Talk:Argumentum ad nauseam

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] GGGaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRRRR Fuck

"The creation-evolution debate is a debate about worldviews." I hate this one the most because NO IT ISN'T. Acei9 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] cut

"**Note: Above examples are extremely biased and not very professionally done for a site named "Rational Wiki" I request that someone please revise this article. I cannot do it myself as I do not have the time to write an adequate definition and provide examples for the logical fallacy "Ad nauseam"" cut by SusanG Toast

02:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

[edit] Other examples

There are a few points repeated ad nauseam but would be considered "rational". Stuff like "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine" or "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour" and particularly "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Again, given the definition that they're short and oft-repeated soundbites, these certainly qualify. There are a lot of nuances and reasonings behind these phrases, but many people are happy just to cite them and bugger off thinking that their work is done easy evangelism style. I'd add them but figured it'd be best to bring it up here first. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] I tell you three times, I seen it only once

The "tell you three times" line refers to an obscure feature of the propositional calculus, in which the same wff is repeated three times making it true. Not the namey stuff either, dig deeper. Thanks from me and the logical Rev. P:D TheLastWordSword (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools