Slashdot Mirror

fallacies like 'precedent'

A fallacy is another name for a heuristic. For example, one of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability of claims to reliable sources, which any logician would identify as the appeal to authority. Likewise, the use of precedent in common law is an appeal to tradition. Fallacies are wrong when all premises are known true or false, but this is rarely the case in the real world. Applying strict logical reasoning to the incomplete information that fallible humans have everywhere but in the artificial world of mathematics produces an unhelpful result of "neither certainly true nor certainly false given the premises" the vast majority of the time.

But in a lot of cases, certainty is not needed as much as a preponderance of evidence. Someone just wants to know whether it would benefit him more to act as if a particular claim is true or as if it is false. Fallacies compensate for limited information by guessing which premises are more likely true given what information is available. For example, appeal to authority works in an encyclopedia because overall, reliable sources tend to come closer to truth than the average kook with a blog. And precedent adds predictability over time to the judicial system: similar facts produce similar rulings.

Government and the state are not the same thing as "society" or "community". Either way, your logical fallacy is false dillemna. "Either we have a state that steals money as taxes, or we must live as hermits".

Which logical fallacies apply to this?

False Cause - They perceive that 911 happened because we didn't have enough info so their solution is to collect "ALL THE INFO".
Appeal to Emotion - You don't want another terrorist attack, now do you?
Black or White - Either we collect all of the information on everyone or the terrorists win. Whose side are you on?

Additionally, courts have used Burden of Proof before. Want to prove this is illegal? Well, first you need to have been negatively impacted by this uber-secret program. Since it's an uber-secret program, you aren't allowed evidence that they spied on you. Since you have no evidence, you can't prove anything. Lawsuit tossed out. Next!

Finally, I propose a new Logical Fallacy - the More Information Fallacy. This one presumes that we'd be able to do X if only we had more information or less roadblocks to obtaining information. This is true in a sense. The police could arrest a lot more people if they didn't need to worry about so many rules about evidence. Do you know how many criminals would be behind bars if they didn't get off on a technicality? However, the flip side to this is lowered rules lead to corruption and abuse. Lower rules on evidence handling and you can have cases where evidence is planted or tampered with and innocent people get convicted.

In the case of the NSA, they think that "more information" will help them spot terrorists. In an ideal situation (for them, not us), knowing everything about everyone *would* let them spot and stop terrorist attacks. However 1) this would lead to abuse and mission creep to the point that the program would be used for non-terrorism related crimes or for attacking people the NSA didn't like and 2) the NSA would never be able to parse through that much data in the real world. So the claims that "more information will stop attacks" are just plain false.

Which logical fallacies apply to this?

False Cause - They perceive that 911 happened because we didn't have enough info so their solution is to collect "ALL THE INFO".
Appeal to Emotion - You don't want another terrorist attack, now do you?
Black or White - Either we collect all of the information on everyone or the terrorists win. Whose side are you on?

Additionally, courts have used Burden of Proof before. Want to prove this is illegal? Well, first you need to have been negatively impacted by this uber-secret program. Since it's an uber-secret program, you aren't allowed evidence that they spied on you. Since you have no evidence, you can't prove anything. Lawsuit tossed out. Next!

Finally, I propose a new Logical Fallacy - the More Information Fallacy. This one presumes that we'd be able to do X if only we had more information or less roadblocks to obtaining information. This is true in a sense. The police could arrest a lot more people if they didn't need to worry about so many rules about evidence. Do you know how many criminals would be behind bars if they didn't get off on a technicality? However, the flip side to this is lowered rules lead to corruption and abuse. Lower rules on evidence handling and you can have cases where evidence is planted or tampered with and innocent people get convicted.

In the case of the NSA, they think that "more information" will help them spot terrorists. In an ideal situation (for them, not us), knowing everything about everyone *would* let them spot and stop terrorist attacks. However 1) this would lead to abuse and mission creep to the point that the program would be used for non-terrorism related crimes or for attacking people the NSA didn't like and 2) the NSA would never be able to parse through that much data in the real world. So the claims that "more information will stop attacks" are just plain false.

