conversational terrorism: are you guilty?

lol, yes... moreso in real life though.

OOOH I LOVE THIS SITE! We went over various fallacies in class one day and I promptly forgot them. My mom is bipolar(always happy, sad, or angry,[emotion!=logic]), and I'm constantly trying to formulate why what she said was wrong. Unfortunately, pretty much every conversation I have with her involves her using 'conversational terrorism,' and I think its beginning to rub off on me, unfortunately.

My flawless logic is usually enough to make people see the errors of their ways, and if that doesn't work, I can just abuse them until they cry or give up. I never lose debates, but then again I pick and chose very carefully before getting into them. The debate's already won before I start voicing my points, the posting or arguing of the subject at hand is merely a formality where my position is confirmed to be the correct one.

I do a lot of those things. I guess my evil stepdad rubbed off on me after putting up with eleven years of his abuse. I don't realize I've done it until it's too late, of course.

I dunno... some of those aren't too bad. Especially the ones that involving shifting the focus of a conversation or sticking on seemingly small points. Sometimes either of these strategies can be incredibly useful in seeking mutual understanding or something like that.

Anyway, in debates I always just try to out prepare the other guy or gal. Bury them under a sea of facts and arguments. After you pummel them into the ground, steal the thunder from thier counter-arguments with counter-counter-arguments. By the time the shock wears off you've already won. (Oddly enough this is the same strategy that one of America's greatest pure politicians, LBJ, often used.)

Aristotle said all this stuff more simply and with better organization.

And much of his language is preserved in modern definitions of conversational fallacies. Simply put, he came up with this stuff.

Heidger... Heidger was a boozy beggar
That could drink you under the table!

"I think therefore I am" is Descartes, man. :P

I'm not claiming to be well-versed in Aristotle's work by any means. I have only ever read Nicomachean Ethics (studying philosophy) and I do not see Aristotle utilizing any of these methods. Would you elaborate?

 

As a student I hate conversational terrorism. It's an annoying obstacles that impedes discourse so significantly. I am actually quite tired of it. Moral relativism is the worst - regardless of it's form. "Well, that's your opinion" is my absolute favourite. Dare I say, I usually get that from those who disagree with my views on spirituality and religion (I am neither religious nor spiritual). My views tend not to be accepted to kindly (they do not bear any form of discrimination though. I want to make that clear. I am by no means whatsoever implying or promoting discrimination. I am very opposed to discrimination) regarding religion and spirituality being that I reject them on the basis of science. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure I have used it online. I'm also sure that it has been used against me online at least once.

I will admit I am fully guilty of doing it. But I really do try not to. Sorry to sound like a broken record here but I am sick of moral relativism. "Well that's your opinion", "Yeah, but it's worse in *insert situation/place/object/etc here*"...

 

I hate, hate, hate it! Especially normative moral relativism: "but that's not how things work" or "but people don't think like you". Drives me nuts. It is a really annoying attempt to refute an argument about how something ought to be simply by stating how it is.