Let's Talk About The Logical Fallacy Most Common Here On Lit

[Rightguide]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it. Rather than addressing the evidence or logic, the speaker presents the opposing idea as so absurd that it supposedly doesn’t deserve serious consideration. In practice, it often looks like sarcasm, exaggerated comparisons, or jokes meant to make the opposing position seem laughable. The goal isn’t to prove the argument wrong, but to make the audience feel embarrassed to support it. For example, instead of explaining why a proposal is flawed, someone might say, “Oh sure, let’s just solve the problem by sprinkling magic fairy dust on it,” implying the idea is childish or unrealistic. The tactic can be entertaining and persuasive rhetorically, but logically it’s weak because ridicule isn’t evidence. An idea can be mocked and still be correct, or sound ridiculous and still be wrong for completely different reasons.

More specifically, it is closely related to Appeal to Emotion. Instead of addressing the truth or falsity of a claim, the speaker tries to win the argument by making the opposing position seem laughable, absurd, or embarrassing to support. The problem is that ridicule is not evidence. A claim can sound silly and still be true, or sound reasonable and still be false. So, to our friends here on the left, if someone first refutes the idea with evidence and then mocks it afterward, the ridicule is just a rhetorical flourish, not the logical basis of the argument. So in debate terms, ridicule can be effective persuasion, but by itself it doesn’t prove anything. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking to.

 

[oryginalny]

like THIS

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...th-by-legal-immigrants.1651725/post-102542672

 

[ll74]

Let's discuss your post about the woman in the video.

What argument are you trying to make and why do you believe it should be considered without ridicule?

Just because you consider your position to be above ridicule or criticism does not require others to take your position seriously, especially when you don't take criticism seriously.

All in all, of you post the same whiny bullshit multiple times a week without making a new argument, your attempt to make one is reduced significantly.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Ad hominem attacks are virtually the only “arguments” to be found on the PB. Take a look at the usual suspects.

 

[RoryN]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it.

And this thread is the daily, transparent Deplorable attempt to shift the blame to the left, when it's your side's go-to.



P.S. Also, it's coming from a proven liar:

I have never stated my race.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...rk-ages-of-a-theorcracy.1569357/post-95402961

You don't know my race, so shut up about it. Because your a racist, you assume I'm white. I've never declared my race.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/now-that-parents-are-up-in-arms.1547419/post-93921121

I've never stated my race on Lit. It's laughable what you assholes assume without evidence.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...-file-on-oliver-anthony.1594165/post-97464305

I've never expressed my race here on Lit, ever.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...airman-of-joint-chiefs.1628719/post-100539669

************

I am white.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...as-a-true-racist-leader.1401553/post-83880025

Oh, and I'm white not black. Sorry.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...luke_atmydik-2-years-ago.696017/post-89867509

Yes, I'm, white, and I'm pro American, if that makes me a white nationalist, then make the most of it you cowardly sissy.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...id-for-by-the-tax-payer.1508623/post-91233408

 

[ll74]

like THIS

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/there-were-2-isiamic-terror-attacks-today-on-us-soil-—-both-by-legal-immigrants.1651725/post-102542672

When you lie and people call you out for lying, your feelies are hurt.

Your only argument continues to be bigotry.

 

[oryginalny]

And this thread is the daily, transparent Deplorable attempt to shift the blame to the left, when it's your side's go-to.



P.S. Also, it's coming from a proven liar:


https://forum.literotica.com/thread...rk-ages-of-a-theorcracy.1569357/post-95402961


https://forum.literotica.com/threads/now-that-parents-are-up-in-arms.1547419/post-93921121


https://forum.literotica.com/thread...-file-on-oliver-anthony.1594165/post-97464305


https://forum.literotica.com/thread...airman-of-joint-chiefs.1628719/post-100539669

************


https://forum.literotica.com/thread...as-a-true-racist-leader.1401553/post-83880025


https://forum.literotica.com/thread...luke_atmydik-2-years-ago.696017/post-89867509


https://forum.literotica.com/thread...id-for-by-the-tax-payer.1508623/post-91233408

Lunatic

Not worth reading anymore

IGGY

 

[ll74]

Question - how many threads do you need to make that make the argument that "feminism is ruining our country/world"?

