Jump to content
The Education Forum
Glenn Nall

Some JFK Debate Traps (see if you recognize anyone)

Recommended Posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

(here's a fun one: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com )

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.

ergo decedo – where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.

(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.

Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognize all of these as having been used by one LNer in particular.

Circular cause and consequence is quite common in this person's arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, yes, it was in part a joke referring to a particular LNer who is well known for his terrible debate skills, avoidance techniques and personal affronts, BUT i named it "Some JFK Debate Traps" in admission of the fact that these are fallacies we all should watch ourselves for.

You seem to defend Mr Von Pein pretty rigorously. Does he need defending? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example of Assuming the Conclusion:

"The fact that Oswald left the TSBD shortly after the assassination is evidence that he killed JFK."

This statement is possibly true only if Oswald is tried and convicted of JFK's murder -- i.e., if his guilt is established.

A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt. Once Oswald's guilt, however absurdly, is assumed, one can postulate any "evidence" as pointing toward his guilt. The law doesn't work that way. Evidence is used to establish guilt. The certain poster in question shouts, "evidence!" But all this certain poster is doing is assuming Oswald did it and then taking every scrap of allegation, calling it "evidence", and using it to nail Oswald. Even Pontius Pilate was more logical than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Steve. These apply to more than one person. I edited the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example of Assuming the Conclusion:

"The fact that Oswald left the TSBD shortly after the assassination is evidence that he killed JFK."

This statement is possibly true only if Oswald is tried and convicted of JFK's murder -- i.e., if his guilt is established.

A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt. Once Oswald's guilt, however absurdly, is assumed, one can postulate any "evidence" as pointing toward his guilt. The law doesn't work that way. Evidence is used to establish guilt. The certain poster in question shouts, "evidence!" But all this certain poster is doing is assuming Oswald did it and then taking every scrap of allegation, calling it "evidence", and using it to nail Oswald. Even Pontius Pilate was more logical than that.

We know Harvey was short because Witness X said he was 4' 6".

We know Lee was in X place because Harvey was in Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Steve. These apply to more than one person. I edited the title.

i think i said that as well, Kathy. If you look at my last post you'll see that.

in any case, the recognition is pretty obvious.

thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Steve. These apply to more than one person. I edited the title.

explain to me how "Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?" doesn't require editing, but mine does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I thought the Why does DVP Rattle Cages was asking why he affects you folks so much. This thread is about how he argues, supposedly. Problem is, we have several who argue this way, and I don't think anyone should be singled out.

He's a member here, too. I don't give a hang if he is an LN or where he works or what anyone else here does, either. I am just concerned about how members conduct themselves on this Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt. Once Oswald's guilt, however absurdly, is assumed, one can postulate any "evidence" as pointing toward his guilt. The law doesn't work that way. Evidence is used to establish guilt. The certain poster in question shouts, "evidence!" But all this certain poster is doing is assuming Oswald did it and then taking every scrap of allegation, calling it "evidence", and using it to nail Oswald. Even Pontius Pilate was more logical than that.

It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?

Your highbrow legalistic posts are getting more "absurd" and bizarre and hard to follow by the day.

And, considering the amount of evidence that exists against Mr. Oswald, this statement by Jon G. Tidd is downright hysterical....

"A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt."

In other words, Jon thinks it's "absurd" to actually rely on the evidence, because, according to Jon, it's not REALLY "evidence" at all because it was never introduced into a courtroom. So, I guess we have to call it something else, or we should just ignore it altogether until it finds its way into a courtroom, which Jon knows can never happen because the defendant is dead.

Wow. Thanks for that lesson in logic, Jon.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's "absurd" only if you are seeking the truth, to start with your conclusion and then discard any evidence that doesn't point to your conclusion.

When seeking the truth, one must examine the evidence. Since none of us is perfectly objective, no matter how hard we try to be, we have a tendency to apply weight to the evidence, and to some more than others.

But when seeking the truth, one certainly does NOT begin with a conclusion and then attempt to work backwards. If you think you already know the answer before you start, you're not going to have much objectivity. A lack of objectivity on the part of a jury can cause a mistrial, and if a lack of partiality is evident in a certain geographic region, at the very least a change of venue can be granted in an attempt to find a more impartial jury.

If you're just seeking a conviction, you might start with a conclusion and work backwards. But if you're seeking the truth, you try to start with an open mind and see where the evidence leads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when seeking the truth, one certainly does NOT begin with a conclusion and then attempt to work backwards.

And what makes you think I've done anything of the kind?

Do you think I woke up one morning and out of a clear blue sky said to myself -- Even though I haven't studied one bit of evidence in the JFK case, I think I'll start up a bunch of Internet blogs saying that Oswald was guilty. ??

Is that how you think I arrived at my opinion about LHO's guilt, Mr. Knight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?

Not at all.

But it is absurd to ignore the indicators of a frame when you are dealing with a man who claimed to be framed by a police force and DA's now infamous for the number of innocent people they locked up with planted evidence, falsified statements,what is known here as "police verbals", rigged juries, terrified defense counsels and crooked judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?

Not at all.

But it is absurd to ignore the indicators of a frame when you are dealing with a man who claimed to be framed by a police force and DA's now infamous for the number of innocent people they locked up with planted evidence, falsified statements,what is known here as "police verbals", rigged juries, terrified defense counsels and crooked judges.

How did that evil DPD force get Oswald to act so guilty and to tell so many lies?

Or did the DPD coerce Oswald to be part of his own frame-up? (Boy, they were good, weren't they?)

And you're not going to sit there and tell me you DON'T think Oswald acted "guilty" in the movie theater, are you Greg?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...