|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:08 pm
I'm not as fancy as the rest of those who make these fallacy threads, so it's not going to be as formal and pretty like the others. I'm just that lazy.
The fallacy: Knowing someone or being closely related to someone who is certified or experienced in a certain field of knowledge or ability does not validate a point. There is no factual basis, and no relevant information has been added to the situation.
The restatement: G knows x about q. P knows G. P thusly knows x about q.
This is false. I know it's basic, but people use it all the time. Example John: You're putting way too much gas into that pressurized metal container, Suzy. Maybe you should put out your cigarette, too.
Suzy: John, please. My dad is a rocket scientist and my mom owns a gas station. My older brother took a course in thermal physics, and I pretended to pay attention in a science class once in college. I know what I'm doing.
John: Oh, okay. That makes sense.
Pressurized Metal Container: -explodes and kills them both- Stay away from this one. It's just ridiculous.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:52 am
Person G has disease x, and person P is the son/daughter of person G.
Therefore it is more likely for person P to have disease x then person H, who has no disease x in his/her family background.
Do you deny this statement as a valid one? Or do you admit there are exceptions to this rule?
Suzy: I have decided not to get myself checked for cancer.
John: Suzy, please. Your entire family has experienced cancer and has died from it. Take the example of both your parents, whose experience with cancer led them to die young and they never got themselves checked for the cancer, and doing so could of saved their lives.
John: That makes absolutely no sense. I'am not going to get checked for cancer.
Cancer: -multiplies and kills Suzy the next day-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:35 pm
Salotus Person G has disease x, and person P is the son/daughter of person G. Therefore it is more likely for person P to have disease x then person H, who has no disease x in his/her family background. Do you deny this statement as a valid one? Or do you admit there are exceptions to this rule? Suzy: I have decided not to get myself checked for cancer.
John: Suzy, please. Your entire family has experienced cancer and has died from it. Take the example of both your parents, whose experience with cancer led them to die young and they never got themselves checked for the cancer, and doing so could of saved their lives.
John: That makes absolutely no sense. I'am not going to get checked for cancer.
Cancer: -multiplies and kills Suzy the next day-That's not associated knowledge, its genetics. This is more like it: Suzy: I'm getting a mammogram. John: I don't think you need one, my dad's a doctor and I look at boobs all of the time and your boobs look normal to me. Suzy: Screw you, I'm not getting cancer. Cancer: -is detected and removed before it spreads-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:53 pm
Salotus Person G has disease x, and person P is the son/daughter of person G. Therefore it is more likely for person P to have disease x then person H, who has no disease x in his/her family background. Do you deny this statement as a valid one? Or do you admit there are exceptions to this rule? Suzy: I have decided not to get myself checked for cancer.
John: Suzy, please. Your entire family has experienced cancer and has died from it. Take the example of both your parents, whose experience with cancer led them to die young and they never got themselves checked for the cancer, and doing so could of saved their lives.
John: That makes absolutely no sense. I'am not going to get checked for cancer.
Cancer: -multiplies and kills Suzy the next day-Wow. Not to be mean or anything here, but you're an idiot. o.o; Associated knowledge and associated cancer aren't really the same thing at all... and I'm not sure how someone can relate the two. My post is a little delayed for a response, but I've been offline for quite some time. Then I come back to see someone has marred my thread with such an unrelated post. Additionally, John says that he doesn't want to get checked for cancer, when it was Suzy that was originally the problem case. "Could of" is not a phrase, and punctuation is your friend. Accidie That's not associated knowledge, its genetics. This is more like it: Suzy: I'm getting a mammogram. John: I don't think you need one, my dad's a doctor and I look at boobs all of the time and your boobs look normal to me. Suzy: Screw you, I'm not getting cancer. Cancer: -is detected and removed before it spreads- I thank you for clearing this matter up for me in my absence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
