By JustWill No lives matter.
Not a single fucking one.
You're all just figments of my imagination...
[+] 0 [-] Reply
By phart 1d ago other posts

we are all just parasitic leaches clinging to a single electron that is orbiting numerous neutrons and protons of a atom contained within a single fly speck left on a fresh pile of cow shit..

Fallacy (Logical error)

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacious arguments are very common and can be persuasive in common use. They may be even "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts".

It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum of soundness and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some fallacious ones.
(In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.)

Argumentation theory provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals that attempts to resolve their disagreements. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, so violations of these rules are fallacies.

Formal fallacy:
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. The flaw can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic. Such an argument is always considered to be wrong. The presence of the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument; but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described.

Ecological fallacy:
An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide."

Informal fallacy:
In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument. A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid, but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive arguments.

Faulty generalization:
A special subclass of the informal fallacies is the set of faulty generalizations, also known as inductive fallacies. Here the most important issue concerns inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). In the absence of sufficient evidence, drawing conclusions based on induction is unwarranted and fallacious. With the backing of empirical evidence, however, the conclusions may become warranted and convincing (at which point the arguments are no longer considered fallacious).

Hasty generalization:
Described as making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards", "grad students are nerdy", "women don't enjoy sports", etc.) are common examples of the principle.
Hasty generalization often follows a pattern such as:
X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.
While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.

Relevance fallacy:
The fallacies of relevance are a broad class of informal fallacies, generically represented by missing the point: presenting an argument, which may be sound, but fails to address the issue in question.

Argument from silence:
An argument from silence is a faulty conclusion that is made based on the absence of evidence rather than on the presence of evidence.

Post hoc (false cause):
This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which translates as "after this, therefore because of this". Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if one registers for a class, and their name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. That is, temporal correlation does not necessarily entail causation. For example, if I ate a sandwich and then I got food poisoning, that does not necessarily mean the sandwich gave me food poisoning. It is possible that I could have eaten something else earlier that caused the food poisoning.

Slippery slope:
Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but in fact there is not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope", we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; they assume we cannot stop halfway down the hill.

False analogy:
This error in reasoning occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons, Hence the false analogy's informal nickname: the "apples and oranges" fallacy.

Straw man fallacy:
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Measurement fallacy:
Some of the fallacies described above may be committed in the context of measurement. Where mathematical fallacies are subtle mistakes in reasoning leading to invalid mathematical proofs, measurement fallacies are unwarranted inferential leaps involved in the extrapolation of raw data to a measurement-based value claim. The ancient Greek Sophist Protagoras was one of the first thinkers to propose that humans can generate reliable measurements through his "human-measure" principle and the practice of dissoi logoi (arguing multiple sides of an issue).

Knowledge value measurement fallacy:
The increasing availability and circulation of big data are driving a proliferation of new metrics for scholarly authority, and there is lively discussion regarding the relative usefulness of such metrics for measuring the value of knowledge production in the context of an "information tsunami".
For example, anchoring fallacies can occur when unwarranted weight is given to data generated by metrics that the arguers themselves acknowledge is flawed.
A naturalistic fallacy can occur for example in the case of sheer quantity metrics based on the premise "more is better" or, in the case of developmental assessment in the field of psychology, "higher is better".
A false analogy occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons between data points.
Ecological fallacies can be committed when one measures scholarly productivity of a sub-group of individuals (e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via reference to aggregate data about a larger and different group (e.g. "Hispanic" faculty).

Intentional fallacy:
Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
Examples of this include the speaker or writer:
1. Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
2. Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
3. Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called
"begging the question" (petitio principii)
4. Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
5. Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
6. Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning)
7. Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified,
also called false dichotomy
8. Selectively using facts (card stacking)
9. Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)
10. Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization)

In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of amphiboly, for instance, to make ironic statements; Gary Larson and Scott Adams employed fallacious reasoning in many of their cartoons. Wes Boyer and Samuel Stoddard have written a humorous essay teaching students how to be persuasive by means of a whole host of informal and formal fallacies.

When someone uses logical fallacies intentionally to mislead in academic, political, or other high-stakes contexts, the breach of trust calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.

This was posted in the STUFF, JUST STUFF thread by rearone24 and I thought it was worthy of sharing here. Enjoy!

This works, Dev, I found it in a blog.


By Funx30 [Ignore] 02,Aug,21 02:11

Any News About lix?
Reply
By Imagine [Ignore] 02,Aug,21 04:41⤴

Bits and pieces but no actually reason x

Jul 30, 22:36 system: You were blacklisted by Twowarmtts3!


Down goes the Saggy Granny and her gang of rats~

Twowarmtts3!
HOW can anyone else get a word in edgewise? Bella! should change the name of her thread to @SirCums@ ramblings of a DIRTY LITTLE JEW WITH A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER.

Really... FFS.

--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes

Copy and paste. Mt Tamborine gorilla burger. And no... Mt Tamborine ain't famous for Tamborines. Is it worth 28$.... Probably not. Did it sooth the beast? YES

You will NEVER get learned off Google results, But they will definitely know more about you.

Bernie Sanders- This old cunt had a heart-attack and has two stents in his weak heart. Will he survive another year? Or will he get buried like our very own JohnS? I do laugh knowing this old bag of shit will NEVER be a US president!


A longtime reader who was a senior official government in a previous Democratic administration sent me this:

I’m sorry if this question strikes people as impolite. A 78-year old man who had a heart attack less than five months ago and refuses to release his complete medical records is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. If Bernie Sanders is nominated and elected president, what are the odds he can complete a full term? The answer is about 50-50.

A team of nine cardiologists recently published a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association that can help answer that question.Their study tracked the expected mortality and life expectancy of people who survive a first heart attack (myocardial infarction) at ages 65 and older. The scientists’ data are comprehensive, covering what happened to 22,295 heart attack patients admitted to U.S. hospitals from October 2004 to December 2006.

Their analysis provides two ways to estimate a person’s expected mortality and life-expectancy based on age and cardiac history. Both methods produced nearly identical results. The likelihood that a person of Senator Sanders’ age and heart history will die within one year – that takes us through September 2020 – is 25 percent. Further, the median period of survival for those patients is about five years, so the likelihood that someone of Senator Sanders’ age and heart history will survive through the next presidential term is about 50-50.

This is far from typical. According to the CDC, the odds that a 78-year old American will die within one year are just over 4 percent, and the odds over five years are less than 23 percent. Moreover, 45 people have served as President of the United States, and four of them died in office from natural causes. The historical likelihood that a president will die in office for medical reasons, therefore, is less than 9 percent.

The analysis of Senator Sanders’ prospects could be more precise than 50-50, if we knew a common indicator of his current cardiac status, called the “the left ventricular ejection fraction.” This measures the blood volume a person’s heart pushes out with each heartbeat. According to an interview by NBC News with the president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Richard Kovacs, the results are closely associated with a patient’s expected mortality rate. By this measure, the normal blood volume level is 60 percent. At 40 to 50 percent, the functioning of the heart’s left ventricle is said to be mildly impaired; at 30 percent to 40 percent, moderately impaired; and at 30 percent or less, severely impaired.

It is certainly reasonable that voters know those results for a 78-year old potential nominee with a heart condition. Thus far, Senator Sanders has refused. If he persists and is nominated, voters will have to consider very carefully his choice for vice president, since the odds that a vice president would succeed a President Sanders for medical reasons during his first term will jump from an average 9 percent to 50 percent.

The inferences the writer draws from the sources he links to seem sound to me. But I’m not a physician, and neither is the writer. So I’d be curious to get feedback from readers who are medical doctors—especially from cardiologists.

lollol