If it's more than one, how is this not considered appealing to emotion?

 

[RoryN]

IGGY

You've supposedly "put me on iggy" twice on this account already.

You need to update your alt spreadsheet more frequently.

 

[stxjimmy]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it. Rather than addressing the evidence or logic, the speaker presents the opposing idea as so absurd that it supposedly doesn’t deserve serious consideration. In practice, it often looks like sarcasm, exaggerated comparisons, or jokes meant to make the opposing position seem laughable. The goal isn’t to prove the argument wrong, but to make the audience feel embarrassed to support it. For example, instead of explaining why a proposal is flawed, someone might say, “Oh sure, let’s just solve the problem by sprinkling magic fairy dust on it,” implying the idea is childish or unrealistic. The tactic can be entertaining and persuasive rhetorically, but logically it’s weak because ridicule isn’t evidence. An idea can be mocked and still be correct, or sound ridiculous and still be wrong for completely different reasons.

More specifically, it is closely related to Appeal to Emotion. Instead of addressing the truth or falsity of a claim, the speaker tries to win the argument by making the opposing position seem laughable, absurd, or embarrassing to support. The problem is that ridicule is not evidence. A claim can sound silly and still be true, or sound reasonable and still be false. So, to our friends here on the left, if someone first refutes the idea with evidence and then mocks it afterward, the ridicule is just a rhetorical flourish, not the logical basis of the argument. So in debate terms, ridicule can be effective persuasion, but by itself it doesn’t prove anything. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking to.

Your pomposity is unlimited.

 

[ll74]

You've supposedly "put me on iggy" twice on this account already.

You need to update your alt spreadsheet more frequently.

It doesn't work unless you tell people that you're ignoring the person.

This is the proper technique....perhaps his Iggy feature was reset.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it. Rather than addressing the evidence or logic, the speaker presents the opposing idea as so absurd that it supposedly doesn’t deserve serious consideration. In practice, it often looks like sarcasm, exaggerated comparisons, or jokes meant to make the opposing position seem laughable. The goal isn’t to prove the argument wrong, but to make the audience feel embarrassed to support it. For example, instead of explaining why a proposal is flawed, someone might say, “Oh sure, let’s just solve the problem by sprinkling magic fairy dust on it,” implying the idea is childish or unrealistic. The tactic can be entertaining and persuasive rhetorically, but logically it’s weak because ridicule isn’t evidence. An idea can be mocked and still be correct, or sound ridiculous and still be wrong for completely different reasons.

More specifically, it is closely related to Appeal to Emotion. Instead of addressing the truth or falsity of a claim, the speaker tries to win the argument by making the opposing position seem laughable, absurd, or embarrassing to support. The problem is that ridicule is not evidence. A claim can sound silly and still be true, or sound reasonable and still be false. So, to our friends here on the left, if someone first refutes the idea with evidence and then mocks it afterward, the ridicule is just a rhetorical flourish, not the logical basis of the argument. So in debate terms, ridicule can be effective persuasion, but by itself it doesn’t prove anything. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking to.

You're the most maligned person on Lit due to your chronic gullibility factor. No one has created more threads that blew up because the information was trash than you.

Ya fucking loser.

 

[Bray123]

So far this year there have been six school shootings in the US where people have been injured or died. School shootings where nobody is harmed don't even count. But you are only concerned with Islam.

There is more Right-Wing terrorism in the US than Islamic.

You need to get a grip, step outside and have a quiet word with yourself.

 

[Rightguide]

Your pomposity is unlimited.

It's really your ignorance that's at fault.

 

[LeahWill]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it.

I KNOW!!!

 

[stxjimmy]

It's really your ignorance that's at fault.

