Slashdot Mirror

I don't think I need to tell you...

that the end of Motorola processors would pretty much be the end of the Macintosh.

Different argument, same logical fallacy. There is more to the PS3 than the exclusivity of a single title (or set of titles), and if FF___ is multiplatform then buyers will simply use other metrics to make their decision. I don't particularly care about Halo - Combat Rehashed, so that wouldn't affect my decision. I wouldn't want to have to buy a console AND an HD drive, so that's a strike against the 360. I want a console with enough power that it still looks relevant in 2-3 years. I like that I can run Linux on the PS3. Of course, I'm not everyone, but those are some examples off the top of my head. The point is not that the PS3 is better/worse than the 360, merely that title exclusivity is not a console's only merit. Personally, I buy on hardware features/overall capability rather than a given title's availablility, but that's why I'm a PC gamer (when I game).

Anyone who cites Ayn Rand or Michael Crichton as a valid source of knowledge has proven they lack a decent education.

(From http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.ht ml):

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

This is not true! This person's belief about his "right" to purchase copyrighted music has NOTHING to do with his credibility. You are victim to a common pitfall of argument. Here are a series of logical fallacies that are quite commonly used in the support of an argument, but cannot logically be used to support it.

what's your real name cause i wanna enter you in the "douche-bag of the universe" award.

With an opening like that you both sound a little threatening as well as if you are trying to ridicule your opponent in lack of other valid counter arguments ("ad hominem"). I hope that is not your intention.

the only reason america is hated is cause of jealousy. we do more for more nations than any other country could dream of.

This argument appears to be a bit shallow. How much effort have have you put down in reaching this conclusion? If you set up a general problem solving matrix with the following four coloumns

• What is the problem?
• What is the cause?
• What can be done to solve it?
• Who should do that?

Are you really sure that this is all there is to the issue? I most certainly think the reality is much more complex than that with many other factors, where jealousy not necessarily plays an important role. But of course I might be wrong. Maybe the world is as simple as you describe. I would appreciate if you could educate me in what ways my current view is wrong. Being able to change one's mind from time to time is an important property (I do), so if you present some convincing arguments I might end up agreeing with you. Please try.

people love success, but despise the successful. that's just the way it goes.

While there absolutely is some truth in this, it is not universally so that all people in all situations always despise the successful. I am no expert in psychology so I can not deepen under what conditions this is applicable, but this argument appears to be a faulty generalization.

PS
Useful links for arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy, http://www.logicalfallacies.info/.