• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you for providing us with a summary of logical fallacies you like to use. Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?

          • m532@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Winning an argument is done with facts, not with linking random wikipedia articles.

            • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Moving the Goalposts

              Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you actually cared about your time you wouldn’t have made 50 vapid comments in this thread. And once again, every source is biased because humans have biases inherent in their world view. Saying that a source is biased is completely meaningless. All that says is that you are unable to argue against biases different from your own.

                • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Whataboutism

                  Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

                  The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).