Greetings-
For me, relationships are about Respect. I really have to have Respect for my partner, mostly in the intelligence department. Once I lose respect for my partner, the relationship is pretty much already over. What I respect most are Logic and Intelligence, with a heavy dose of 'Common Sense'.
The fastest way that a partner of mine can lose my respect, is by using the -TU QUOQUE- fallacy (appeal to Hypocrisy). Tu Quoque is latin for "You too". It is basically, 'a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior'. This is especially harmful to relationships for obvious reasons.
This is probably my most grating to hear fallacy and will pretty much guarantee the relationship is over.
What is your most annoying Logical Fallacy to hear from your partner during an argument/discussion?
Could you do something about the art of debating once you realize that your opponent does not have the skill or will to argue otherwise? Have you experienced a shift in the course of an argument in that sense that you were surprised by the answers of your opponent once you yourself changed your form of formulating questions? That requires a basic willingness to listen to each other or take questions as sincere, not a strategy or a trap.
I experienced once in a while, that to shift the course of argumentation in the above way my opponent stoped answering at all. That showed me that I probably over estimated the willingness of that human to be in touch with me/my arguments. Secondly it can also give a hint towards my own engagement in that relationship and my underlying prejudice. Maybe I radiated without noticing that I do nothing else expect from my opponent and he/she simply fulfilled my inner prophecy. A lot of discussions seem to be nothing more than just beating time.
I somewhat extended your question but that's what I like to do :)
And ... probably I am beating time myself right now ;-) ... still I am interested in where you might have different experiences.
Yes indeed I do practice the Socratic Method as much as possible in these cases. It is the ultimate test of both characters, my own, and the one I am having the discussion with. Once this method is employed, the 'truth' starts to make its appearance, without having to 'prove' it, or seem 'combative'.
I didn't know that this kind of dialogue is called the Socratic method.
In any way, if people are interested in each other the form of questions and answers differ compared to competition in the game.
I did not understand the second part of your comment. Can you clarify?
Whoops. That second part was part of another post I was making at the same time. Sorry for the confusion I have removed it.
Yeah looked really weird here :D
:D Thanks. For a second I was very confused and asked myself if I appeared somehow crazy for you or if you are a strange person. LOL. But then I thought: As most of the times, there will be a sensible explanation.
I am glad this little confusion happened and both of us did not overreact as I saw it so many times happening on this blockchain. :))
Have a good day!
Yes I am still kind of laughing because of the content. You had to have thought I lost my marbles :D
Someone showed a pic of the royal family doing a "Nazi salute" and I posted these to show them that it wasn't a "Nazi salute" before WWII, and that all American school children did it too, so he called me a nazi supporter... That was my reply that you read haha...
Oh, and it being all off topic here, that's ok, I'll show you the pics here too because most don't even know this, and it is good to know ;)
Yes quite normal back in the day:
Have a great day!
Impressive pictures. Yes, what is considered normality often can be viewed differently when a certain amount of time goes by.
You too have a great day :)
it sort of reminds me of that story about the guy who got thrown out of the public swimming pool, for pissing in the pool.
He protested 'but everyone pisses in the pool'
the attendant replied 'Not from the high diving board'
#logiczombie is now #hive-171744
I am a noob at steem. I guess I need to tag the hive-171744 instead of #logiczombie then! No wonder it wouldn't go in there.
No worries, that was a good test. I just now figured it out myself.
Also,
The Tu Quoque tactic includes the added "benefit" of "the liar's dividend".
The liars dividend is earned by making a high-profile claim or accusation, which, even if categorically disproven later, the retraction is almost never "headline news" and as such, the majority of readers/viewers will continue to believe the original accusation.
For example,
Click to watch 5 minutes,
Exactly! That is a great example of why it is my most hated in a relationship setting. The point is always evaded no matter what, and a great deal of time wasted in a futile attempt to 'right' the 'wrong', never to return to the original point...
My favorite example of "Tu Quoque" is the following
A movie patron shuffles up to the ticket taker holding a burger bag and a large drink, the usher calmly and politely mentions, "I'm sorry, but the theater has a policy of -no-outside-food-or-drink-". The patron, in a huff, grumbles and says, "that other patron over there, who's walking into one of the movies brought in their own food!"
The usher, calmly and politely explains, "it doesn't matter if someone else is breaking the rules, I must remain at my post, so I have no ability to investigate your claim (accusation) at this particular moment in time, but I would kindly ask that you either finish your meal outside the theater or place it in the nearby bin before entering".
A very similar argument was promulgated recently in the headlines. When it was pointed out that Trump implicitly requested specific favors in exchange for pending monetary aid, instead of actually defending himself, he instead chose to attempt to distract the press (and everyone else) by suggesting that Biden (that other guy over there) "did the same thing" (Tu Quoque).
It doesn't matter if someone else committed the same crime as you "and got away with it".
That's NOT a defense. It's a RED-HERRING.
Another example would be,
Imagine what would happen if, in the middle of a criminal trial, the defendant, who is facing a charge of murder, blurted out in open court, that the prosecutor had also committed murder.
First off, that unsupported claim (accusation/bald-assertion) does not prove the prosecutor is ACTUALLY guilty of murder.
And second, even IF that claim was 100% REAL-TRUE-FACT, that still has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the defendant's case.
This trial is not the proper time or the proper place to make such a claim.
The defendant should present any evidence they have to the police and the police will decide if that case should be investigated on its own merit.
Stating opinion as FACT.
Also known as "the modal fallacy".
It is the most pervasive and insidious logical fallacy.
"A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false." - This is also known as APODICTIC TRUTH.
Many have built their entire philosophical foundation on this fallacy (conflating opinion with fact, which is a category error, also known as "the modal fallacy").
Congratulations @oldoneeye! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPVote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
@oldoneeye, keep up the good work!
∴