So the Chinese are not just boycotting the Nobel Peace Prize...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peter Wiggin**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Your assumptions are based on fallacy. <shrug> I still got love for you though.

Oh look, a dime store college liberal told me my assumptions aren't based in reality.

Irony.

??? And again with the fallacy. Usually when folks resort to personal attacks it means they are wrong.

Irrelevant Conclusion

* Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
o Example

Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)

o Special cases:
+ purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
+ popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum—appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
+ fear (argumentum ad baculum),
+ conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam—appeal to authority)
+ to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
+ proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
+ assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself (genetic fallacy)
o Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

Plus your comment is based on assumptions that support your statement....which once again is....

Begging the question

* Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
o Example

Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.

o Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.

Please formulate your stances and defense of those stances a bit better. I heard you were supposed to be good at this.

**ShumaGorath**

??? And again with the fallacy. Usually when folks resort to personal attacks it means they are wrong.

I attack when I dismiss and I dismiss when I'm debating with someone apparently highly ignorant. I'm not here to give you an education in logical theory, economics, history, or geopolitics. Do that yourself and come back to me, I'll tell you if you got any better. Hey, look, I'm gonna start copy pasting the wiki definitions for logical fallacies too. Heres a few that come to mind when discussing your inability to conceive of war without congressional declaration and the inherent injustice of sending soldiers to die for "political gain and profit" when in a thread about chinese human rights records.

Argument from fallacy.
It has the general argument form:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.[5]
Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.
That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.[6] But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate the proof; the complete proof could still logically imply its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy:
All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect... If the argument is a single chain, and one link fails, the chain itself fails with it. But most historians' arguments are not single chains. They are rather like a kind of chain mail which can fail in some part and still retain its shape and function.
—David Hackett Fischer, Historians' fallacies[3]

Affirming disjunct.
The logical fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form:
A or B
A
Therefore, it is not the case that B
Or in logical operators:

p
¬ q
Where denotes a logical assertion.

False dichotomy.
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking—this relates not so much to the singling out of two options and the ignoring of alternatives, but rather to the tendency to see two approaches or notions as diametrically opposed to each other or mutually exclusive, when in fact the two may have common ground between them. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two" and "lemma" meaning (in this context) "possibilites." When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.[citation needed] In the community of philosophers and scholars, many believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[1]

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.
For example:
No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that are not fish cannot fly, provided that dogs exist.
Or:
We don't read that trash. People who read that trash don't appreciate real literature. Therefore, we appreciate real literature.
This could be illustrated mathematically as
If A ⊄ B and B ⊄ C then A ⊂ C.
It is a fallacy because any valid forms of categorical syllogism that assert a negative premise must have a negative conclusion.

Etymological fallacy.
The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.[1]
A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies.[2

Ignoratio Elenchi.
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[citation needed] This is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon, and in a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[2][3]

Etc, not to mention your consistent straw men and appeals to emotion.

**RustyKnight**

ShumaGorath wrote:Etc, not to mention your consistent straw men and appeals to emotion.

I'd have also mentioned having an ostentatious name.

**hemingway**

Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

**Emperors Faithful**

hemingway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

Oh for god's sake, don't get him started.

**hemingway**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
hemingway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

Oh for god's sake, don't get him started.

lol i lived in china. it's a capitalist paradise.

**Emperors Faithful**

hemingway wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
hemingway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

Oh for god's sake, don't get him started.

lol i lived in china. it's a capitalist paradise.

No, I mean Frazzled.

**Kid_Kyoto**

hemingway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

Tell that to the Chinese Communist Party who recently reaffirmed their commitment to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought.

Yeah it's economically capitalist (in the worst 19th century way) but politically it's a Leninist top-down state.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hemingway wrote:

lol i lived in china. it's a capitalist paradise.

Unless you want to drink the water or breath the air.

**hemingway**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Unless you want to drink the water or breath the air.

environmental control isn't a concern of true capitalists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
hemingway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

Tell that to the Chinese Communist Party who recently reaffirmed their commitment to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought.

talk from head office and the reality on the front line differ in china just like in NA. it's only top-down if you're poor. if you have money, you bribe the right official and off you go, just like in NA.

