Naked Ninja said:
Wow, you could have just said "you are wrong", but you chose not to huh? Wonder why? Oops, I already answered that question!
So lets finish this, shall we?
There are two kinds of logical fallacies, those (logical) being the ones we are all about here. Those where the Logical Fallacy is an specific kind of logical error, and those were the Logical Fallacy is a general problem in a given reasoning. I acussed you of the first kind: Your argument fell in a given, catalogued type of logical error.
So, as you see, in choosing "Fallacious" i am not only indicating that you commited a "mistake," but a specific kind of logical mistake so widely regarded as wrong and venomous that it has even been given a unique name and catalogued as a common "logical fallacy" of the Informal variety. Or, in the case where it is not a honest mistake, a "Sofism."
To reduce language to it's simpler form is not a good idea. Had i pointed that you had made a mistake, i would not have specified wich kind of mistake i was refering to. In some circles, both academical and others, "Fallacy" is used as a short form for "Logical Fallacy" of both the formal and informal kinds. So, in pointing at your mistake and saying it was a Fallacious Argument, it was implied, as most people around here understood, that it was a technical mistake in the Logic processes of your reasoning and, thus, of the following argument, of a very specific kind wich then i went on to specify. Not just a "mistake."
The argument that gestated this discussion is of a quite famous kind here in the Codex: A Straw Man.
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.
You, in your argument, transformed your oponent's position into another, weaker one, taking the reason of his activities and turning it into a separate topic. Thus, you left us with an extreme, simple, one sided situation:
"He does this because they do that."
A fairly stupid position, really. Who could actually not laught to his immaturity? When the real position was more "friendly" and less "extreme," as he explained us why he actually reacted as he did. You may say this is not really so big a mistake, but let's explore the situation:
"The nazis claimed the jews were inferior and deserving extermination, and the german people followed suit."
Such a nasty statement. Those germans are really bigots, and Hitler just gave them an excuse to exteriorise their racial hatred, right? No.
"The nazis claimed the jews were inferior and deserving extermination, and the german people followed suit, given that old grudges were latent since and old story involving germany, the ottoman empire, the united kingdom, the jewish comunity, and the creation of a jewish independent state."
Wow, now the situation is really different, isn't it? The first is an extreme position, oriented to create a given emotional response without allowing for questioning or doubt. The second one is actually giving some limited background that, while it may or may not justify their actions, throws a completely different light over the topic. Suddenly, they are no longer represed bigots with an inferiority complex, and there MAY be some deeper reason to what happened.
In the first case, the situation is misrepresented, since you are defacing the situation/argument beyond the point where one can still study the situation as exposed or your opponent's argument.
The same goes for:
"He bitches because everyone else is praising."
And the longer, deeper real version, even if that real version is as simplified as the example i gave you originally on this topic or just a couple paragraphs above about the german thingy. In presenting us an adultered, simplified, extremist version of the facts, you are in practice trying to provoke a given emotional reaction in the reader, instead of presenting the facts in a way that could mean the reader reaching a conclusion opposite to your intention.
Thus, a Logical Fallacy. This one you commited several times during the discussion, as also happens with the second one: Ad Hominem. Do i really need to give you examples of all the instances were you applied this one? The Pseudo-Intelectual thingy is an Ad Hominem Fallacy, just to mention one example out of many ocurrences.
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position.
Since i being or not a Pseudo-Intelectual has no direct relationship with the topic at hand, it is in itself a Fallacy of such kind. Since you used it, in several cases, while completely ignoring my arguments, we can consider it to be at least partially conscious and so to be a Sofism. You were partially successful in distracting me with it, so i give you a brownie for that.
So, in conclusion about the original topic: I never cared about WHY you did choose the wording you used. As you did it, it was a technical fallacy. Your opponent said A, you said B. Period.
Amusingly enought, you made so many fallacious arguments after that first one that it no longer matters if my original point was right or not.
Thus my tesis, being:
"Naked Ninja is unable to discuss in a fair and logic way, thus having to reach for Fallacious Arguments, then making a Fallacious, and maybe Sofist, Idiot out of himself."
Has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt.
See? I never needed to prove nothing about myself - This discussion i had won before making even my first post, and each subsequent post of you just made my position stronger. It was fun, in a wicked way. Or, as Dementia said: "Your stupidity is nothing less than staggering."
Well, it was amusing while it lasted.
Anything to appeal? Another Ad Hominem to add? Want to try an Ad Baculum, maybe?
[Edits] Corrected grammar and sintax. Removed a small paragraph to see if he bites and tries THAT on me. Some other things of no consequence.
..............
