4 ms·

This is word salad. A bunch of psycho-babel that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability t

by anm89 4y ago

This is word salad. A bunch of psycho-babel that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability to memorize the criteria around a few invented categories and give a horoscope based off of them. I wouldn't make a point of saying this on other topics but it's crazy how much damage this stuff causes to people's lives

bheadmaster 4y ago
Spot on. Armchair psychiatrists seem to love to diagnoze the people they don't like with various disorders as a way of insulting by proxy. Since when is a celebrity writing contraversial stuff on Twitter a big deal?
- Maursault 4y ago
  Ad hominem fallacy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Maursault 4y ago
Vagueness fallacy as well as as hominem argument. If you disagree with what I've said, you must specifically speak to it. Handwaving and attacking me personally will never be persuasive.
- anm89 4y ago
  Do you apply this same stict framework to your medical diagnoses you are handing out for people you've never met over the internet? I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea. This is also ironically vague and there is literally no ad hominem in there. Word salad is critique of the quality of the discourse, not of the person making it. Also fallacy fallacy, just for good measure
  - Maursault 4y ago
    >> that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability to memorize the criteria around a few invented categories and give a horoscope based off of them. This is ad hominem. You are ignoring what is said and making a personal attack. That is what ad hominem is, ignoring the argument and attacking the man. > Do you apply this... This is ad hominem. > I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea. This is invincible ignorance fallacy.
    - tanseydavid 4y ago
      I think the basic assumption is that you are diagnosing someone that you do not know and have never met, and that by doing so, you are engaging in folly.
      - Maursault 4y ago
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      You seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem. Here's an example of real ad-hominem: "You are an obnoxious narcissistic piece of shit that thinks every disagreement is a personal insult because you can't stand not being right". If someone was to use that sentence in an argument, that would be ad-hominem. Asking whether or not you apply same standards of not using logical fallacies (from your original comment, I personally doubt it) is not ad-hominem because it's calling you out on asymmetric standards - apparently, you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" without any further elaboration and expect the other person to do the legwork of analysing how and why is the argument fallacious and fix it. That's not good faith discussion.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        > You seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem. Incorrect, and this is ad hominem. >>>>> impression of a deep understanding of Who is being referred to? Who is being characterized? Certainly not no one. Thus, ad hominem attack. > you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" This is ad hominem. But it is also a straw man masquerading as tu quoque.

by anm89 4y ago

bheadmaster 4y ago

Spot on. Armchair psychiatrists seem to love to diagnoze the people they don't like with various disorders as a way of insulting by proxy. Since when is a celebrity writing contraversial stuff on Twitter a big deal?

Maursault 4y ago
Ad hominem fallacy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Maursault 4y ago

Vagueness fallacy as well as as hominem argument. If you disagree with what I've said, you must specifically speak to it. Handwaving and attacking me personally will never be persuasive.

anm89 4y ago
Do you apply this same stict framework to your medical diagnoses you are handing out for people you've never met over the internet? I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea. This is also ironically vague and there is literally no ad hominem in there. Word salad is critique of the quality of the discourse, not of the person making it. Also fallacy fallacy, just for good measure
- Maursault 4y ago
  >> that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability to memorize the criteria around a few invented categories and give a horoscope based off of them. This is ad hominem. You are ignoring what is said and making a personal attack. That is what ad hominem is, ignoring the argument and attacking the man. > Do you apply this... This is ad hominem. > I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea. This is invincible ignorance fallacy.
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    I think the basic assumption is that you are diagnosing someone that you do not know and have never met, and that by doing so, you are engaging in folly.
    - Maursault 4y ago
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    You seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem. Here's an example of real ad-hominem: "You are an obnoxious narcissistic piece of shit that thinks every disagreement is a personal insult because you can't stand not being right". If someone was to use that sentence in an argument, that would be ad-hominem. Asking whether or not you apply same standards of not using logical fallacies (from your original comment, I personally doubt it) is not ad-hominem because it's calling you out on asymmetric standards - apparently, you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" without any further elaboration and expect the other person to do the legwork of analysing how and why is the argument fallacious and fix it. That's not good faith discussion.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > You seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem. Incorrect, and this is ad hominem. >>>>> impression of a deep understanding of Who is being referred to? Who is being characterized? Certainly not no one. Thus, ad hominem attack. > you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" This is ad hominem. But it is also a straw man masquerading as tu quoque.