An Important Website for PoFo Members to Review - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15171553
I found this website on logical fallacies. I figured that perhaps PoFo members might find this website useful to avoid falling into any of the logical fallacies when constructing an argument to make your case on various political issues here on the website. Plus, I am sure some could use the website to call out the logical fallacies of others when their arguments fall under any of the fallacies listed on this website. You can click on the various graphic icon buttons associated with each fallacy to get a more in depth explanation of that specific fallacy. Here is the link: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ .

Another interesting website based on cognitive biases to review when constructing an argument is or when reading arguments presented by others: https://yourbias.is/

I especially like this one:

Image
#15171558
I have studied every cognitive bias and logical fallacy in existed for the last three years and am impervious to them!

A lot of media and especially Murdoch Media is not even about need but character assassination based in utter fabrication which is like an extreme use of this. They frame the character of public persons in the worst light when they don't work for Ruperts economic or ideological ends.
So of you have no familiarity with the person than the first impression, you can end up hating a person who is in no way accurately reflected in the media depiction.

Sure might get a correction on page 7 several weeks later after the massive headlines speaking shit.
#15171562
Wellsy wrote:I have studied every cognitive bias and logical fallacy in existed for the last three years and am impervious to them!

A lot of media and especially Murdoch Media is not even about need but character assassination based in utter fabrication which is like an extreme use of this. They frame the character of public persons in the worst light when they don't work for Ruperts economic or ideological ends.
So of you have no familiarity with the person than the first impression, you can end up hating a person who is in no way accurately reflected in the media depiction.

Sure might get a correction on page 7 several weeks later after the massive headlines speaking shit.

Trump used the "Sleepy Joe" and "Crooked Hillary" labels masterfully. He knew what he was doing. He seems versed in manipulation tactics, probably from his business days.
#15171565
@Unthinking Majority

Unthinking Majority wrote:Trump used the "Sleepy Joe" and "Crooked Hillary" labels masterfully. He knew what he was doing. He seems versed in manipulation tactics, probably from his business days.


Trump knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He is a master manipulator and con artist. It's why it's important that members of society have critical thinking skills. You can't just learn how to do tasks or know facts. You have to learn to take those facts and think critically and draw logical conclusions and understand some of the cognitive biases you might have as well as some the logical fallacies others use to try to manipulate others. Group think is also very powerful in causing people to be irrational and easily manipulated too. The better your critical thinking skills, the less likely you are to be manipulated, tricked and conned by somebody like Trump.
#15171567
@Unthinking Majority @Wellsy

AND GET THIS, the Texas GOP actually opposed critical thinking skills in their party platform back in 2012. I think some people who have power in society fear a well educated populace with excellent critical thinking skills. I don't know if it is still part of the Texas GOP party platform today or not.

Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post wrote:In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”

It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”

When taken with the other parts of the education platform(see below), it seems a fair conclusion that the GOP Party in Texas doesn’t think much of public education. Unfortunately, this notion isn’t limited to the GOP in Texas but is more commonly being seen across the country by some of the most strident of “school reformers.”

It should be noted that after the plank in the platform was ridiculed, Texas GOP Communications Director Chris Elam told TPM.com that it was all a big mistake and that opposition to “critical thinking” wasn’t supposed to be included. It can’t be easily removed, he said, because the platform had been approved by a party convention and any changes would also have to go through the same process. That clears things up.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/an ... _blog.html
#15171579
Politics_Observer wrote:@Unthinking Majority @Wellsy

AND GET THIS, the Texas GOP actually opposed critical thinking skills in their party platform back in 2012. I think some people who have power in society fear a well educated populace with excellent critical thinking skills. I don't know if it is still part of the Texas GOP party platform today or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/an ... _blog.html

I don't think i've read something that scary and ridiculous in a long time. Yes if you teach people to think for themselves sometimes they will reject some of the BS their parents indoctrinate into their young brains. I get why they're scared LOL.
#15171583
There is a touch of irony in this thread given you are very guilty of the framing effect PO. How many ills have you shouted about that the US have been guilty of in the past because that is the US narrative which they have given you. We never did get an answer on the question whether Mexico should gain nuclear weapons to retake Texas did we. But I digest, what was McCarthyism, the effects we still see today in terms of discussing Socialism in the US, if not the framing effect in full swing?
#15171590
This framing effect is actually priming, the way associations work in your brain because it's an esoteric device where read operations are roughly the same as write operations. Its probably most illustrative manifestation is Kuleshov effect that allows you to watch sequences of animated unrelated pictures and make them into a coherent story, so-called movie. While it definitely can be used for manipulation, it's one of the most fundamental attributes of your mind and to try to suppress it makes as much sense as trying to negate entropy with your will.
#15171622
Heisenberg wrote:Image
:excited:

Mate, you don’t know who you’re fucking with. I know all about appeals to authority and more. I even know inside and out the less common of fallacies, observe...

Logical fellatios are weak or unfounded arguments that, though persuasive, can lead to erroneous conclusions resulting in blowjobs. Critical thinking is crucial when confronting fellatiating arguments. When listening to debates, key questions should be asked:

Is the premise sound?
Can the conclusion be reasonably drawn from the evidence?
Should I suck his dick?

Evaluations should be drawn through sound reasoning. The following is a brief list of the logical fellatios one may encounter when engaging debates.

Non-sequiturs
A] The belief in God is wrong.
b] Christians believe in God.
Therefore:
C] Suck my dick.