**Nurglitch**

Kid_Kyoto:

I thought the party line was still "Communism with Chinese Characteristics", so basically modern Confucian Statism. I remember seeing articles up around the Dalhousie Philosophy department advertising all the money they were throwing at american researchers that were interested in Confucian philosophy. Also, from what I can tell, it gels with their tendencies towards authoritarians and elitism - that's apparently the reason their leaders are more recently picked from the ranks of PhDs.

**hemingway**

Nurglitch wrote:Kid_Kyoto:

I thought the party line was still "Communism with Chinese Characteristics", so basically modern Confucian Statism. I remember seeing articles up around the Dalhousie Philosophy department advertising all the money they were throwing at american researchers that were interested in Confucian philosophy.

confucianism is an inherent part of the chinese cultural animus no matter how you slice it. if you watch Reign of Assassins, there's a scene in there which defines chinese thought (at least from a woman's perspective) perfectly, where an old matchmaker tells michelle yeoh 'the most important thing in life is finding a man'. trying to define the hodgepodge of china's economic, cultural, and political mish-mash is basically like trying to describe the seconds passing in a trainwreck: in the time it takes you to form the words, other events have subsumed the prior ones. the best you can hope for is to illustrate the highlights.

**Peter Wiggin**

ShumaGorath wrote:
??? And again with the fallacy. Usually when folks resort to personal attacks it means they are wrong.

I attack when I dismiss and I dismiss when I'm debating with someone apparently highly ignorant. I'm not here to give you an education in logical theory, economics, history, or geopolitics. Do that yourself and come back to me, I'll tell you if you got any better. Hey, look, I'm gonna start copy pasting the wiki definitions for logical fallacies too. Heres a few that come to mind when discussing your inability to conceive of war without congressional declaration and the inherent injustice of sending soldiers to die for "political gain and profit" when in a thread about chinese human rights records.

Argument from fallacy.
It has the general argument form:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.[5]
Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.
That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.[6] But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate the proof; the complete proof could still logically imply its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy:
All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect... If the argument is a single chain, and one link fails, the chain itself fails with it. But most historians' arguments are not single chains. They are rather like a kind of chain mail which can fail in some part and still retain its shape and function.
—David Hackett Fischer, Historians' fallacies[3]

Affirming disjunct.
The logical fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form:
A or B
A
Therefore, it is not the case that B
Or in logical operators:

p
¬ q
Where denotes a logical assertion.

False dichotomy.
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking—this relates not so much to the singling out of two options and the ignoring of alternatives, but rather to the tendency to see two approaches or notions as diametrically opposed to each other or mutually exclusive, when in fact the two may have common ground between them. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two" and "lemma" meaning (in this context) "possibilites." When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.[citation needed] In the community of philosophers and scholars, many believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[1]

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.
For example:
No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that are not fish cannot fly, provided that dogs exist.
Or:
We don't read that trash. People who read that trash don't appreciate real literature. Therefore, we appreciate real literature.
This could be illustrated mathematically as
If A ⊄ B and B ⊄ C then A ⊂ C.
It is a fallacy because any valid forms of categorical syllogism that assert a negative premise must have a negative conclusion.

Etymological fallacy.
The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.[1]
A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies.[2

Ignoratio Elenchi.
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[citation needed] This is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon, and in a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[2][3]

Etc, not to mention your consistent straw men and appeals to emotion.

Now now there tiger, don't go flaming a forum member just because you don't like what he has to say. Thats against the rules buddy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Etc, not to mention your consistent straw men and appeals to emotion.
I'd have also mentioned having an ostentatious name.

Glad to see someone got the joke. I believe I actually mentioned that when the mod offered to change my name.

**ShumaGorath**

Now now there tiger, don't go flaming a forum member just because you don't like what he has to say. Thats against the rules buddy.

Which part of what you have to say? I strongly agree that a massive military drawdown would greatly benefit the United States. At 4.7% of gdp the military budget of the united states is wildly disproportionate to it's need and the vast majority of our military machine is and will likely for the next century be spent spinning it's wheels on a base somewhere in texas or japan. A draw down would greatly help the deficit and help to reduce global tensions dramatically (while forcing the EU and NATO to actually do it's job).

