The mistake most made by members of this community are the use of the words: always, all, every
Secondly, a lack of qualifiers in such expansive statements, because life is messy and there are often exceptions, even if, as the saying goes, "exceptions prove the rule."
Example 1: All swans are white. Response: If I can fine but one black swan, then your assertion, really a hypothesis, has been nullified, or is wrong. Say, your average swan is white.
Example 2: All elections are rigged.
Response: This means that you are saying every election is rigged. Do you really think that the non-partisan off year election for your local community college or library board is rigged? Maybe, but that's fucking moronic. Rather, you should say "all important elections are rigged".
Example 3: All Jews are evil.
Response: All Jews today, or all Jews throughout all of time? Joseph and Mary weren't evil, therefore, your assertion is wrong. Rather, say "modern Judaism is evil as practiced."
We'll go over the ecological fallacy next, which the the second biggest logic mistake made.
Never use universal quantifiers 😉
I completely agree
You're welcome, and God bless. My weakness is normalcy bias.
you're
lol
Ah, thanks. Everyone needs an editor, and I'm glad you're willing to step and do the volunteer work for me without pay.
I don't know what you're talking about, ALL of my arguments are sound!
/s
a) sound implies perceivable offer...choosing suggested words implies mistake aka taking suggested, while missing perceivable.
b) taking any word aka consenting to any suggested definition (definite; fixed), while being (life) within motion (inception towards death); will tempt one into conflicts of reason (correct vs incorrect; belief vs disbelief; good vs bad etc.).
Logic/Logos equals reason...words equal conflict.
Example...EVIL=LIVE. How could reasoning dissolve that inherent contradiction?
Tempts one to ignore being (life) within way (inception towards death) of all (motion).
Tempts one to ignore being one (partial) within all (whole).
Tempts one to ignore each one within everything (all).
your not wrong
I also need to improve in the use of language, it’s generally good practice even just when communicating with others. I’ve been trying to actively improve on this. Thanks op.
These aren't logic mistakes.
Also, I understand the use of such adverbs, in those circumstances, to be hyperbolic rhetoric, more so, than precise declarations of proportion, etc.
For example "everybody loves John", is most likely a form of rhetoric, designed to indicate that John was generally liked, rather than a declaration that everybody, all people, literally love John.
Hyperbole has inflationary effects on adjectives and language in general. For example, if you walked into a room and started to give a speech about John and started with, "people generally liked John", in 1850 that might have worked just fine. But, in 2023, because of the language conflagration that is the Internet, it's more likely that you would start such a Speech with "literally everyone loved John".
I'm willing to admit when someone says "the ice cream was piled a mile high" or "he was the shit" that they are using colloquial language.
But that's not what's happening when people here are making formal arguments, specifically such as "all elections are rigged" and "all Jews are evil". Moreover, many of them, when you mention that "not all women are sluts" they will tend to defend their argument, rather than walking it back a half a step and say "lots of women are sluts, particularly those without a strong father figure."
I will concede that; I've also seen people defending such ridiculousness.
If you're saying stereotypes exist for a reason, I won't disagree. Then simply don't say "all, or every" (or something similar) and just say "most blacks are not as smart as whites." Which is both factually and logically correct.
The biggest fallacy is we are winning and they are losing. No. Kissinger is now 100 years old. Don't let Bill Gates and Soros reach there.
False, general statements can be known, because truth can be known.
Example- "there is no such thing as a good cop" true statement
Since all cops are sworn to uphold man's law. And that man's law is created by dark occultist psychopaths to enslave humanity and corrupt Natural Law... Since cops just follow orders from their superiors, and therefore do not exercise their own consciousness when choosing between moral and immoral action and want to abdicate their personal responsibility for their actions... Therefore, ALL cops are unconscious, cowardly, and immoral people. True general statement.
If we don't share the same presuppositions, then you're creating untestable assertions, which is what your example is, and we therefore can never know if it's true or not.
The information is available. Ignorance is not a valid excuse for not understanding. You are able to understand. Even if you are uniformed about my particular example, blanket statements can be made truthfully. Grammar, logic, rhetoric. Get reading
Yea, silly bromides from a silly goose.
Ad hominem... (sigh). No intelligent discussion to be had here
If calling you a "silly goose" is an ad hominem, it's about the nicest one that's possible. Bless your heart.
That said, I'm still waiting for the intelligent part on your end.
watch out, we have a big brain amongst us
Only by comparison, mon ami. Who do you think I might be comparing myself to at the moment?