Originally posted by Sorgo XI fail to see how appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy...hmm
Appealing to a majority is a logical fallacy and EST is a non sequitur.Thank god you have no clue what you're talking about or I'd be in twobo!
edit: never mind, looked it up, I understand it now.
edit mark 2: GMG is not appealing to the majority, however. It was not April 1st during GMT when you made the thread. It is a fact, not an opinion of the majority that is accepted as truth.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I fail to see how appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy...hmmedit: never mind, looked it up, I understand it now.
edit mark 2: GMG is not appealing to the majority, however. It was not April 1st during GMT when you made the thread. It is a fact, not an opinion of the majority that is accepted as truth.
To terminate your edit:
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No! He failed according to EST and GMT...so he is double down...luckily the time zones support you.
Originally posted by Sorgo X
Appealing to a majority is a logical fallacy and EST is a non sequitur.
I represent PST. You represent GMT. It was not April the 1st your time, but it was via my time.
GMG explained I am "doubled down" because two time zones are against my one. EST is irrelevant because no entity present is in it's favor. Ergo, GMG appealed to a majority.
It's a logical fallacy and he utilized it. It's not difficult to comprehend.
Originally posted by Sorgo XActually, it was still fact. When you made the thread, it was not April 1st in either the GMT or EST timezones. It was not appealing to the majority, it was noting the fact that a majority existed
GMG explained I am "doubled down" because two time zones are against my one. EST is irrelevant because no entity present is in it's favor. Ergo, GMG appealed to a majority.It's a logical fallacy and he utilized it. It's not difficult to comprehend.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Actually, it was still fact. When you made the thread, it was not April 1st in either the GMT or EST timezones. It was not appealing to the majority, it was noting the fact that a majority existed
Here's an example of a Strawman fallacy. The fact that it WAS a fact doesn't matter, because the subject at hand is the fallacy itself. You're avoiding the subject subconsciously. I know you would not do something like this purposely.
He was appealing to a majority. I'll show you again.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No! He failed according to EST and GMT...so he is double down...luckily the time zones support you.
He said I failed according to two separate time zones, one of which had no relevance to our little comparison of the date. He applying an inconsequential factor and utilized a timezone that was IRRELEVANT.
He said I was double down. Compared to what, Strangelove? He was attempting to use a majority against me but it's a fallacy because the majority generally isn't always correct. If this rule did not apply, Nazism would be morally acceptable.
Originally posted by Sorgo XSomehow I don't think you understand the strawman fallacy. It is setting up an easily refutable argument (straw man) that is not the position of your opponent, and then acting as if that is actually your opponent's position. How does this apply to this scenario?
Here's an example of a Strawman fallacy. The fact that it WAS a fact doesn't matter, because the subject at hand is the fallacy itself. You're avoiding the subject subconsciously. I know you would not do something like this purposely.
He said I was double down. Compared to what, Strangelove?By double down, GMG was saying that it was two to one. There were two time zones where it was April 1st (actually a lot more than that, for for the purpose of this discussion...), and 1 where it was April 1st. That is not stating that the majority is right simply because it's the majority. It's noting the fact that a majority exists. I see no fallacy
If this rule did not apply, Nazism would be morally acceptable.That's an interesting comparison to use seeing as Nazis were never a majority.
Somehow I don't think you understand the strawman fallacy. It is setting up an easily refutable argument (straw man) that is not the position of your opponent, and then acting as if that is actually your opponent's position. How does this apply to this scenario?
A strawman is to set up a point that is irrelevant and not parallel with the purpose OR point being argued.
We were arguing timezones and majorities, not facts. You strawmanned on an abusive degree.
You're basically debating something that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Either you're just not understanding what I am saying or you're purposely strawmanning.
quote:
He said I was double down. Compared to what, Strangelove?
By double down, GMG was saying that it was two to one. There were two time zones where it was April 1st (actually a lot more than that, for for the purpose of this discussion...), and 1 where it was April 1st. That is not stating that the majority is right simply because it's the majority. It's noting the fact that a majority exists. I see no fallacy
The problem here is that you're not seeing the fallacy and your post effectively proved my point, which makes it a shred easier.
You don't HAVE to state that the majority is right. You have no clue what you speak of.
"Edward loses because he had one gun and Jimmy had two!"
^ The Fallacy.
What GMG said? He said I was double down because EST and GMT were both out of April fools and my timezone (The only one left) was still in April Fools day, or April 1st.
Are you just completely missing it, or what?
That's an interesting comparison to use seeing as Nazis were never a majority.
Well, historically speaking, the second Hitler struck power ...
He utilized the majority to get what he wanted.
"Using the Nazi majority he had a national state of emergency declared. Germany became a one-party police state as all non-Nazis were forced out of office and individual freedoms were taken away. The government could read mail, tap phones, and search homes without a warrant."
I never said Nazis were a majority. I said NAZISM would be acceptable if utilizing the majority was not a fallacy.
But yeah, you tried.