Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 03:00, 30 April 2012 by Pimobile (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Conservapedia Forum
  1. "Socialist" Spanish soccer team (14:05, 17 Sep 2016)
  2. What if CP gets a lot of its data from RW...? (13:35, 5 Jun 2013)
  3. Conservapedia ruined my life (16:08, 21 Apr 2013)
  4. I think karjou likes star wars and dr who. (22:49, 12 Mar 2013)
  5. Making Karajou funny, part duh (09:45, 16 Oct 2012)
  6. My impending ban from Conservapedia (09:54, 30 Aug 2012)
  7. Andy on Twitter (01:45, 23 Aug 2012)
  8. Andy's Psychological Well-being (22:59, 25 Jun 2012)
  9. 2010 Conservapedia Day Awards (08:26, 3 Apr 2012)
  10. Captioning Kenny-style (07:09, 6 Dec 2011)

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard


Maratrean's "new" fallacy

Maratrean's "Name-a-Fallacy"img sounds remarkably similar to the the Argument from fallacy which creationist Philip J. Rayment (and other creationists I might add) are far more guilty than atheists. He is probably just trolling again. AceModerator 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. But if it's the same thing, why can't he just USE THE STANDARD NAME FOR IT, rather than making something up? I just noticed he's spammed the same crap on some other websites too (asshole of knowledge, MerkinWiki, Maraspam wiki). It's like an idea pops into his head (did his Goddess tell him) and then he has to spam it on as many websites as he can. Where does he get the time to do all this shit? Obviously "becoming the next Steve Jobs" isn't panning out for him. SteveQuigibo (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously its part of becoming the next steve jobs. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It's part of being a spiteful mentally ill crank. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
We've already got this one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't really help the case when the single cited example on the RW article is a questionable (at best) one regarding The God Delusion. Q0 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Ace, it's bad enough that Maratrean posts here. Do we have to track his behavior elsewhere? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, someone else wrote the WIGO. I just commented it. AceModerator 00:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody better go and change Maratrean's copyrighted work! RachelW (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"John Roc"'s edit showed that he didn't understand the issue. See the talk page. So Karajou was right to revert him (as to then banning him, I am not endorsing that.) Also, nice to see that some people here have taken the idea seriously - LX created Catchy fallacy name fallacy. Which is the same thing, just under the name some LessWrongian cooked up. I don't care about that, a name is a name. The concept is original to me, in the sense that I thought it up unaided, but it is obvious enough that it is surely not original to the world - that LessWrongian had the same idea before me, and I'm sure he's not the first to ever think of it either. (((Zack Martin))) 09:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? I think that John understood it just fine. It's not wrong to point out that someone's argument is a logical fallacy, if it is indeed a logical fallacy. The "atheist" in your "example" didn't say anything about the overall argument of God's existence, only that the particular argument you made was a clear case of special pleading. Maybe you're just tired of people pointing out the various ways you abuse logic and want a nice, easy comeback to throw at them!
And no, I'm not defending him just because he was banned for being me. I seem to REALLY get around CP these days, don't I? RachelW (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a strawman. <=== See I did it. Maybe you did commit one, maybe you didn't, but without any explanation of why I think you did, it's really hard to say. If I gave you some explanation of why I think that, it'd be far easier to evaluate if I'm right or not. That's the point. John Roc didn't get the point. But some people here seem to get it (ListenerX, possibly David Gerard, Syndicalism). (((Zack Martin))) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You know, I don't think you realize what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a statement that uses logic improperly. Pointing out someone else's logical errors is not a fallacy in itself, and the atheist in your example did not commit a fallacy by correctly pointing out that your argument was special pleading. If the Christian in your example needed an explanation about what "special pleading" is, he should've asked, but the only one committing a logical fallacy here is the one who thinks that everything has to be created, except for his favorite diety. RachelW (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware of the distinction between formal and informal fallacies? "P implies Q, Q, therefore P" is a formal fallacy because it misuses logic. Ad hominems are informal fallacies - they don't abuse logic, but they are wrong for other reasons. Obviously the fallacy at issue here is informal rather than formal. (((Zack Martin))) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
So explain to me again how correctly pointing out the use of a logical fallacy is itself fallacious? I highly doubt that failing to explain one's argument fully counts as a failure of logic. And I fail to see why a term invented by one poster on Less Wrong and mentioned on one blog, here and CP needs an article of its own. RachelW (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Bingo. It's hokum. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You can be correct in your conclusion but still fallacious in your arguments. An argument by assertion is still a fallacy even if your conclusion is right. "failing to explain one's argument fully counts" is not necessarily a failure of logic (especially when one is willing to explain it more when challenged), but if one scarcely explains it at all, and will not expand when challenged, how is that different from an argument by assertion? (((Zack Martin))) 08:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
But of course that didn't happen in your little article, did it? Your Christian makes a textbook logical fallacy, the atheist correctly points it out, and BOOM, fallacy on his part. Besides, if it's an argument by assertion, then we certainly don't need your article anymore, do we? RachelW (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools