ad hominem

3. ad hominem

4. ad hominem

Saying they are, does not prove they are.

FAIL.

Post as many as you want. Feel free to start proving any of them, sophist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

damn random, got your own thread.

you make this guy blow a gasket?

It looks like the meltdown i was looking for.

[Poptech]

damn random, got your own thread.

you make this guy blow a gasket?

Actually he blew a gasket multiple times, see above.

[Poptech]

It looks like the meltdown i was looking for.

The only meltdown, is the one you started,

As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.

[jack sommerset]

My personal favorite was when his granddaughter would be of age to drive there would be no gas. Great guy. God bless

[CuckingFunt]

Reading the Political Forum always makes me realize just how little free time I've got.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only meltdown, is the one you started,

How exactly is pointing out that leading questions don't make an argument a meltdown?

Creating a tread to 'call out' another poster is the definition of asshurt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reading the Political Forum always makes me realize just how little free time I've got.

I now have all kinds of free time until June and other than Spurs games I don't watch TV. Maybe I should go out and get hammered.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually he blew a gasket multiple times, see above.

Of course he did.

Now are you going to at least attempt to qualify any of those assertions? Do you want some help in how to write a logical construct?

[Poptech]

How exactly is pointing out that leading questions don't make an argument a meltdown?

Creating a tread to 'call out' another poster is the definition of asshurt.

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt?

Bringing him up again is not doing your position much service. When he starts a thread calling you out by name you let me know, kk?

[jack sommerset]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt?

Maybe. Tough one to call. He uses fear to stir things up at times. That's a sign he is disturb or desperate, maybe both. He is misguided but he believes in his cause even when science/logic disputes his claim. I bring science up because he tries to pull a bill NYE the science guy on us but when another poster throws that same argument back in his grill, using science in debate, he dismisses it. I lean towards butthurt but he is a great guy. God bless

[RandomGuy]

My personal favorite was when his granddaughter would be of age to drive there would be no gas. Great guy. God bless

Not quite, your memory is a bit fuzzy:

We will have gasoline for a looong time it will certainly be around in 40 years.

By the time my grandchildren come of driving age, it will be uneconomical to burn in vehicles.

[RandomGuy]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt?

Says the guy with the thread with my name in it, and no proof...

[Stringer_Bell]

Fuk yo syllogisms clown

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's apparently added this thread to his sig.

[RandomGuy]

Of course he did.

Now are you going to at least attempt to qualify any of those assertions? Do you want some help in how to write a logical construct?

I was actually going to type up a primer on it, seeing as how he seems to be unable to do so.

I am honestly beginning to wonder if he actually understands them or not. toss up between not knowing, and too smart to commit the intellectualy dishonest constructs he will have to make to flesh them out.

Try the holocaust denial website:

Nizkor.org

They have some very well spelled out, easy to follow ones.

I guess when you have been dealing with holocaust denial (HA) conspiracy theories for 60 years, you get good at ferreting it out.

[RandomGuy]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt?

I stated my intent was to support a theory.

I constructed a list of things I thought supported my theory.

Where have I heard that before....?

Quit lying (guffaw) about my list!!

argumentum ad populum!!!



Seriously, you crack me up. The thread is flattering, by the way. Thanks.

By the way, if you can actually prove any of those to be an actual fallacy, I will give you a cookie. Promise...

[Stringer_Bell]

Oh wow, I just read the OP. Lol @ RG calling Poptech "poopdeck."

Logic sucks.

[Poptech]

Oh wow, I just read the OP. Lol @ RG calling Poptech "poopdeck."

Logic sucks.

Let me use some of his "logic"

RG was a Nazi.