Fugitivus Discussion Forum

Similar to Silencing Tactics, logical fallacies can really ruin a potentially productive conversation.

Some of the most common logical fallacies include:

Ad hominem attacks: This is also known as name calling. Sometimes it can be really obvious (e.g. calling someone a naughty word) or it can be more subtle (e.g. asking someone if they have ever read a book). I don't speak for all the mods, but I don't plan on policing most naughty words. (Slurs are completely forbidden, however. See our Code of Conduct re: transphobia, disablism, sexism, racism, etc.) I don't think this would be a Fugitivus forum if people weren't allowed to use swears. (*gasp!*) There is a difference between calling some politician a douchebag for something zie did and calling a member of this community a douchebag for something zie argued.

Straw person arguments: The patriarchal conventional term for this is a straw man argument. This is really common. A straw person argument is when someone creates an argument just to tear it down, like one would burn a straw effigy (mentioned in the silencing thread). For example: All you pro-choicers think there should be government funded abortions up until a the day before the birth. Easy way to avoid this: don't speak for anyone (or any group) other than yourself (or a group you are a part of). You can speak about other groups, with nuance and sensitivity. Just don't say what they believe, or what they argue, unless you can link to something and/or use a direct quote in context

Some other common ones include the slippery slope argument (which is only a fallacy if the steps down the slope are not supported), the false cause argument (that's the association is not necessarily causation fallacy).

If you would like to learn more about logical fallacies, or are planning on hanging out in the High Noon arena with me, I would suggest checking out Logical Fallacies

Ooh! OOH! I love tearing down logical fallacies!

I even have favourites! (Does that make me weird?)

Confirmation bias!

Also AtE!

Hooray! ^_^

...Straw man is a patriarchal term?

Huh. Guess so.

But "straw person" just sounds awkward. I submit "effigy argument", which cuts straight to the original point.

I am not sure if "straw man" historically is hugely patriarchal, it's just that using the term "man" to refer to something that is not gender or biological sex specific reinforces the binary strait cis male reality as the norm. I am not planning on policing gendered language on others' posts (as long as there is no blatant sexism) but I try to be careful with my own. I am totally cool with calling it an effigy argument. I usually say straw person.

Happy to see enthusiasm about good argumentation! Again, this will mostly be an issue in the High Noon forum or in arguments between members. If someone is complaining about interactions in their life and need support on here, I am not planning on critiquing all of their arguments, nor am I encouraging it.

I try to use language that avoids bolstering the kyriarchy while still being elegant. It's my firm belief that it is possible to find a replacement for any questionable word or phrase that is less questionable than the original but has equal or better rhythm and flexibility. And since I'm a great big language dork, I like to look for those replacements where possible.

Quick note: ad hominem is not just name-calling, or telling someone else they're stupid. It can also come in the form of questioning somebody's opinions because of their stance on something completely unrelated.

Example:
Susie Q: "Bipolar disorder is a crippling disease."
Jane Doe: "Susie, you also think there is no pay gap, so really, you can't get anything right."

Sure, Susie Q is wrong on both points*, but if you're debating with her on mental illness, keep your rebuttals focused on her views on mental illness. Don't bring in her thoughts on dinosaurs, or evolution, or anything else not tied to mental illness.



*Point 1 can be correct in certain instances, but it's not a universal.

Thanks. And, staying on topic, in general, is a good idea, instead of bringing up unrelated arguments.

There's also part to whole fallacies [Susie, a Christian, believes that the world is flat, therefore all Christians believe the world is flat] and the opposite, whole to part.