Slashdot Mirror

Marriage of children, animals, and objects is not sensible because none of them can provide legal consent.

Begging the question.
You're either stupid or malicious or you've made a mistake and need to re-think your position and your arguments.

Your logical fallacy is: the Slippery Slope

Ye be troll. A troll be spotted! A troll be spotted!

??? I'm genuinely confused. Are you suggesting that critics are paid by the movie? That the only movies rated poorly on RT are the ones not being paid for? Or was your argument so silly that you reverted to a caveman tactic https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Maybe you'd like to link to these pages rather than XKCD, then.

...but the main point, that EdTech isn't helping children to learn is true.

The OECD commissioned a review of the research evidence and concluded that there was in inverse correlation between ICT use in classrooms & academic performance. I expect a few "no true Scotsman" arguments to follow: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

To anyone who works in education, studies cognitive science, &/or epistemology (i.e. theories of how we learn), this comes as no surprise. Children simply don't learn in the ways that Silicon Valley billionaires, so called "education reform gurus," & most of the general public assume.

While it's quite feasible that computers can be used to aid learning, according to cognitive science, that isn't what's happening in classrooms. Additionally, learning management systems, digital documents, online testing, etc., all come with increases in cognitive load, which in turn reduces children's learning in measurable ways. In order for an EdTech intervention to produce positive results, it has to be so effective & efficient that it overcomes this increase in cognitive load. There are strategies & techniques for doing this, e.g. see the work of cognitive psychologist Dr Richard E. Mayer, but what I've seen from Silicon Valley seems oblivious to them.

Another thing the article gets right is that classes without a qualified, experienced teacher don't help children to learn very well, e.g. Sugata Mitra's bold claims about self-teaching children in India & elsewhere weren't borne out by independently gathered evidence & review.

Let's face it, the current "factory model" of education that we have is the least bad system that anyone's come up with for educating tens of millions of children at a time. It takes the hubris of billionaires to believe that they can do better with no background in education, epistemology, or cognitive science.

Then again, I don't think their actual intentions are about improving education.

If you'd like to learn more about learning, here's a good evidence-informed blog written by experts (Dr Paul Kirschner is a veteran education & training researcher at the Open University of the Netherlands & Mirjam Neelen is a highly qualified & experienced educational consultant & learning developer): https://3starlearningexperienc...

It might not make much sense to you, but to anyone who has studied formal logic, it's obvious that he's pointing out the fact that your post is a loaded question fallacy.

The classic example is, "When did you stop beating your wife?" That question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that you did in fact regularly beating your wife, much like your question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that California doesn't verify the eligibility of voters to vote.

Compulsory dues are akin to a tax, the only difference is who is collecting it.

You focus on a word instead of the argument made... Congratulations: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

You seem awfully fixated on a very particular, narrow definition of mining in order to maintain that you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

Every historian classifies fascism as right-wing.

That's just not true. But even if it were true — and you are offering no citations — it does not help you. Because now you have to define "right wing"... Meh...

Don't take it up with me - it's settled history.

Appeal to Authority.

That is not fascism, those are the tenets of the Nazi party

Whether they are from actual Fascism or not, you are spot-on regarding them being tenets of the Nazi party. And of the Democrats...

And both have very populist and actually good ideas.

Voila, ladies and gentlemen! The same Democrat, who started the day firmly rejecting Nazism as the greatest evil, ends the day admitting, he likes the Nazi ideas... I'll leave it at that...

Good fucking grief.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Meanwhile - Fox Lies pumps out daily falsehoods and propaganda, the same with talk radio, not to even mention the various tinfoil hat youtube sites, "Infowars", conservative cross burners like Curt Schilling and Roseanne who went whole-hog into insane nonsense...

My response was to indicate that many believe that conservatism and classical liberalism to be the same thing. That seems like rational debate to me.

"Many believe that..." is not a rational argument.

Just because someone reasonably rejects to an insane overbearing code of conduct requiring people

And yours is Begging the question
I'm not sure which is worse.

