Fallacy problem

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2006-09-05 06:31pm

A discussion in another forum, I came aross this post.

I don't think that any of us got far enough into the post to get interested. The truth should not take that much explaining! Keep it concise or you lose by default!

What kind of bullshit/Fallacy is this??
In short this was a discussion of the validity of Jesus.
The fundi did a cut and copy from a website probably.
And anti-fundi counter pointed his whole post.

If you like I would be more then happy to post the entire counter post from the ant-fundi.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-05 06:40pm

Its called, "trying to set unfavorable rules". I imagine the actual fallacy would be a red herring. Conciseness and validity have nothing to do with each other.

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2006-09-05 06:49pm

I think it was kinda funny that he would say that b/c The fundi took the time to post what he may of thought as the I win you lose post, but only to be counter pointed with back up valided references.

That made me think that what he ( the fundi ) posted was just something he cut and copied from a pro-jesus website.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-05 06:56pm

He's desperate for any kind of victory so he'll demand rules from you that he won't impose on himself.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-09-05 07:26pm

The truth should not take that much explaining is an outright lie.

Quantum mechanics any one?

They also are trying to set certain rules so only they are allowed to give evidence. Its like a news interview where both sides are supposed to be given time to air their grievances, but one side gets cut off after introducing themselves while the other gets time to outline their points.

This reminds me of a debate I had once on SB.com where a moron having his points shot down as logical fallacies then promptly turned around and said whats wrong with my argument but you can't just use the logical fallacies to shoot it down.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-09-05 07:41pm

I'm in shock. A Christian fundamentalist refusing to read anything beyond blurb-size that doesn't reinforce his worldview? Inconceivable!

Seriously though, unless the "anti-fundie" was posting massive blocks of text without paragraph breaks or being deliberately Shakespearian in his wording, he doesn't have to do shit. Even then, he can only be expected to clean up his post.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-05 08:23pm

It's like reverse oversimplification; just because it's too complicated for him doesn't mean it's more complicated than it needs to be.

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2006-09-08 04:03pm

What kind of debate tactic would this be consider if not at all.

If Joe Blow makes a claim, the burden of proof is for him to back it up.
Once Joe backs up his claim. Jane Doe engages in a counter argument breaking it down point for point, with added references to boot.

Joe Blow claims that Jane's references, hold no grounds and claims that he has no intentions to rebuttal Jane's counter arguments.

To put it simply; Joe claims victory with out counter pointing Jane's arguments on the grounds that Jane's references are no good.

The only reason Joe says that Jane's references are not good is because they only contain opinions not real facts.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-09-08 07:52pm

If Janes references are only opinions, then its true and Joe may have a point. However if the "opinions" are backed up my arguments or are actually observed facts, then Joe is just being dishonest. Its not so much a fallacy as just outright lying.

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2006-09-08 08:48pm

What if the debate is about the existence of Jesus. What reliable source of references can one use to prove Jesus did not exits.?

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2006-09-08 08:51pm

vargo wrote:What if the debate is about the existence of Jesus. What reliable source of references can one use to prove Jesus did not exist.?

I guess this begs the question.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-09-08 09:05pm

vargo wrote:What if the debate is about the existence of Jesus. What reliable source of references can one use to prove Jesus did not exits.?

What reliable source of reference can one use to prove Jesus did exist?

Though to answer the above- the lack of any record which confirms the events of his ministry, especially the big ones, like the quake and 3 hour darkness.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-09 03:22pm

vargo wrote:What if the debate is about the existence of Jesus. What reliable source of references can one use to prove Jesus did not exits.?

None, since its impossible to prove anything does not exist. The burden of proof is always on the one claiming something or someone does exist. The lack of evidence for its existance is the evidence that it doesn't exist.

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2006-09-13 02:01pm

vargo wrote:
I don't think that any of us got far enough into the post to get interested. The truth should not take that much explaining! Keep it concise or you lose by default!

Among other fallacies, it's Begging the Question/circular logic.

P1 -- True things do not require lengthy explanation.
P2 -- Your explanation was lengthy.
--------------------------------------------------
C: Therefore, your lengthy explanation is not truthful.

Put another way:

You: Why am I not speaking the truth?

Him: Because your argument is too long-winded.

You: But what does "length" have to do with the truthfulness of my explanation?

Him: Because truthful explanations are concise.

It could further qualify as a false dilemma: "Either an explanation is concise, or it isn't truthful." There is no such dichotomy between truthful statements and the lengths to which one might go to explain them.

He's also probably stealing concepts, specifically Ockham's. Concision is good inasmuch as the best explanation makes sense of the facts at hand without adding unnecessary terms. However, extraneous terms and apparent verbosity aren't synonymous, are they?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-13 02:03pm

Besides, it is quite possible for an explanation to be very long yet still concise, in the sense that it is only as long as it needs to be. Long-windedness normally implies that someone is inflating 10 seconds worth of ideas into 10 minutes of oratory, whereas someone could talk for 2 hours and not be long-winded at all if he's got a lot to say.