JackRayner wrote:I assume this is supposed to be in defense of those who claim individual X is a misogynist because they post on a website Y, which is claimed by some to be misogynistic?
I think that before they even attempt to reach a conclusion about individual X, [whose behavior isn't even misogynistic] they first need to prove that website Y is what they claim it is.
that would be too difficult for them. They always go with the easy explanation, which is based on emotion, and logical fallacies.
real horrorshow wrote:Everyone who disagrees with a fembot is a misogynist, you know that! Kazez's entire argument is a nonsense. People are 'guilty' of what they do, not what others do. Even if person A provokes or encourages person B to do a thing, person A is 'guilty' only of the provocation, person B is 'guilty' of whatever they did. Kazez though, isn't even citing provocation. She's saying: 'if you associate with people who do X, you are guilty of X', and that is guilt by association however much she denies it. This woman holds an academic post in philosophy? She couldn't pass basic logic on this evidence!
I don't know if Kazez refers to herself as a sceptic, but she may want to have a quick look at the definition of a logical fallacy before creating her own.
The Diversion Fallacies:
Guilt By Association: An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Red Herring: A red herring is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Straw Man: A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man†– that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.
Ad Hominem:
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
The term “poisoning the well†also refers to a form of ad hominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument of another by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or that they are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong or unpopular.
latter two definitions straight from the website of the SGU - Hi Becci!
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... acies.aspx
Not one of the Baboons are sceptics, and that is one of the two main reasons I continue being a "Pit Bull" (love you, Arnie).
We all know what the other reason is.