this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
967 points (98.9% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

32298 readers
3808 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.

So you've Motte-and-Baillied your way from "gliders were used to attack small villages" to "gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets" to "a para-glider was referenced in this article". Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.

There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.

You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had "so many logical fallacies" in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase "logical fallacy" like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.

If you actually think that I'm not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don't actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.

That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.

Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it's true; you can't just declare it to be true.

What news agencies do you trust?

As someone who has repeatedly talked about "reading critically" you should probably know that it's not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the article's biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread.

1. Ad Hominem

Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.

Quote:

“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

Formal Logic:

  (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)
  Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.


2. Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.

Quote:

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

Formal Logic:

  (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.


3. Motte and Bailey

Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.

Quote:

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

Formal Logic:

  Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”
  You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”
  Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”
  Then argue:
  ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P

It's a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!


4. Fallacy Fallacy

Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.

Quote:

“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’...”

Formal Logic:

  (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)
  Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).


5. Begging the Question

Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.

Quote (from your rebuttal):

“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”

Formal Logic:

  (You assume: ¬P)
  Then argue: ¬P
  \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]

You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.


6. Poisoning the Well

Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.

Quote:

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

Formal Logic:

  Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)

This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.

edit: fixing formatting

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Quote: “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.” Formal Logic:   (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)   Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

Wrong, that is not the argument I made: strawman fallacy.

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” Formal Logic:   (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

Again, not the argument I made: strawman fallacy

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.” Formal Logic:   Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”   You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”   Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”   Then argue:   ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P

Third time: not the argument made, strawman fallacy.

“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…” Formal Logic:   (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)   Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

lol ok. So now you care about fallacy fallacy? hypocrite.

Quote (from your rebuttal): “Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…” Formal Logic:   (You assume: ¬P)   Then argue: ¬P   [where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”] You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.

Not remotely the argument made, not even close: massive fucking strawman, again.

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.” Formal Logic:   Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)

For the fifth fucking time: not the argument: strawman

Seems like literally all you can do is strawman.