Fun talk:Argument from oh bloody hell that was years ago

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this really a logical fallacy? First it is basically defends a logical fallacy, a red herring, and second of all it is fallacious to assume someone's opinions aren't transitive. - π 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And is there a better name for it than "oh bloody hell that was years ago"? Tetronian you're clueless 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I motion for delete, it is not a proper fallacy and in fact the argument against might be one itself. - π 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. I would like to hear the creator of this article's take on this first though. Tetronian you're clueless 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I motion either for delete or, as an alternative, a move to fun. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fun is not bad, we have a few funspace logical fallacies. I should collate them one day. - π 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
True, although I think Mustex won't take too kindly to the fact that we considered his article on a fallacy to be a fallacy. Tetronian you're clueless 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to retort: so? - π 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I, personally, think this article is perfect for the funspace. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We could make it fun by filling it full of stupid quotes, that people are embarrassed by. - π 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In that case, funspace sounds fine. Tetronian you're clueless 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Concur with deletion. This seems more like an enabler of ad hominem more than anything. Corry 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking, but couldn't work out how to say it. It looks like some guy trying to find an excuse on why he is allowed to poison the well. - π 02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
When I edited it shortly after creation I was tempted to start this delete discussion. I don't see any point in moving it to fun:. In absentia 01:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting this, I was kind of expecting the name to be changed to something shorter, but this is a case where either end of the spectrum would be a logical fallacy (on the one hand, assuming that people never change their minds is stupid, but on the other hand assuming that public figures, such as the BNP, did change their minds just because they haven't repeated something offensive in a long time is a fallacy). I would not, however, object to moving it to fun, and filling it with embarassing quotes (possibly some by coughlan666). Also, I'd like to note that this fallacy would be most prominent when a prominent figure stops commenting on an issue, but never distances himself from what he's previously said (for instance, that guy in congress who used to be in the KKK wouldn't qualify, because he's heavily condemned racism, AND supported Civil Rights legislation)--Mustex 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You see the problem with that is it is not a logical fallacy as such. Logical fallacies are broad or recurring breakdowns in logic, not someone not saying something. - π 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, makes sense, but I still think the coughlan video is funny enough to inspire a fun page.--Mustex 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm half way though, I really like the video and it's possibly worth expanding coughlan666 as an actual entry and adding this sort of thing. After all, we don't have PEARL as a separate article but as a section in Thunderf00t's article. And I'm not adverse to having individual articles on Youtbers as, basically, what is RW for if not to catalog stuff that Wikipedia won't, can't and shouldn't? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I certainly enjoyed that vid. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Could this not be a logical fallacy? The basic upshot is that people disregard the sayings, and perhaps the actions, of people simply because they happened a long time ago. It is a fallacy to assume that someone has changed purely because of time elapsed. If I claimed ten years ago that abortionists should be killed, I would surely have to prove that my position has since changed, either through actions or words. Granted we can make certain assumptions of change based on the age of the person in question, but in general it's a fallacy to assume that extreme views espoused by adults are guaranteed to have changed over time.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a fallacy used both ways. You really want to know about what that person thinks now. If there's no indication that they've changed their mind, quoting from years ago is fine. If they have stated that their opinion has changed, it's equally fallacious to hold them to what they said. After all, circumstances may have been different, or they may have since apologised or they may have really changed their minds. It's also related to the Historian's Fallacy of judging the past by our own standards, so perhaps this can be mentioned if we have an article on that. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it could be an interesting thing to write-up. I'm sure we'd have no trouble finding examples of quote mining being done with no regard to subsequent changes in the position of a person. Thanks for the reminder of Historian's Fallacy. That's a good one, but I didn't really know it had a name.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)