Your fallacy there is Strawman.

What argument was he misrepresenting?

Just because someone reasonably rejects to an insane overbearing code of conduct requiring people "Welcome everyone," or some such similar bullshit: does not mean that person embodies the antithesis on every topic that code of conduct says something about.

Why do you think "be nice" is "an insane overbearing code of conduct"?

No one other than you suggested treating dark skinned or people with boobs in any unusual or particular way.

Well according to him, he rage quit because llvm partnered with Outreachy to get more "dark skinned people and people with boobs" working in the project and because the code of conduct told him he couldn't be mean to people. Combining those two reasons makes the racist/misogynistic claim seem plausible. Now, I think the guy's lying about the reason he left, because I think it's really that there's too much structure to the project now. I think he's scapegoating the policy and Outreachy to justify his leaving because he's been unhappy with the project for a while and unable to articulate why.

fact that they expect him to treat dark skinned people and people with boobs as equals and with respect.

Your fallacy there is Strawman.
Now drop down and give me 100 push-ups, foo.

Just because someone reasonably rejects to an insane overbearing code of conduct requiring people
"Welcome everyone," or some such similar bullshit: does not mean that person
embodies the antithesis on every topic that code of conduct says something about.

No one other than you suggested treating dark skinned or people with boobs in any unusual or particular way.
People should be treated in the manner warranted based on the person's past accomplishments or history, actions, behaviors, and mannerisms;
on remote projects like open source development/coding --- more often than not we don't even know each other's physical characteristics,
skin tone, gender, etc, Because they should be totally irrelevent to the development process and mailing list participation, And
if someone goes to a mailing list and brings those issues up, perhaps because they're looking for special treatment or any other non-germane reason,
then that user deserves of course to be treated with the disdain that is natural, rather than be welcomed.

LOL what exactly is so special about 16K RAM? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

I cut my teeth on a VIC20 (5K RAM), then later a C64 (which ran at 1.023MHz...)

I haven't used the headphone jack in years... good Bluetooth has replaced the wired equipment.

Whatever. That doesn't explain why Apple needs to remove the headphone jack. You can continue to use the Bluetooth equipment you enjoy even if the older technology is present. Why must it be a choice between one or the other? In the words of a certain little girl on a television commercial, "Why not both?"

I sure am glad to find out that neither Uber nor Tesla are true Scotsmen.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

from my understanding a game "dev" does very little programming in the traditional sense

I work on a VR project at my day job (basically a video game). Your statement that we use a "pre-made" game engine is basically like saying that nobody does any "real" programming if they use a library or some code that someone else wrote. In other words: yours is a no-true-scotsman statement.

These guys are mostly doing scripting

We used both C++ and Unreal Script when we were using UDK (Unreal Engine 3). But everything we do now with Unreal 4 is C++ (and some Blueprint stuff to hook the GUI together).

world building, animation, modeling, progress triggers, hit boxes, etc.

Yes, that's the problem domain. And how do you think these things get implemented? With code.

So assuming I'm correct on that, Lint would be useless for this.

You're not really correct on all that. Also Lint and other static analysis tools are useful. John Carmack has some great insight into all this and how static analysis tools can help and fit into game development. As evidence: the Doom 3 source code is pretty generally very good.

Plenty of people seem to disagree with it.

Argument from majority is a form of argument from authority. It's fallacious.

As for artistry, it also won Best Cinematography.

Again: argument from authority.

Appeal to majority is a form of appeal to authority.

Yeah because there weren't ANY privacy violations back in 2001-2008.

strawman. You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

> Holy moley! Are you low on sleep or are you illiterate or both?

Take your own advice, chief: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

> ... then at least people who really care could go about fixing things themselves, and the rest of you consumer nitwits could at least benefit from their hard work, too.

I wasn't going to go into the whole concept of "if you're good at something, never do it for free." There's no financial incentive to just go out and analyze FOSS out of the kindness of one's heart.