See

 

[Rebel5soul]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it. Rather than addressing the evidence or logic, the speaker presents the opposing idea as so absurd that it supposedly doesn’t deserve serious consideration. In practice, it often looks like sarcasm, exaggerated comparisons, or jokes meant to make the opposing position seem laughable. The goal isn’t to prove the argument wrong, but to make the audience feel embarrassed to support it. For example, instead of explaining why a proposal is flawed, someone might say, “Oh sure, let’s just solve the problem by sprinkling magic fairy dust on it,” implying the idea is childish or unrealistic. The tactic can be entertaining and persuasive rhetorically, but logically it’s weak because ridicule isn’t evidence. An idea can be mocked and still be correct, or sound ridiculous and still be wrong for completely different reasons.

More specifically, it is closely related to Appeal to Emotion. Instead of addressing the truth or falsity of a claim, the speaker tries to win the argument by making the opposing position seem laughable, absurd, or embarrassing to support. The problem is that ridicule is not evidence. A claim can sound silly and still be true, or sound reasonable and still be false. So, to our friends here on the left, if someone first refutes the idea with evidence and then mocks it afterward, the ridicule is just a rhetorical flourish, not the logical basis of the argument. So in debate terms, ridicule can be effective persuasion, but by itself it doesn’t prove anything. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking to.

It just keeps getting worse. I now no longer even attempt civility with those individuals that have persistently practiced those methods.

 

[HisArpy]

It just keeps getting worse. I now no longer even attempt civility with those individuals that have persistently practiced those methods.

The iggy function is your friend.

 

[jomar]

Counterpoint: When one has refuted/debunked lies/misstatements/misconstrued info and it is still brought up as fact in discussions, it becomes a waste of time to repeatedly do so. That’s when dismissal, mockery and ridicule come in.

 

[ll74]

Counterpoint: When one has refuted/debunked lies/misstatements/misconstrued info and it is still brought up as fact in discussions, it becomes a waste of time to repeatedly do so. That’s when dismissal, mockery and ridicule come in.

I would suggest that even if the argument hasn't been adequately refuted, it certainly has been debated multiple times prior.

The entire repetitive and renewal of the same arguments reads as a way to get around any counterargument by removing the previous instances. And those of us who have provided those arguments tire of repeating the same shit over a multitude of threads.

How many of the same arguments do I need to break out a new statement of evidence regarding racism and misogyny and what's the point?

Bottom line - Reichy seems to suggest that every time he posts the same argument, we must fall in line to argue it rather than point out the exhaustive bullshit that continues to be recycled.

 

[Chernosoth]

Counterpoint: When one has refuted/debunked lies/misstatements/misconstrued info and it is still brought up as fact in discussions, it becomes a waste of time to repeatedly do so. That’s when dismissal, mockery and ridicule come in.

The iggy function is your friend.

 

[Wilson23]

The appeal to ridicule is a rhetorical tactic in which someone tries to discredit an argument by mocking it rather than refuting it.

That is a tactic, not a fallacy.

 

[Wilson23]

Counterpoint: When one has refuted/debunked lies/misstatements/misconstrued info and it is still brought up as fact in discussions, it becomes a waste of time to repeatedly do so. That’s when dismissal, mockery and ridicule come in.

Oh, yeah, about that . . .
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/let-us-hear-no-more-of-pratts-on-this-board.1647370/

 

[oryginalny]

Counterpoint: When one has refuted/debunked lies/misstatements/misconstrued info and it is still brought up as fact in discussions, it becomes a waste of time to repeatedly do so. That’s when dismissal, mockery and ridicule come in.

but you all DONT refute or debunk with ANYTHING of reality other then

ITS NOT TRUE

ITS A LIE

FAKE VIDEO

so stop your BS

 

[Rightguide]

See

Calling out intellectual laziness isn’t pomposity any more than pointing out someone asleep at the wheel is arrogance. If anything, intellectual sloth is the real snob in the room: it strolls in late, refuses to do the homework, and then expects everyone else to pretend the effort was made. Pointing that out isn’t pompous; it’s basic housekeeping for the conversation.