Talk:Appeal to shame

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attribution[edit]

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Argument_From_Intimidation http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Pride The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Shame (ding ding ding) Shame (ding) Shame (ding)[edit]

Can we get that image somewhere into the article? Or something that achieves the same? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This? Go to Special:Upload and add it, if you want. :P FuzzyCatPotato of the Ill-bred Andrew Schlaflys (talk/stalk) 19:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the image copyrighted? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Find out. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It does not seem to work. But maybe this is rather due to my own incompetence... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This entire wiki[edit]

This entire wiki falls under this fallacy. "Crank" and "woo-woo" used everywhere. I found it incredibly ironic that there was an article for it here.— Unsigned, by: 72.128.73.234 / talk / contribs 01:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally agree. That said, the wiki's bad language doesn't invalidate its points. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The irony doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the rest of the content fallacious. It's just so pervasive that it's very difficult to take your entire site as anything but juvenile giggling, and therefore extremely suspect to any number of other fallacies. It's so full of pointless spite that I'm usually repulsed enough by its language to send a donation to the Church of Scientology by the time I leave. Just on the off chance that it will help keep the editors in a perpetual state of ineffective rage and away from any real debate. You can imagine that I tend to avoid any links here.
Seriously, for whoever is reading, if anyone gives a fuck about actually promoting the idea that admitting that you don't know is ok, that making shit up to save face is not, I would be embarrassed to contribute to this site - by resorting to personal attacks you guys are making it more difficult to promote rationalism, not less. Promoting shame is also particularly ineffective diplomacy, as people tend to hold on to their self-respect regardless of how you might try to attack their humanity. This will be my last comment, was just curious to see if I had been removed. 69.81.112.3 (talk)
Personally I'm not seeing the pervasive "juvenile giggling". Calling cranks cranks is not being a meanie; it's accurately describing them. "Personal attack" is a vague term, but it tends to mean ad hominem, which is when you respond to an argument with attacks on irrelevant personal qualities, e.g. "John Doe's tax proposal is bad because he's ugly." I can't of course vouch for every word on the site, and I'm sure there are lots of improvements to be made. Do you have specific suggestions? --Ymir (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)