> But... this statement is self defeating! In the first half you say the source code doesn't help security but then in the next breath you say it could if it could be inspected... but that's what it means to have the source code: you can inspect it! Do you even hear yourself?!

What's being said - clearly you have problems with basic reading comprehension - is that FOSS isn't inherently better. Why? Because while you could inspect the source, the reality is that it's just not being done. Hell back in Feb Linux just closed an 11 year old security flaw. It took 11 years. That was only a few months after CVE-2016-5195 which was present for 9 years itself. The argument I'm making is that FOSS isn't inherently more security because the source code is visible BECAUSE there's not enough seriously investment in security-minded code review. Holy moley - are you stupid or something? None of this is hard to understand and you shouldn't have to be told it.

Right, because FOSS has never had 20 year old bugs/security flaws.

The AC didn't say that.

You cannot just implicitly trust ANY software unless YOU validate it.

For varying values of "implicitly trust"...

The problem is that 99.999999% of the population has no idea how to analyze software for security flaws.

From the AC that you attacked:

... then at least people who really care could go about fixing things themselves, and the rest of you consumer nitwits could at least benefit from their hard work, too.

You either have to inherently distrust everything and base your technology around the concepts of lack of trust (such as the devs of Qubes do) or you accept the risk.

That's true. But here you're kind of just agreeing with the AC.

Having the source code doesn't make an application anymore trustworthy from a security standpoint, unless you can use that source code to prove the software is secure.

But... this statement is self defeating! In the first half you say the source code doesn't help security but then in the next breath you say it could if it could be inspected... but that's what it means to have the source code: you can inspect it! Do you even hear yourself?!

99.999999% of FOSS doesn't do that.

That's what FOSS means: Free and Open Source Software. It means you can just read the code.

Holy moley! Are you low on sleep or are you illiterate or both?

Your logical fallacy is: tu quoque .

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

An easy way to spot this fallacy is when someone says

You people

Fallacy: tu-quoque. Please try again with a valid argument.

The point of there having been higher CO2 concentration in the past is that there was no "runaway feedback" (which is one of the many spurious, specious, doomy claims of the Klimate Kultists).

I haven't heard that claim. I certainly haven't heard it from actual scientists, who are quite aware of paleoclimate-- in fact, modeling the ice ages was one of the original things that led to understanding the effect of carbon dioxide on climate in the first place.

There are some positive feedback effects, but none that really get into the "runaway feedback" range.

Now mod this post down and commence the personal attacks!

I'd mod you down as "-1, specious straw-man claim with no citation" if there were such a mod category.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

These are classic examples of "straw man" arguments: assert that the people you disagree with said something absurd, and then attack that absurd statement.

Of course, the answer Is to go back to living in a cave like a hunter-gatherer while the Al Gore and the rest of the elites can reign over us on high like the Greek Gods from their Mount Olympus.

People are suggesting a switch to technologies that reduce carbon emissions. Nobody is claiming we need to go back to living in caves like a hunter-gatherer. That's a straw man.

Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth,

People are suggesting reducing the rate of population growth. Nobody is suggesting "eradicating 90% of us from the Earth." That's a straw man.

Yes, it's easy to demolish absurd straw-man arguments that nobody makes. It doesn't help the argument.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Jeff Jaffe, CEO of W3C said: "I know from my conversations that many people are not satisfied with the result. EME proponents wanted a faster decision with less drama. EME critics want a protective covenant. And there is reason to respect those who want a better result. But my personal reflection is that we took the appropriate time to have a respectful debate about a complex set of issues and provide a result that will improve the web for its users.

Your fallacy is Middle Ground, Jaffe. Maybe after he's done driving web standards into the ground, he can go work for CNN.

"The Democratic candidate for governor wants to push old blind ladies down the stairs, while his Republican opponent wants to push them down the stairs and then set them on fire. Why can't they compromise somewhere in the middle?!?"