Though a novice may find no fault with this argument, one should look closely. Can C be reasonably drawn from the premises A and B? The speaker has not made an sufficient link between Christians' belief in God and his need for a blowjob.

Appeal to Ignorance
"There is no evidence to prove climate changes does not exist. Ergo, climate change exists. Ergo, blow me."

Before going down on their knees, the critical thinker should reflect: Does the absence of evidence serve as evidence of absence? In this case, the speaker presents the argument that no evidence of Not-A serves as evidence of A. The speaker made the invalid decision that the premise is true because it has not been proven false. He is also trying to get sweet sweet mouthlove from you.

False dichotomy
"We either need to put harsher sentences on drug trafficking or criminals will get cocky, crimes will skyrocket, addiction among on the youth will rise to an all time high, and you will put your mouth on my meat."

Notice there are only two choices. There is no reason to think that the two options presented are the only ones available. Think: Are there other options in between? What will happen if you don't put your mouth on his meat? These are the rigorous questions one should ask when evaluating logical fellatios.
#15171633
I think this is a good resource to make available for people.

We all can benefit from understanding logical fallacies more. However, the issue is, the people that would benefit the most from this knowledge and critical thinking skills, are the people that will ignore it or bash it out right.
#15171638
Wellsy wrote:A lot of media and especially Murdoch Media is not even about need but character assassination based in utter fabrication which is like an extreme use of this. They frame the character of public persons in the worst light when they don't work for Ruperts economic or ideological ends.
So of you have no familiarity with the person than the first impression, you can end up hating a person who is in no way accurately reflected in the media depiction.

Is that your bias showing? The entire establishment fabricated attacks on Trump and the media propagated it endlessly. They are steadily doing that to Trump supporters like Matt Gaetz. It's not a one-sided thing.

Unthinking Majority wrote:Trump used the "Sleepy Joe" and "Crooked Hillary" labels masterfully. He knew what he was doing. He seems versed in manipulation tactics, probably from his business days.

That's an apt description. Trump introduced a lot of humor and unstated (because it's impolite) truths into his characterizations. "Crooked Hillary" was funny, true, and remarkably concise.

Why Trump won is that he was a well-known national character well before running for office, and the media was not able to redefine or reframe him. The establishment is still spooked that he is so popular with his base. Impeachments, etc. didn't work. Even post-election attacks on him by Republicans are blowing up--Romney getting booed by a Republican convention in Utah, and Liz Cheney facing a leadership challenge and getting primaried next year.

Framing also involves who is extreme--extreme right wingers, extreme left wingers--as though the political center was automatically some safe and correct and reasoned place to be. That's framing too.
#15171639
@B0ycey

B0ycey wrote:There is a touch of irony in this thread given you are very guilty of the framing effect PO. How many ills have you shouted about that the US have been guilty of in the past because that is the US narrative which they have given you. We never did get an answer on the question whether Mexico should gain nuclear weapons to retake Texas did we. But I digest, what was McCarthyism, the effects we still see today in terms of discussing Socialism in the US, if not the framing effect in full swing?


Ohh come on. That was a LOOONNNG TIME AGO that we took land from the Mexicans. That was way before nuclear weapons were even invented. I wonder if maybe your bias in this case might be:

Image

@Wellsy @Heisenberg

Now when accusing somebody of "Appeal to Authority" you don't want to do that if they are using an authoritative source on the subject matter. For example, if you are discussing nuclear physics and somebody with a Ph.D in nuclear physics states a few facts about nuclear physics and somebody uses those statement of facts regarding that particular topic from the person with a Ph.D in nuclear physics, then you can't dismiss those statements outright on the grounds of "Appeal to Authority" given that those facts came from an expert in the subject matter. It explains that further on the website below.

Image
#15171641
blackjack21 wrote:Is that your bias showing? The entire establishment fabricated attacks on Trump and the media propagated it endlessly. They are steadily doing that to Trump supporters like Matt Gaetz. It's not a one-sided thing.

Biased to the extent that I’m criticizing the man whose media monopoly sets the frame of discussion for Australian politics.
I’m pissed about his influence upon Australian politics and am glad former PM Kevin Rudd spearheaded a campaign to challenge his monopoly. Editorial opinion is framed as news, its not reporting but blatant attacks on anyone deemed needing a check on them with a campaigned onslaught on public figures.

No one has replicated the success of Rupert Murdochs media. MSNBC in the US is a farce in its efforts to reproduce the dame results, it does but its not as effective.
#15171651
Politics_Observer wrote:Ohh come on. That was a LOOONNNG TIME AGO that we took land from the Mexicans. That was way before nuclear weapons were even invented.


But they are invented now. And except time the situation remains the same anyway, you stole Texas. Not that your opinion matters anyway. Ukraine could never obtain nuclear weapons and any attempt would see them obliterated. Given history has already repeated the playbook we already know the outcome as Russia is merely playing out your geopolitics gameplay. And no I am not anchoring. I am playing devils advocate to highlight a bias. A bias that is classed as framing as we must make out that Russia is bad in order to support our opinion - the topic of the thread.

EXAMPLE:

US = Good, Russia = Bad

US illegally occupies Syria = Good
Russia illegally occupies Ukraine = Bad

Where you do sit with Assad obtaining Nuclear weapons I wonder?

I wonder if this bill will pass the House? I think[…]

CRT

The teacher asked: Who had parents that did not […]

Don't worry Trump's one-term loser presidency wil[…]

BREAKING: Ukraine to join NATO as Zelenskyy welco[…]