Greg
@Greg@lemmy.ca
Mastodon: @greg@clar.ke
- Comment on Man, I hate it when this happens! 4 days ago:
It’s amazing how relatable ancient art can be
- Comment on Ads when you’re pumping gas 4 weeks ago:
That sounds frustrating, you should buy a pair or Ray Ban sunglasses to reduce the glare from the ad screens. Never hide - Ray Ban.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 5 weeks ago:
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© = 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.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 5 weeks ago:
Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith. You made a comment that implied that paragliders were not used to attack villagers in your initial post. That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down. To be clear, you can agree that paragliders were used to attack villager AND be against the IDFs genocide in Gaza. Don’t make the truth the enemy when it’s inconvenient.
What news agencies do you trust?
- Comment on Don't Look Up 5 weeks ago:
If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies. Check out Ground News if you’re interested in that kind of thing.
propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble. Critically read articles, especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
But back to my original point before this side track, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 5 weeks ago:
The paragliders were used to attack Israeli military bases.
You made this comment implying that paragliders were not used to attack civilian targets. Which is not true and was very easy to verify. I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.
But back to my original point, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets. This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.
- Comment on why does alcohol stop my back pain but medicine doesn't? 5 weeks ago:
Alcohol is a solution
- Comment on Don't Look Up 5 weeks ago:
Paragliders were also used to attack civilian targets like Kfar Aza. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67065205
- Comment on Scientists created contact lenses that make farts visible 5 weeks ago:
t
- Comment on Don't Look Up 5 weeks ago:
To be fair this did happen 10 after the October 7 attacks where paragliders attacked small village’s
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
I hope some US universities open up campuses in Canada and Mexico
- Comment on Let's play this game again 1 month ago:
You can only make things worse
- Comment on Let's play this game again 1 month ago:
Super strength
- Comment on A person born in 2015 is 20 years old 1 month ago:
Nah, they’re dead
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
How old was this poor girl? Why would the parents want to do this?
- Comment on sus 2 months ago:
Like a walrus
- Submitted 3 months ago to [deleted] | 27 comments
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
I’m English born, grew up in Australia, and I am now a naturalized Canadian. If someone said they were British I wouldn’t think they were referring to ethnicity. The US has a unique and unhealthy perspective on ethnicity and race. I hope that a naturalized immigrant to the UK would consider themselves British.
- Comment on Be honest and tell us what you see 3 months ago:
Now I can’t unsee it!
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
I am too the real Nicole!
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
He actually got a job in the hospital! He was in the right place at the right time and while he doesn’t technically have the credentials because he didn’t study medicine, he’s going to learn on the job. He’s now their Chief Anesthetist
- Submitted 3 months ago to [deleted] | 8 comments
- Comment on Call Them. Replace Them. 3 months ago:
Cheers! I work in tech and don’t know many US politicians so I read that as “A.I. Green” 🤖🟩
- Comment on Call Them. Replace Them. 3 months ago:
This post has about as much context as a map drawn by a blindfolded pirate. What is this all about?
- Comment on Like Trump says that the cartels have invaded Canada wouldn't they have to pass through the US, avoid checkpoint, border control on both sides and many other things? So Canada can only blame the US? 3 months ago:
That’s way too logical for a Donald rant
- Comment on answer me, gregory 3 months ago:
You can’t spell egregious without Greg
- Comment on answer me, gregory 3 months ago:
I didn’t expect to see targeted content on Lemmy
- Comment on I love the future. 4 months ago:
Ugh, I was hopeful that this wasn’t true but unfortunately you are correct. Thanks for the link.
- Comment on I love the future. 4 months ago:
Oh yes, you are correct. “ReTruths” should have given it away 🤦♂️
- Comment on I love the future. 4 months ago:
Kash Patel’s twitter handle is Kash_Patel.