Which logical fallacies apply to this?

False Cause - They perceive that 911 happened because we didn't have enough info so their solution is to collect "ALL THE INFO".
Appeal to Emotion - You don't want another terrorist attack, now do you?
Black or White - Either we collect all of the information on everyone or the terrorists win. Whose side are you on?

Additionally, courts have used Burden of Proof before. Want to prove this is illegal? Well, first you need to have been negatively impacted by this uber-secret program. Since it's an uber-secret program, you aren't allowed evidence that they spied on you. Since you have no evidence, you can't prove anything. Lawsuit tossed out. Next!

Finally, I propose a new Logical Fallacy - the More Information Fallacy. This one presumes that we'd be able to do X if only we had more information or less roadblocks to obtaining information. This is true in a sense. The police could arrest a lot more people if they didn't need to worry about so many rules about evidence. Do you know how many criminals would be behind bars if they didn't get off on a technicality? However, the flip side to this is lowered rules lead to corruption and abuse. Lower rules on evidence handling and you can have cases where evidence is planted or tampered with and innocent people get convicted.

In the case of the NSA, they think that "more information" will help them spot terrorists. In an ideal situation (for them, not us), knowing everything about everyone *would* let them spot and stop terrorist attacks. However 1) this would lead to abuse and mission creep to the point that the program would be used for non-terrorism related crimes or for attacking people the NSA didn't like and 2) the NSA would never be able to parse through that much data in the real world. So the claims that "more information will stop attacks" are just plain false.

Which logical fallacies apply to this?

False Cause - They perceive that 911 happened because we didn't have enough info so their solution is to collect "ALL THE INFO".
Appeal to Emotion - You don't want another terrorist attack, now do you?
Black or White - Either we collect all of the information on everyone or the terrorists win. Whose side are you on?

Additionally, courts have used Burden of Proof before. Want to prove this is illegal? Well, first you need to have been negatively impacted by this uber-secret program. Since it's an uber-secret program, you aren't allowed evidence that they spied on you. Since you have no evidence, you can't prove anything. Lawsuit tossed out. Next!

Finally, I propose a new Logical Fallacy - the More Information Fallacy. This one presumes that we'd be able to do X if only we had more information or less roadblocks to obtaining information. This is true in a sense. The police could arrest a lot more people if they didn't need to worry about so many rules about evidence. Do you know how many criminals would be behind bars if they didn't get off on a technicality? However, the flip side to this is lowered rules lead to corruption and abuse. Lower rules on evidence handling and you can have cases where evidence is planted or tampered with and innocent people get convicted.

In the case of the NSA, they think that "more information" will help them spot terrorists. In an ideal situation (for them, not us), knowing everything about everyone *would* let them spot and stop terrorist attacks. However 1) this would lead to abuse and mission creep to the point that the program would be used for non-terrorism related crimes or for attacking people the NSA didn't like and 2) the NSA would never be able to parse through that much data in the real world. So the claims that "more information will stop attacks" are just plain false.

Thanks for your post!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Only a complete moron?

See my response to AC regarding restaurants as public spaces. Another corollary might be restaurants being unable to discriminate based on race. That's why some "clubs" exist to skirt public regulations by imposing membership requirements. It is also clear to a random passer-by that an establishment is access-restricted. That is not the case with this diner.

A restaurant is not a public place. They can ask anyone to leave for any reason they so choose. Wearing Google Glass inside is no more a right than bringing in food from outside is a right.

This asshole would not have been embarrassed if he didn't act like an asshole. He was quietly and politely asked to take it off, at which point he threw a tantrum. This is not socially acceptable behavior, and he deserves every ounce of humiliation he's now getting. Maybe he won't act like a complete asshole next time, and will instead either take it off or quietly leave and never frequent the establishment again. His rights were not violated. Only a complete moron thinks that they have the right to bring anything they desire into a private establishment. Fucking entitled little bastard.