Fallacy does not determine truth or falsity of an argument; to claim it does so is the fallacy fallacy. But it does help people identify which arguments to consider verifying or falsifying and which to ignore. Otherwise, if people attempted to verify or falsify all arguments, they would have little or no time to do anything else. Some fallacies make better heuristics than others.

And your post falls for the logical fallacy logical fallacy. Just because the argument uses logical fallacies doesn't mean it's wrong.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Moron

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

WTF do "success traits in more nomadic societies" have to do with modern human life?

This is a facile argument.
The point is not that we need nomads in modern society. It's that such deviant personalities and traits allow humanity to adapt to new situations. You're not trying to say that human evolution is and should be at a complete halt are you?

Except your god seems to be some vague feeling that "nature knows best".

Straw man. Try again.

Personally, I dealt with

The singular form of data is not anecdote.

As far as your studies go...oh boy. So the statistical error you're making is not considering or controlling for other confounding factors. Assault and various kinds of sexual and other abuse occur at a rate far higher than the general population

Aside from the fact that you were demanding citations earlier and then just feel you don't need to provide any yourself, if you actually read the second citation I gave, it specifically mentions that these conditions are found among those who haven't yet begun.

You might have noticed that the one was published in "Psychiatry Journal", the other in "Medical Journal of Islamic Republic of Iran", and both of them were done in Iran.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Trump clearly was talking about "transgender" in the sense of people who require medical intervention.

If you do not require medical intervention and conform to the military code of dress and behavior, you can, of course, serve and you are not "transgender" in the sense Trump was talking about. You presumably won't get fired for dressing up as a woman on your private time, or for sleeping with men (since Trump doesn't seem to have any intention of reversing the position on gays in the military).

The logical fallacy that is all the rage these days is:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

So shit sources like Mercola, Naturalnews, foodbabe, nutritionfacts.org, Dr. Oz, greenpeace, and the whole organic movement, are making a shit ton of money by being in the business of peddling unadulterated bullshit.

Tabs descend from the manual typewriter, where they were a poor approximation to properly-formatted columnar layouts.

Genetic Fallacy. Opinion discarded.

Do reports from OCSE count?

Do they have satellite or spy plane/drone footage? It wasn't a hard question.

Like for the whole Crimea thing?

What about it - the fact that Russia had an existing agreement for a base, or that the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to secede after neo-Nazis made up a sizable portion of the post-coup junta?

Um, yeah: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Uh, no. That's not tu quoque. That's your pathetic attempt at avoiding cause and effect, Western Exceptionalist. The United States overthrew a government on Russia's border, gave weapons to the junta, sent the most troops to Eastern Europe since WWII, and wants to bring the junta into NATO, an anti-Russian alliance. This is on top of a "missile shield" encircling Russia, and a trillion-dollar upgrade program to the U.S. nuclear arsenal intended to win a nuclear war with that country.

So feel free to stop defending dumbfuckery with....more dumbfuckery at any time.

The WSJ is a reliably right wing media source. It's not a far-right loony bin like Brietbart or even Fox News - they have better editorial control than that - but they definitely have a political leaning. I consider them about as far as you can go on a right wing perspective without completely sacrificing rational thought. I consider them sort of the right wing equivalent of the New York Times.

Interesting combination of genetic fallacy and ad hominem-- especially interesting since you attacked their ability to think rationally while thinking irrationally yourself!

Useful sometimes but shouldn't be your only source of info.

Agreed.

As for doing their own research, you are wrong in the sense that it is hard and perhaps more importantly it is expensive. If it wasn't hard and expensive then what would be the point of paying WSJ journalists to do the leg work? That doesn't excuse them not doing it but it is actually hard to do well. You are right of course that for the WSJ to remain worthy of being read they need to actually do their own research and retain some semblance of journalistic integrity.

Agreed.

In some cases they have definitely failed in that regard.

In which cases, specifically?
Also, without having done the leg work yourself how would you know if they had failed?

