RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Frankenstein fallacy

Frankenstein fallacy | Result: Deleted

Frankenstein fallacy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Third Aneris special on this page! Bad article about a local neologism created by Aneris to prop up his other bad articles about his favoured neologisms. If this thing has a proper name put it there, if not kill it until someone comes up with an article that's an improvement on a red link David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
2. He's also trying to get it onto TVTropes. He's definitely on some kind of... weird mission. Dendlai (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
3. I don't really know who Aneris is or why there seems to be conflict surrounding him (care to enlighten me?), but just for the sake of your discussion: he's also furthered his neologism on Slymepit, here. I'm moving for deletion since the main problem with this fallacy - aside from it not having been fleshed out even to the point of properly defining itself - is that the fallacy itself is literally an invention, and the article made by the "inventor" - meaning that we will never find any sources for our article, except for ones from other pages, looping back to Aneris. Though I suppose if the article was made into a masterly exposition on it, I'd reconsider. But for now? Meh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   He appears to be a fan of Scott Alexander here to show us the error of his ways. When he describes himself as "left-liberal", that's the sense he appears to mean it in, i.e. about what Gamergate mean when they say the same - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   The Slymepit? Oh, my. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   A Slymepitter indeed. Though the posts are simply post-LessWrong jargon. So, the MRA end of the Rationalist subculture - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

4. This has gone nowhere other than to circle the drain. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
5. If not found useful, it can be deleted. I personally don't care. What is useful is not a name, or an entry, but spotting the fallacious use. I'm not poorer when it is deleted, go ahead (count my vote always as delete in case of doubt). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
6. There's no such animal.---Mona- (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
7. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Neologism, yes. Useful concept, also yes. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Again, if the article is fleshed out in a qualitative and quantitative sense, and the fallacy istelf is demonstrably novel in what it describes, then I'm all for keeping it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   The problem here is that the title is bad, and the text is also bad. Neither is worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   You may not like it, which is okay, but I don't see how it's "bad". It explains the concept, is neutral, etc. What's "bad" about it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

3. I see no reason to delete this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

   Mr. Gerard cites ideological reasons, namely that he (falsely) believes that it is connected to LessWrong (which for a reason known only to Mr. Gerard is very bad). I haven't the faintest idea whether what he says about LessWrong is true, but his reasons aren't rational. Orthodox rationality holds that a statement is independent from the person saying it. The ad hominem is therefore valid as a rhetorical device only, but not always a rational one. It can persuade an audience that a person is unreliable and thus their information is likely unreliable, too. That's why it was fashionable in the Days of Yore, but is today typically a fallacy since information can be independently checked and there is no need to trust or like someone. In addition, I have nothing to do with the LessWrong site, never introduced the fallacy there (for the excellent reason that I don't frequent that site) and since I've found it missing here, I simply proposed it as a new idea. I also wrote then on it's talk page: "I'm not mad when the established people don't find this one useful or fitting, but I thought I propose it." David Gerard used these various delete instances as a way to propagate falsehoods about me and to make the usual histrionic specatcle typical for SJWs to achieve a chilling effect. This is of course very different from "constructive dialogue" as falsely asserted the front page. But I recognize that it's Mr. Gerard's wiki that adheres to the SPOV GPOV, therefore the article should be deleted. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat

1. There's nothing wrong with us making neologisms, but they really ought to be evidenced. This one isn't, yet. Bicycle^wheel 23:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   But there is the issue of stubs, and a lot of wacky bullsit all from the same editor. For now, it seems to me we should collect all the obscure and new fallacies into one article. Then give them their own page when and if the text on that fallacy grows so large that it's indicated.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, a whole lot of ill-thought-out stubs is a bad thing. I like your list idea. Bicycle^wheel 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2. We can SJW the hell out of this by filling it to the brim with those horrible "dish ish sexist but dish ishn't 'cause ahm a hypercrit" comics! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 21:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)