This is a combination of several logical fallacies.

And your fallacy is the fallacy fallacy.

About people with mental illnesses; when in doubt, you can make the argument "better safe than sorry". It's enough to show the correlation: to justify a precautionary, prudent response, even if there is uncertainty, that prevents you from logically inducing the conclusion that mental illness was the cause..

The additional caution or restriction of known mentally ill people, may be prudent, given the uncertainty as to whether or not they pose a danger.

At the very least: the risk of attempted suicide, or possible attempt to elude local authorities, are some possible worries.

I never did the same problem 95 times (I may have done 95 different problems, applying the same principles).

Neither did I, except in the classes where homework was graded in full, and comprised a significant portion of the grade. This is to allow people who can not do well on the test to pass the class.

So writing a paper is also "busy work"? Under such limited perspective, pretty much any intellectual endeavour will just be "busy work".

This is a brilliant example of the strawman fallacy in debate. Such rhetorical skills must come from someone with the drive to complete college! My actual quote was: "Writing a paper about medieval lesbian vampire studies, is busy work." Being forced to write a paper--or take an entire class--about a highly specialized discipline in history, when you are not a history student, is busy work.

That is how people that didn't have the drive or will to go through higher education devalue the hard work of others. It's ok to vent frustration that way, but is fundamentally nonsense.

Your assumption is that I am commenting from some position of spite stemming from not having a degree or satisfactory life, while convenient, is incorrect. Using an ad hominem fallacy here is a bit trite anyways. Perhaps if you are looking to blame someone for the devaluation of university degrees--to vent your frustration upon, even--then you should take a hard look at the university system its self; particularly what motivates it, namely cash and graduation rates.

The problem is not with the people who work hard and pay attention in college. If you are in college, and you really care about what you are learning, then your education is invaluable. The problem is that they give degrees to everyone who completes the coursework, regardless of their actual interest, and in spite of any actual deeper understanding of the topics presented. The degree does not mean anything now, only the education.

While writing your reply, this website might give you some fresh new ideas: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

There are several involved in this discussion, but this one is yours:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You don't understand atheism. Atheists believe that there is no god. That takes faith, acknowledged or not. Belief zero? That's skepticism. But there is even extreme skepticism. Extreme skeptics don't believe that the world exists.

The problem is in the language. People hear "don't believe" to mean "believe the opposite". The very notion of undecideability just doesn't occur to people. I try to not believe things that I haven't seen proof of. Sometimes I fail in that.

Atheists who claim to be rational and faithless are either idiots or ignorant. If they don't realize they're agnostic they're simply ignorant. But hey, good news: ignorance can be fixed.

No, atheists refuse to believe in an unproved god. That's different than what you said. Also, you're trying to present a false dilemma. There are some atheists who are idiots and there are some atheists who are ignorant. One could argue that these types of people come from all religions, all backgrounds. But it is certainly *not* an "either/or" label.

But hey, at least you're trying, even if your logic skills are sorely lacking. Just don't be surprised every time someone beats your poor arguments into the ground. Keep fighting the good fight!

The long-winded video you link to, takes a bunch of people who aren't specialised in evolutionary biology, trips them up, and then uses this as a basis to assert that creationism is real. The remainder of the video uses similar pseudo-logic, ending with an advertising pitch. Pfffft.

Look, just because you demonstrate that a certain bunch of city folk don't understand how to run a dairy farm, doesn't mean cows don't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to believe you know how to run a cattle ranch, no matter how much gloss you put on your fancy investment brochure.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

True, but this is what I was gettign at why my comment about "spot the logical fallacy". In thuis case they're making the "Fallacay fallacy/Argument from fallacy". They're wrong, but if you want to convince them, you need to be aware that people make this sort of logical error all the time, and tailor your argument to accommodate.

