...where the Two become the One
Many people mistake multilogical reasoning as moral relativism, and think that monological reasoning is moral absolutism, because multilogical reasoning takes a complex multilayered view of the world coupled with the humility to know there’s always more to learn, while monological reasoning is much more black and white, and appears sure of itself. However, monological reasoning (see definitions further below), which is black and white logic, is often informed by emotionally […] Read more »
Self-fallacy, self-fallere (fallere = Latin for “to deceive”), aka self-deception, is a real problem for humanity. Rationalization, which is reasoning from a desired conclusion rather than reasoning from a solid premise, is called in the cognitive sciences emotionally motivated reasoning. Think of rationalization as the inversion of reason, where all inversion is “metaphorically “Satanic”, and it leads to Machiavellian thinking and behaviors, where the ends justify the means. Motivated reasoning […] Read more »
There is a tendency by manipulators, by both the conscious and unconscious variety, to focus on a minor point and make their entire case and argument from that minor point, as a means of getting their way for the entire discussion. Focusing on a minor detail and statistical anomaly is a red herring intended to distract people from the main discussion, and is often used as a means by manipulators […] Read more »
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination to disprove a claim does not make it valid. “Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore valid.” ~Your Logical Fallacy Is […] Read more »
The exact breakdown of the line which separates win-win interactions from win-lose interactions. One of the big questions of philosophy I never see people dive into is when it is NOT time to argue properly, or when to stop worrying about how to argue. This is not an overview of philosophical reasoning and the breakdown of how deductive arguments work. This video contains a crash course Fundamentals of intellectual self-defense […] Read more »
I would add the strawman fallacy, as well as the single cause fallacy. The strawman is because they misrepresent arguments often, and even repeat the strawman ad nauseam, and the single cause fallacy is because they constantly reduce complex and nuanced arguments to simple arguments (giving multilogical problems monological solutions). They even combine these two fallacies by turning them into an ad hominem by reducing the character of the person […] Read more »
When making an accusation against another person, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the claim with sufficient evidence and reasoning. If the accuser is not clear about what exactly they are accusing a person of, and if there is not enough reasoning or evidence to back up their assertions, then there is a good chance that they are shadow projecting their own emotional baggage onto the […] Read more »
Beware of making and giving credence to the “single cause fallacy” (causal reductionism, complex cause, fallacy of the causal oversimplification, reduction fallacy), for it “typically leads to a myriad of false claims and accusations”, as noted below. It is also connected to the straw man fallacy, as it can be used to reduce a person or argument to a single motivation or reason for being something, thus misrepresenting their complex […] Read more »
My comment on the YouTube video: This gave me another perspective to consider, and I appreciate the breakdown that you gave us explaining your viewpoint in detail. It gives me a deeper insight into human nature, especially with our own conflict between our wants and needs. However, with that said, I do believe that you gave us a straw man and a false dichotomy, which are logical fallacies, at the […] Read more »
Sophistry; fabricating evidence and arguments to support a position, usually based on an emotional attachment to an identity built upon falsities, rather than allowing reason and evidence to shape a position, regardless of how it affects one’s identity. Attempting to have a rational and fairminded discussion with a sophist is anything but fairminded, and never will be, as the two forms of thinking are motivated by contradictory end goals. One […] Read more »
I’ve come to find that there is a large element of misdirection in the concept of patriarchy and male domination. It’s not masculine imbalance at fault, but rather the Dark Triad, which is a deadly combination of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy, that is the true core issue; and blaming men is just the convenient scapegoat. Women tend to display the dark triad in a different manner than men with the […] Read more »
Comic Artist Pro Secrets analyzes another article shilling for Disney’s Star Wars. If Star Wars is so amazing after the acquisition by Disney, then why are they resorting to astroturfing techniques in their marketing, as well as Marxist and Fascist propaganda techniques? It is beyond deplorable that a company would stoop so low, and use every dirty trick in the manipulator’s handbook to sell their movies, and to sell the […] Read more »
Do you think that overpopulation is a myth? If so, why would such a myth be perpetuated on a regular basis by so many so-called elites in various industries such as philanthropy, entertainment, politics, etc.? Could this be another form of guilt manipulation, such as we see with “white privilege”, “heterosexual privilege”, and “male privilege” (as in, are we also supposed to feel guilty for being alive)? What other reasons […] Read more »
This nails pretty much every half-baked and hair brained illogical argument I’ve heard on the subject of gun control. There isn’t a single logical argument that they even attempt to make, as all they use are bullying tactics and emotionally charged rhetoric. I will not enter into an honest discussion with purposefully ignorant people, but I will set boundaries and live the life I choose, regardless of what they say […] Read more »
Leftism attacks and demonizes clarity, distinctions, reason, relevance, precision, and nuance using deception, inversion, confusion, distortions, intimidation, name calling, conflation, and generalizations to subvert and pervert anything different from itself. Leftism’s logical end is a intellectually homogeneous society free from distinctions, uniqueness, individuality, free speech, and free thought—and it plans to get there all in the name of social justice and equity for all. Read more »