On how Star Wars ground forces are bad: an old SB.com thread

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:27 am

Thanatos wrote:I see you have suffered a slight reading error. I was saying to little boy that argumentum ad logicam was also a fallacy in reply to his declaring a fallacy.
An argument being an instance of logical fallacy comes about when the presumptions are true, but the conclusions do not logically follow via the steps given. When you address criticism of an argument by saying argumentum ad logicam is a fallacy without addressing any of the material under contention, you are implicitly admitting that its presumptions are true - whether or not you intend to.

Argumentum ad logicam is the fallacious argument that presumes that the argument offered by one's opponent has been in and of itself fallacious, and concludes that therefore one's opponent's conclusions are false.
And as for your allegations of bias and retribution: He broke an utterly black and white rule with absolute precedent. If you wish to participate in VS debates, you cannot put someone on ignore without moderator approval.
A sound justification on your part. Good. I was, then, wrong above.

So the assorted other rules violations in the thread, by whomever (the most, IMO, being from Leo1, but we could start pointing to other minor violations and misbehaviors) were not significant enough to merit any warning, in your opinion?
This was not retribution in any way.
To hear you state this is, I think, good, and not simply for your reputation among those who may read this thread.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:36 am

Thanatos wrote:
When you state that, you are as much as admitting that Leo1 was offering fallacious arguments
I see you have suffered a slight reading error. I was saying to little boy that argumentum ad logicam was also a fallacy in reply to his declaring a fallacy.

And as for your allegations of bias and retribution: He broke an utterly black and white rule with absolute precedent. If you wish to participate in VS debates, you cannot put someone on ignore without moderator approval. This was after me warning him this issue. He can have his VS specific ban lifted as soon as he conforms to rule number 10 and PMs me to confirm it. He can then get back to arguing whatever he wants after the standard one day ban. He could be back tomorrow if he gets it to me in the next 3.5 hours.

That was the only official moderator action taken in that thread. I did not decide anyone had a "right" argument and did not even comment at all on the debate except for the Red Herring comment.

This was not retribution in any way. My retribution methods would be far, far more vicious and total than this to start out with.
Well, obviously. I get a warning and a infinite ban until I PM you to recant or something. Vympel gets nothing.

Thanatos, you are obviously totally neutral here, just as much as Cap'.

Well, that is nowhere surprising, I did expect that kind of bias, but I'm still considering the possiblity of sending you a PM though.

However, what kind of text do you want in there exactly?

Thanatos
Padawan
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:04 am

Post by Thanatos » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:29 am

When you address criticism of an argument by saying argumentum ad logicam is a fallacy without addressing any of the material under contention, you are implicitly admitting that its presumptions are true
Actually, there need not be logical fallacy and their point need not be correct. Argumentum ad Logicam is dismissing someone's point by saying that they used a fallacy. You have to prove that they used a logical fallacy and that they are incorrect.

We used to have an old member that tried to dismiss whole swaths of text by simply replying with the name of a fallacy and nothing more. Ironically, he is also one of the people that necessitated the creation of Rule 10 back in the day.
So the assorted other rules violations in the thread, by whomever (the most, IMO, being from Leo1, but we could start pointing to other minor violations and misbehaviors) were not significant enough to merit any warning, in your opinion?
I was quite busy at the time and only stepped in when someone alerted me to the specific rules violation in question. This morning I only checked to see what had resulted from the warning because I was again, quite busy.
Well, obviously. I get a warning and a infinite ban until I PM you to recant or something.
All you have to do is clear your ignore list and PM me to tell me you have done it so I can change the ban settings.
Vympel gets nothing.
I really do not know who that is.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:41 am

Ok, two things.

First, Leo1 is Vympel, from StarDestroyer.net, as long as I have everything right. A moderator over there - and yes, I forgot Alyeska had been demoded something like two years ago. Hey, it's been a while, so cut me some slack, ok?

Secondly, I don't want to stretch this affair any longer, so let's get through the procedure, shall we?

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:50 am

Thanatos wrote:
When you address criticism of an argument by saying argumentum ad logicam is a fallacy without addressing any of the material under contention, you are implicitly admitting that its presumptions are true
Actually, there need not be logical fallacy and their point need not be correct. Argumentum ad Logicam is dismissing someone's point by saying that they used a fallacy. You have to prove that they used a logical fallacy and that they are incorrect.
Simply saying the argument is fallacious and that therefore it can be dismissed is not a logical fallacy. That is actually correct if your premises are correct, and incorrect if your premises are incorrect, meaning it is a perfectly sound argument and not a logical fallacy.

What is a logical fallacy is saying that your ability to freely dismiss that argument means anything about the conclusions of the argument you dismissed. They could well be correct for other reasons.

For that matter, a logically sound argument can be incorrect because its postulates are false or incompatible. Logical fallacy, or the lack thereof, does not establish truth, or lack thereof.

So now, do you understand why I said that saying simply what you said, without providing any more detail, would very frequently be taken as an implicit admission that Leo1's arguments were indeed fallacious?
We used to have an old member that tried to dismiss whole swaths of text by simply replying with the name of a fallacy and nothing more. Ironically, he is also one of the people that necessitated the creation of Rule 10 back in the day.
Ideally, one addresses why a particular argument is fallacious, rather than simply stating it to be fallacious. It's not particularly convincing to simply say that someone is wrong without providing reasons.
Last edited by Jedi Master Spock on Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thanatos
Padawan
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:04 am

Post by Thanatos » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:51 am


First, Leo1 is Vympel, from StarDestroyer.net, as long as I have everything right.
Ah, I don't ever go there, so I had never heard the name before.


Secondly, I don't want to stretch this affair any longer, so let's get through the procedure, shall we?
It's done. See you in 24 hours.
So now, do you understand why I said that saying simply what you said, without providing any more detail, would very frequently be taken as an implicit admission that Leo1's arguments were indeed fallacious?
Yes, I could see how one could take that view.

Post Reply