Do you know of anywhere else in the world where ownership of a firearm is considered a "right"?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

I was only speaking for myself (hence the pronoun I), as in I am displeased that any sort of advancement in the publishing industry, with respect to electronic books, seems to be constantly tied to the printed media format. I have been known to enjoy many a paper book, reference and fiction alike, and so if this had been the opener to a massive campaign to sell more ebooks via the kindle launch (which I own), I would be on-board 100% of the way.

However, it's been almost six years since the release of the kindle, and there was no 'killer hub app' a la iTunes. Amazon wanted to be it, and was slapped down. Google is still in court over it. What this actually looks like to me is a very boring fight between publishers of books and a publisher of bits.

Appeal to authority = logical fallacy.

let's look it up, shall we?

"Appeal to authority: you said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true. It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."

Source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Again, it has nothing to do with security through obscurity

define: obscure. Definition number five. Staying out of notice is a type of security through obscurity.

Why would you make such a ridiculous statement, that directly contradicts what I wrote. I specifically said that far more security professionals look at Linux code than Windows code, because the Linux code is Open Source.

Exactly; that is almost definitely incorrect. Just because people can see the source does not imply more people will care to look at it. Windows is still target number one and attracts huge numbers of people looking for exploits. Whether they can see the code or not. I'm sure Microsoft employs lots of professionals to audit their code as well.

I suppose, as a completely uninformed person unable to understand what I wrote, or the complexities of software ecosystems in general, it would seem that way to you. Of course, I have extensive experience with both platforms while the same can clearly not be said by you.

I understood perfectly what you wrote and what you meant. I use both on a regular basis as well but i would never be presumptuous enough to assert that one is always better than the other. Nobody as experienced or informed as you claim to be would make such sweeping generalizations.

You keep going back to that fallacy so I'm going to assume you don't understand why it is a fallacy. no true Scotsman. You keep claiming that everyone that doesn't agree with you does so because they aren't experienced, educated or intelligent enough; if they were just smart/experienced/educated then they would know you are correct. That is extremely faulty reasoning.

[...] killing death itself is foolish in its most extreme.

People keep saying that, but fail to present any good arguments for it (other than vague notions of it being the natural order of things, or some such). Why is it foolish?

Personally, I actually don't think it's mainly young people who say they want death. I suspect that it's people old enough to have reached the fifth stage of grief with regard to their own mortality, and accepted it as inevitable. Going back and putting hope in longevity could lead to all kinds of emotional turmoil and stress, reliving the first four stages, so it's easier to just accept death once you have already done it once.

Garbage. The comment he was replying to was indulging in "ad hominem" and he was attacking that argument by pointing out that it wasn't even attacking the right person. The parent poster didn't even claim that Bruce is right.

I hereby declare a new logical fallacy; "Argument by yourlogicalfallacyis.com"

Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

The comments on this story are absolutely revolting. This is supposed to be a community of intellectuals, and what we get is a heap of knee-jerk, xenophobic reactions under the guise of reasonableness vs. some political correctness boogyman. If you believe that the article is saying that having a white-male Doctor is unfair, then I really think it is worth it to take another look.

That the article is whining and complaining is a strawman . Look at what the author says:
-"Mr. Capaldi is a capable actor, and come his debut, I’ll be right there with my teenage boys, drinking Mountain Dew and cheering him on."
-"As the producers think about whom they want to take on the role next, they should keep in mind the way people’s hopes are lifted when they see someone breaking the glass ceiling, even when it’s for something as seemingly trivial as a hero on a science-fiction program."

This isn't a zealot's rant against an exaggerated oppression. This is someone saying they think a female doctor would be cool - and pointing out that it would mean a lot to a lot of people. The Doctor isn't male, so really, what's the big deal?

It's not a fallacy even if the slope is imagined, but the progression from one part of the slope to another part is realistic.