The WSJ is a reliably right wing media source. It's not a far-right loony bin like Brietbart or even Fox News - they have better editorial control than that - but they definitely have a political leaning. I consider them about as far as you can go on a right wing perspective without completely sacrificing rational thought. I consider them sort of the right wing equivalent of the New York Times.

Interesting combination of genetic fallacy and ad hominem-- especially interesting since you attacked their ability to think rationally while thinking irrationally yourself!

Useful sometimes but shouldn't be your only source of info.

Agreed.

As for doing their own research, you are wrong in the sense that it is hard and perhaps more importantly it is expensive. If it wasn't hard and expensive then what would be the point of paying WSJ journalists to do the leg work? That doesn't excuse them not doing it but it is actually hard to do well. You are right of course that for the WSJ to remain worthy of being read they need to actually do their own research and retain some semblance of journalistic integrity.

Agreed.

In some cases they have definitely failed in that regard.

In which cases, specifically?
Also, without having done the leg work yourself how would you know if they had failed?

And it's MS's fault for your bad maintenance and poor hardware design?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

How one can be against healthcare and claim to live in a first world country is beyond me.

Stop misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with.

I, for one, do want health care. And I can, will, and do pay for my health care.
But I resent being made to help pay for others' health care just as you would resent being made to help pay for my mortgage or my grocery bills.

You can't scream that you are certain Trump is in bed with the Russians and then claim there is no surveillance going on. Either he is/was an FSB agent - and the surveillance is legit and properly oversighted. Or he isn't/wasn't an FSB agent - and this is all being done for politics.

Your logical fallacy is: false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options. More likely is that the intelligence agencies have people in the Russian Government tapped and when someone from the Trump campaign calls them then they are recorded. This is why Trump's national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign, he told the Vice President he hadn't had contact with the Russians but then transcripts were leaked that indicated he did. If people from the Trump campaign are calling foreign agents that are already wiretapped they can expect the intelligence agencies will know about it.

Trump doing X, Y, or Z is not an argument even if it was a problem.

I haven't painted you as anything other than what you've shown which is quite clearly a troll/denier/etc.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

AGW is human caused

It is. We all agree on that.

Fortunately, AGW is quite real and quite settled science so no there isn't any need for science to keep saying it is.

Indeed it is: we know with a high degree of certainty there is going to be gradual warming and sea level rise over the next century, somewhere between the low and high emission scenarios. Hence we also don't need a lot of federal funding for climate scientists anymore: people know what's coming and can prepare for it.

There is still some science to be done in biology, ecology, economics, and social sciences, but the climate science is, as you say, settled and has little more to contribute.

Bye now.

Be seeing you. Enjoy the unveiling of the Trump administration's budget.

While I'm sorry for what happened to your niece, you're not winning this argument any better than known_coward_69. Can either of your provide statistics for how high the risk is of SIDS?

In the 1980s, in the UK and US, about 1 live birth in 500 ended in SIDS.
Today, thanks to better knowledge and education on the topic, that number is down to about 1 in 5000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...

(that news story alone doesn't directly provide the numbers I cited. I also looked up other data sources e.g. for the number of live births in the UK, and I relied upon my memory that US and UK were broadly similar in this respect).

While I'm sorry for what happened to your niece, you're not winning this argument any better than known_coward_69. Can either of your provide statistics for how high the risk is of SIDS? The parent poster is correct in there is a certain level of playing to fear and baiting helicopter parents to make sales here.

Fallacy.

For example, maybe the hospital saves my life and then, when they find out who I am they bill me.
Maybe the hospital saves my life, then, when they find out that I have no money, they put a lien on my assets or they can garnish my wages until the debt is repaid.
There are other possibilities here besides forcing me to buy insurance against my will.

And before you straw man me, I'll point out that my argument isn't that I think insurance is always bad and never wise. I'm simply insisting on consent.

Sex without consent is rape.
Taking another's possessions (i.e. money) without consent is theft.
Threatening violence (i.e. a police "visit") in order to make someone to give you something is extortion (a special case of theft).

Having the government do these things on your behalf doesn't make it right.