If you're talking about the economics bit then....

**Peter Wiggin**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Now now there tiger, don't go flaming a forum member just because you don't like what he has to say. Thats against the rules buddy.

Which part of what you have to say? I strongly agree that a massive military drawdown would greatly benefit the United States. At 4.7% of gdp the military budget of the united states is wildly disproportionate to it's need and the vast majority of our military machine is and will likely for the next century be spent spinning it's wheels on a base somewhere in texas or japan. A draw down would greatly help the deficit and help to reduce global tensions dramatically (while forcing the EU and NATO to actually do it's job).

If you're talking about the economics bit then....

Ok, so then I agree with you.

**Stormrider**

This is very similar to the Third Recih's creation of the Order of Arts and Sciences Medal. They felt that the Nobel committee was biased, so they created their own.

**Emperors Faithful**

Stormrider wrote:This is very similar to the Third Recih's creation of the Order of Arts and Sciences Medal. They felt that the Nobel committee was biased, so they created their own.

Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

**Peter Wiggin**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Stormrider wrote:This is very similar to the Third Recih's creation of the Order of Arts and Sciences Medal. They felt that the Nobel committee was biased, so they created their own.

Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

Seriously, Nazi fashion sense was WAY better than Chinese.

**Stormrider**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Stormrider wrote:This is very similar to the Third Reich's creation of the Order of Arts and Sciences Medal. They felt that the Nobel committee was biased, so they created their own.

Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

Why? That's exactly what happened between Nazi Germany and the Nobel committee in 1937. No point in trying to glom over it.

**sebster**

Emperors Faithful wrote:Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

You can point out the similarity between two actions, without giving the actors moral equivalence.

Hopefully Stormrider wasn't actually claiming moral equivalence.

**Stormrider**

sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

You can point out the similarity between two actions, without giving the actors moral equivalence.

Hopefully Stormrider wasn't actually claiming moral equivalence.

Not in the least.

**Emperors Faithful**

Oh alright then.

**ShumaGorath**

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Stormrider wrote:This is very similar to the Third Recih's creation of the Order of Arts and Sciences Medal. They felt that the Nobel committee was biased, so they created their own.

Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

Seriously, Nazi fashion sense was WAY better than Chinese.

Scuse me? I for one think that some of the Chinese fashions are excellent while the Nazis basically only had good looking officers.

**sebster**

ShumaGorath wrote:Scuse me? I for one think that some of the Chinese fashions are excellent while the Nazis basically only had good looking officers.

By the end of that sentence are you sure you will still takling about fashion?

**ShumaGorath**

sebster wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Scuse me? I for one think that some of the Chinese fashions are excellent while the Nazis basically only had good looking officers.

By the end of that sentence are you sure you will still takling about fashion?

Always.

**Peter Wiggin**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Stormrider wrote:This is very similar to the Third Recih's creation of the Order of Arts and Sciences Medal. They felt that the Nobel committee was biased, so they created their own.

Comparing China to the Third Reich may be taking things a tad too far.

Seriously, Nazi fashion sense was WAY better than Chinese.

Scuse me? I for one think that some of the Chinese fashions are excellent while the Nazis basically only had good looking officers.

Yeah, I might do Rommel....and Johny Depp might just get a smooch.

**Frazzled**

hemingway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, per NPR China managed to get a coalation of dictators to boycott. Why do we trade with the communists and ship all our jobs there again?

china isn't communist. they're actually pretty freewheeling capitalists there.

Actually I'd proffer they're pretty hard core Fascists at this point. But I subscribe to the Bell View, not that its Communists on one end and Fascists on the other, but that its absolute freedom on one end and totolitarianism on the other. Ism ism ism its still people telling you what to do and killing you if you don't.

**reds8n**

Fascinating, clearly, as the spat between some of the posters in this thread -- special no prize for guessing who ! -- is, it would be much appreciated ( by all) if we leave the exchange of insults, "witty" use of definitions and so on..and on, and on, and on and on.. and.. you get the idea. C'mon, soon be Xmas, goodwill and all that. I appreciate there's deadlines and the like coming up, but I'm sure you're mature enough to get the project done and still maintain your posting rights on Dakka.