The problem is that it isn't. Sure, you can put on your tin-foil hat and declare that some secret society has a step-by-step plan towards abolishing guns and the means to push it through, and that the first step of the seecrit plan it to bribe some scientists into declaring lead is toxic so that bullets have to be made out of more expensive materials. That fails to pass Occam's razor, by a landslide. Lead is a well-established neurotoxin and has been regulated in paint, electronics and gasoline, so it's much more realistic to see this as a logical extension of existing efforts to keep this toxin out of the environment.

Fallacy comes into slippery slope when something like "If you give a mouse a cookie, aliens will abduct you for probing" is expressed.

Nope, that would be a non sequitur. I think you don't understand the slippery slope fallacy. You're committing it if you're saying that a measure that has consequences in a certain direction implies future further steps in the same direction. Like this. The same fallacy is sometimes also called unwarranted extrapolation, which is a more descriptive name in my opinion.

Bullshit. Most of the NRA's arguments are based on the slipperly slope fallacy.

From a risk-reward perspective, this proposal makes no sense, because success is exactly like failure.

From a risk-reward perspective, human life makes no sense either :) Expanding the line of thinking from the 2nd half of your post, just a bit, leads us to believe that there's almost nothing that we can gain from any of human pursuits. It'd be very easy to construct a similar argument based on similarly sufficiently arbitrary notion of what is a gain. In other words, the "argument" is just a logical fallacy, although it escapes me at the moment which one.

Here's one for you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy . Stop it with your stupid fallacy link garbage, that's the last resort of morons.

You mad, bro? Why you mad?

FYI, I would say the "last resort of morons" is decidedly not pointing out when someone has engaged in a logical fallacy, but rather vehemently defending said fallacy even after it's been pointed out.

Also, yes, it is perfectly okay to look down on societies that are shittier than your own, even if your's isn't that great. Even a slum rat in Detroit can look at Liberia and say "God damn, that place is a shit hole."

Well, sure; and maybe that was OP's original point. But with all the goal post movements, it's kind of hard to tell.

Not to mention, it's also "perfectly OK" to have a differing opinion and express it, is it not? If yes, then why the fuck are you attacking me for disagreeing with the original post?

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

Stupidest thing I've read in years. The right to not be killed unjustly is the right from which all other rights flow.

'right to not be killed unjustly' DOES NOT EQUAL a right to "feel safe." So, your argument in this case is non sequitur (another type of logical fallacy).

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your garbage.

Yea, $deity help you actually become a fully informed individual, instead of flying off the handle at perceived ills without giving yourself the proper context. How terrible would that be?

Here's one for you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

I'm not seeing how that applies. He posted links to fallacies and also replied normally. Nowhere did I see him state that the other guy's conclusions are wrong simply because his post contained a few logical fallacies.

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

Stupidest thing I've read in years. The right to not be killed unjustly is the right from which all other rights flow. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your garbage. Next time you want to make a post, just flush the toilet instead so none of the rest of us have to smell it.

If people can't feel physically safe...

... And the goalposts move once more!

If people can't feel physically safe, it's useless worrying about not being able to smoke some stupid plant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

also

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the police in this country are becoming ever more militarized, and no-knock entry (where they kick in your door and murder your pets) is becoming standard practice, even for routine visits and non-violent offenders. So, unless you toe the line and ask 'how high' when Mr. Government Agent orders you to jump, there is no fucking safety. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't. Stop deluding yourself.

Get your priorities in order.

Back atcha, Capt. Logical Fallacy.

What you are experiencing is a first world problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Oppression of any kind is a human problem.

Would you rather get executed for speaking your opinion?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

It's not a binary decision.

Maybe my direct tone is not helpful in explaining.

Aww, it thinks it's clever! That's kinda sad...

Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Evil is evil is evil. There is no such thing as lesser. In fact, that sort of fallacious thinking is what allows evil to thrive, because morons are convinced that evil is the only option.

