Jasonisms

On another post someone argued a point by stating, "let me play devil's advocate, here..." and continued with his line of reasoning. He was defending one point: that a man should not kill another man on the street no matter what he admits to having done, an action which may result in a death penalty conviction in a court of law under different circumstances (ie: not in the street). Since the man admitting guilt admitted to child molestation/rape other people in the discussion attacked the " devil's advocate " for defending a child rapist.  The man spent the rest of the thread trying to convince people he was not defending child rape, but instead was defending the actions of the man who did not kill the confessed child rapist as soon as he heard the confession. It seemed lost on the other people in the discussion that the "devil's advocate" was defending the guy's actions who did not kill on word alone. As far as the others were c...

I try to keep these in mind as much as possible when arguing, especially online, but I can't always know all of them all the time. Heck, if it weren't for logical fallacies, online arguments would rarely take place. I must admit, I am guilty of a few of these more than others and I have to catch myself as often as possible.  Strawman Fallacy : Misrepresenting 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. The False Cause Fallacy : You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributabl...