Essay talk:New informal fallacies

BROKEN TELEPHONE: If you're struggling to communicate your own ideas, I don't know how you expect others to understand you, let alone accept the beliefs. So yep, this is certainly annoying. It's also an inappropriate appeal to authority to quote such a disreputable 'society'.

CONTEXT: I'll add my two-cents. It *is* helpful to read something before you critique it. This helps to avoid blind support/opposition. However, if you dispute someone's characterisation, unless it's immediately obvious that they're full of shit (e.g. claiming that 1 + 1 is not 2), the onus is on you to explain why it's wrong. So person 1 ought to explain, with evidence, why the characterisation is a bad one. The burden then shifts back to the skeptic to refute the evidence. So this is really an example of people complaining about "context", while failing to explain how it makes sense in any other context.

In the case of Peterson, you can think he's an asshole without reading 12 Rules For Life; for instance, because of his reactionary social attitudes.

My op. And I oop. Rationalissimo (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)