You would have been better off making some reference to the phrase, "it could be worse"... like this

If people can't feel physically safe...

... And the goalposts move once more!

If people can't feel physically safe, it's useless worrying about not being able to smoke some stupid plant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

also

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the police in this country are becoming ever more militarized, and no-knock entry (where they kick in your door and murder your pets) is becoming standard practice, even for routine visits and non-violent offenders. So, unless you toe the line and ask 'how high' when Mr. Government Agent orders you to jump, there is no fucking safety. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't. Stop deluding yourself.

Get your priorities in order.

Back atcha, Capt. Logical Fallacy.

What you are experiencing is a first world problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Oppression of any kind is a human problem.

Would you rather get executed for speaking your opinion?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

It's not a binary decision.

Maybe my direct tone is not helpful in explaining.

Aww, it thinks it's clever! That's kinda sad...

Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Evil is evil is evil. There is no such thing as lesser. In fact, that sort of fallacious thinking is what allows evil to thrive, because morons are convinced that evil is the only option.

You would have been better off making some reference to the phrase, "it could be worse"... like this

If people can't feel physically safe...

... And the goalposts move once more!

If people can't feel physically safe, it's useless worrying about not being able to smoke some stupid plant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

also

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the police in this country are becoming ever more militarized, and no-knock entry (where they kick in your door and murder your pets) is becoming standard practice, even for routine visits and non-violent offenders. So, unless you toe the line and ask 'how high' when Mr. Government Agent orders you to jump, there is no fucking safety. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't. Stop deluding yourself.

Get your priorities in order.

Back atcha, Capt. Logical Fallacy.

What you are experiencing is a first world problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Oppression of any kind is a human problem.

Would you rather get executed for speaking your opinion?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

It's not a binary decision.

Maybe my direct tone is not helpful in explaining.

Aww, it thinks it's clever! That's kinda sad...

Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Evil is evil is evil. There is no such thing as lesser. In fact, that sort of fallacious thinking is what allows evil to thrive, because morons are convinced that evil is the only option.

You would have been better off making some reference to the phrase, "it could be worse"... like this

If people can't feel physically safe...

... And the goalposts move once more!

If people can't feel physically safe, it's useless worrying about not being able to smoke some stupid plant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

also

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the police in this country are becoming ever more militarized, and no-knock entry (where they kick in your door and murder your pets) is becoming standard practice, even for routine visits and non-violent offenders. So, unless you toe the line and ask 'how high' when Mr. Government Agent orders you to jump, there is no fucking safety. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't. Stop deluding yourself.

Get your priorities in order.

Back atcha, Capt. Logical Fallacy.

What you are experiencing is a first world problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Oppression of any kind is a human problem.

Would you rather get executed for speaking your opinion?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

It's not a binary decision.

Maybe my direct tone is not helpful in explaining.

Aww, it thinks it's clever! That's kinda sad...

Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Evil is evil is evil. There is no such thing as lesser. In fact, that sort of fallacious thinking is what allows evil to thrive, because morons are convinced that evil is the only option.

You would have been better off making some reference to the phrase, "it could be worse"... like this

If people can't feel physically safe...

... And the goalposts move once more!

If people can't feel physically safe, it's useless worrying about not being able to smoke some stupid plant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

also

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the police in this country are becoming ever more militarized, and no-knock entry (where they kick in your door and murder your pets) is becoming standard practice, even for routine visits and non-violent offenders. So, unless you toe the line and ask 'how high' when Mr. Government Agent orders you to jump, there is no fucking safety. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't. Stop deluding yourself.

Get your priorities in order.

Back atcha, Capt. Logical Fallacy.

What you are experiencing is a first world problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Oppression of any kind is a human problem.

Would you rather get executed for speaking your opinion?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

It's not a binary decision.

Maybe my direct tone is not helpful in explaining.

Aww, it thinks it's clever! That's kinda sad...

Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Evil is evil is evil. There is no such thing as lesser. In fact, that sort of fallacious thinking is what allows evil to thrive, because morons are convinced that evil is the only option.

You would have been better off making some reference to the phrase, "it could be worse"... like this

If people can't feel physically safe...

... And the goalposts move once more!

If people can't feel physically safe, it's useless worrying about not being able to smoke some stupid plant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

also

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You have no right to a feeling of physical safety. Even if you did, it would not trump other rights.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the police in this country are becoming ever more militarized, and no-knock entry (where they kick in your door and murder your pets) is becoming standard practice, even for routine visits and non-violent offenders. So, unless you toe the line and ask 'how high' when Mr. Government Agent orders you to jump, there is no fucking safety. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't. Stop deluding yourself.

Get your priorities in order.

Back atcha, Capt. Logical Fallacy.

What you are experiencing is a first world problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Oppression of any kind is a human problem.

Would you rather get executed for speaking your opinion?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

It's not a binary decision.

Maybe my direct tone is not helpful in explaining.

Aww, it thinks it's clever! That's kinda sad...

Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Evil is evil is evil. There is no such thing as lesser. In fact, that sort of fallacious thinking is what allows evil to thrive, because morons are convinced that evil is the only option.

You would have been better off making some reference to the phrase, "it could be worse"... like this

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Hey, if you can use the link as a weapon against other people's bad arguments...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

cripple the NSA, and you give free and secure communication to all sorts of undesirables. Allow the NSA unchecked, and make people transparent to the Government, (and worse expose them to typically stupid Government dragnet trawling).

That's a false dilemma. We have many more options than an unchecked NSA or a "crippled" NSA (though, note that taking away their ability to spy on US Citizens is only "crippling" in the sense that it would require them to return to their chartered mission as a foreign intelligence service...).

For example, most people aren't arguing that the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect any of the sort of data they've been caught collecting. Just that it should have limited scope, and that they should have real accountability if they abuse their power. That neither cripples them (despite their claims) nor allows them unchecked, and that's just a simple example.

all electronic communications must be "tappable" unless you want to provide absolutely everyone with a safe channel for communication about their criminal, terrorist, or otherwise hostile business.

It's not quite that simple, even if it seems so on its face. When you make all communication tappable, you don't just allow the government access to communications of suspected bad actors. You also create something that can be abused by people in power (remember that the government is made up of people, and people do stupid things on a regular bases) -- from little things like a government worker using the capability to spy on a spouse to big things like government cracking down on dissent. And you create a system that can be attacked; if the US government can read your email, so can an attacker or a foreign government.

Keep in mind that the government is who defines what "criminal" is. If they have unlimited surveillance power -- even if it's only limited to "criminals" -- then it's a simple matter to change what "criminal" means until they can effectively listen in to any conversation they want. And quash dissent. Remember that almost every important campaign for rights involved "criminal" things -- from the fight for Women's Suffrage to the protests and campaigns for civil rights in the 1960's. These movements did "criminal" things in part to point out that they shouldn't be criminal things. To give the government absolute ability to stop criminal activity would be a very bad thing.

A fallacy, you say?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

Yes, closed source is obscure, but that doesn't mean it follows the security through obscurity model. Something can be closed source, yet using sound security practices. Example: a closed-source RFC 4880 implementation. Granted, it would be difficult for such an implementation to gain the trust of the security community, but that's a different argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Let's take an extreme example. Let's say that we have a sample size of 1. Now, I think you'll agree, even if we have a perfectly random selection process, our conclusions that we draw won't be particularly accurate. Unless, of course, our population is also 1.

On the other hand, let's look at a population of Infinity. The trouble here is that with our finite sampling process, because we live in the real world we have no way of knowing if our sample is actually random, because there are infinite location we could choose from. We would need a sampling process capable of dealing with an infinite population, which we don't have.

In the middle, let's look at a population of eg. the USA, 300,000,000. Now the problem becomes, "Is our sampling process representative of the actual population?" Here is the difficult part, because when you actually try to collect the data, you find that people don't always answer polls, so immediately your sampling is biased towards people who *do* answer polls. Then say they are collected by telephone. This limits the poll to people who a) have phones b) YouGov has their number c) are near their phone and not eg. at work, looking after kids, driving etc when YouGov calls d) answer their phone to unknown numbers e) answer polls. I think you'll agree that this is no longer an accurate representation of the population, because it biases against people who don't have phones, who are busy, who avoid telemarketers and who are willing to give their opinion on a touchy subject to a stranger.

One way you can reduce the amount of bias is by using a larger number of methods to sample opinions. Eg internet, street interviews, TV call-in hotlines. Of course, all of these have their own sampling bias just like the phone one. So, to reduce the amount of bias the number of methods should be very large. Let's say we have 50 different ways of getting peoples' opinions, and we weight them all equally. Suddenly, this means just 20 phone calls, 20 street interviews, 20 TV hotline callins etc. which doesn't seem nearly as robust now, does it, when you're trying to accurately portray the opinion of the entire population of the USA. Which is why people are saying that it is *only* 1000 samples, and even then there will still be residual bias towards people who don't want to answer polls.

If you think another image shows things better, then WHY don't you link it instead of multiple posts attacking me personally, and lambasting Bing?

Because https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You are the one that's claiming that paid ads are hard to distinguish on Google. Which you've failed to do without showing deliberately edited images.

"Environmentalists" Will not be happy until we live like we did back in the 1700's.

That's called a strawman fallacy.

what we should be doing, is lowering our damage, and finding new technology that can keep or improve our quality of life and use less Carbon while doing this.

Which is actually what environmentalists want. Maybe you are a closeted environmentalist.

So how trivial will it be to slurp the OS out onto a AMD card enabled PC and have our own "HackStation4"? Or... how would one modify FreeBSD to run PS4 software?

I'm sure there'll be encryption up the wazoo anyway... and potentially software could specifically check that the graphics chip is not some off-the-shelf AMD card... ...but it begs the question.

I don't think you know what that phrase means. So here you go: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

There are legitimate concerns with GMO, like, say, the concern mentioned by parent (unexpected mutation, succeeds better in the wild, crowds out other crops, but is less than suitable for human use). The same sort of concerns apply to hybrids (see Africanized Bees), but at least there you can have some degree of confidence that the traits will have existed naturally before; so Africanized bees arent immune to smoke or Raid. These crops, however, are immune to RoundUp (which im gonna guess isnt something that could happen with just hybridizing).

The same sort of concern applies with system patching / updates. Jumping on the "newest" and "best" isnt always a good idea until its had a long period of testing. Non-GMO stuff generally fits that bill; we know how wheat grows, how it spreads, how to control it, etc. GMO crops can be more of an unknown.

I have seen no indication of that whatsoever.

One

You can't even bring yourself to post with a real username; truly ironic. A model of impermanence that typifies your kind.

Two

You score 1/3 on making valid points, grade F.

I have seen no indication of that whatsoever.

One

You can't even bring yourself to post with a real username; truly ironic. A model of impermanence that typifies your kind.

Two

You score 1/3 on making valid points, grade F.

That is getting very close to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

i.e. If someone provides an example of where free trade is not mutually beneficial then claiming it is not an example of free trade, because "Free trade means two people decide to engage in a mutually beneficial economic transaction, so it benefits both parties. That's a fact."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Your fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

You can cite anecdotes in which the model I've proposed has failed and I can cite anecdotes in which the model I've proposed has succeeded (such as Amanda Palmer), but neither set of anecdotes are terribly relevant.

What's relevant is piracy cannot be stopped. So trying to stop it is simply a waste of time. If you assume that premise, then it logically follows that all you can do is ask for money, not demand it. To draw any other conclusion is simply delusional.