Okay... this is kind of like the relativist fallacy only it's applied to arguments of a subjective nature. So instead of something like this.

Snoop: 2+2=4
Idiot: That's only because it's true for you. 2+2=5 is true for me

It becomes something like this.

Snoop: The Max Payne movie sucked because it was not only a poor adaptation, it was slow and boring for a stand-alone action film.
Idiot: Well it might have sucked for you but I liked it.

Now... the problem I have with this is that Snoop brings forward arguments to support his point of view. Idiot does nothing to refute or challenge it and tries to hide behind relativism. He also doesn't analyze WHY it is he thinks Max Payne was good.

You're assuming argument and reason are the only vehicles of meaning. Or, more precisely, you are biasing argument and reason, over say, pure enjoyment. This is the fallacy. You are attempting to privilege one form of experience over another, without an appropriate platform for doing so - assuming all reality should fall into some logical and "explainable" scheme. It usually does not. This sort of either/or thinking is an artifact of of dualism (in this case subject/object), and cannot be resolved through axiomatic logic or "reason". Ie, a person is not "wrong" because they don't have a good reason for liking or disliking something.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia - a concept worth learning.

Now... the problem I have with this is that Snoop brings forward arguments to support his point of view. Idiot does nothing to refute or challenge it and tries to hide behind relativism. He also doesn't analyze WHY it is he thinks Max Payne was good..

What's there to refute? It's an opinion.

If someone says "The color Blue is the prettiest color to me", are you claiming someone else could refute that?

"X movie sucked" is an opinion. Saying "You believe X sucked, I don't" is not a fallacy.

Ie, a person is not "wrong" because they don't have a good reason for liking or disliking something.

Tell that to 732,000 people who thinks racism/racists are wrong.

LOL, where did you get that number?

A person is not "wrong" for being racist - no more so than someone is "wrong" for being a Christian, Republican, or whatever. His reasons are contestable though, if he has reasons, but reason is only a marginal part of the equation. I find most racists are just ignorant of other cultures, highly susceptible to propaganda and group think (ie weak minded) and usually cant defend their "position" past basic rhetoric. All the same, their "reality" is no less "real". There is more to reality than the propositions we wrap around it. Racists are distasteful for a lot of people, but all the reasoning in the world is not going to change the average racist. That's just not how they interpret things most of the time. Incidentally, the racism/equality duality can be deconstructed on either side. The fallacy, since we are using this term, is in imposing the will of our beliefs on others, and trying to support this behavior by appeal to some natural delineation of right and wrong. This can apply to any zealot regardless of the flag they wave.

FYI, this thread will not turn into a race thread. Read between the lines or don't comment. We're talking about truth and judgment. Don't mistake the example for the topic or I will close this.

LOL, where did you get that number?

What is so lolable about the number ?

A person is not "wrong" for being racist - no more so than someone is "wrong" for being a Christian, Republican, or whatever. His reasons are contestable though, if he has reasons, but reason is only a marginal part of the equation.

Here's your blinding fallacy.

[a] As we all know, reasons and reasoning skills are all subjective. Therefore all reasons are contestable. Theirs and yours, all. How then, do you determine whose reason is reasonable ?

Reason is only *marginal* part of the equation ? So what forms the major part of the equation then ?

[B]I find most racists are just ignorant of other cultures, highly susceptible to propaganda and group think (ie weak minded) and usually cant defend their "position" past basic rhetoric. All the same, their "reality" is no less "real". There is more to reality than the propositions we wrap around it. Racists are distasteful for a lot of people,

Lolololo..here's another one of your fallacies. You find most racist are just ignorant, and you made your "findings" sounds like the truth and facts. I say you're just ignorant of how much other racists knew.

but all the reasoning in the world is not going to change the average racist.

So I enjoyed being a racist, what ya gonna do ?

That's just not how they interpret things most of the time. Incidentally, the racism/equality duality can be deconstructed on either side. The fallacy, since we are using this term, is in imposing the will of our beliefs on others, and trying to support this behavior by appeal to some natural delineation of right and wrong. This can apply to any zealot regardless of the flag they wave.

So that means

FYI, this thread will not turn into a race thread. Read between the lines or don't comment. We're talking about truth and judgment. Don't mistake the example for the topic or I will close this.

your just another zealots trying to impose your flawed opinion on me, cos in my point of view, the race-related stuff is just as related to what OP had said, eventually, but then, you felt uncomfortable discussing about it and felt the need to close it. Isn't that,....fallacy as well ??

Ok, fine don't close this thread, I'll leave.

when it comes to opinions, it's very easy to be ethically subjective, and that's what most people do when it comes to opinions - your thoughts are yours, and my thoughts are mine, and whatever you think about something is just equally as fine as the way i think about it.

it's only when these opinions are put into action that people start to call them "right" or "wrong".

^^^ I think this is basically right

I think it really comes down to a sort of "equality of experiences". People will privilege something like logic or math as the only vehicle of understanding, when in fact it is only one such vehicle. They will do this to the detriment of other, equally present forms of experience, like emotion, epiphany, intention, mood etc..... "Objectivity" (a term that creates problems in its use), is really only one sort of experience, that takes its form from being communicable using language and socially accepted semiotics. This is not an experience of "separate objects". It is an experience of elucidation and communicability with "others" - one that can be put in to words and symbols.

Propositional logic, scientific method, and mathematics are sets of rules that can be applied to experience (data), to determine incongruities, contradictions, predictability (and the like) - and as such elucidate paths of least resistance for people to exist. They enable for success and privilege. They provide many sorts of meaning, but they do not answer questions pertaining to existential or ontological reality - where absolute value judgments must ultimately be made. They cannot operate outside "the box" of the ultimately heuristic axioms which substantiate their results. Reality proper both precedes and subsumes these things. They are methods of seeking meaning, but they are not meaning themselves. They are heuristic methods, always of secondary value to the experience itself which emits their data, upon which they are made to function.

That said, one person's reality is never more meaningful than anothers - not beyond judgment itself. There is no "outside" to which judgment can appeal to assert itself. So when we try to do so there are always other forces at play - the users of the tools. The philosopher and scientist - themselves - their intention and benefit - their will. These things are rarely quantified but can speak volumes more than their words and arguments.

In short, re: reason and logic - Don't mistake the map for the territory. These thing are of value if their use is sufficient to provide means, but they are not exclusive in their ability to convey meaning, truth, or clarity.

What's there to refute? It's an opinion.

If someone says "The color Blue is the prettiest color to me", are you claiming someone else could refute that?

"X movie sucked" is an opinion. Saying "You believe X sucked, I don't" is not a fallacy.

This seems to be the obvious answer. The math problem can be proven true or false by definitions, however opinion cannot be. Furthermore, fallacies are only applied to logic, formal or informal. There is reasoning here, but no logical structures.

.......The math problem can be proven true or false by definitions,......

There's your fallacy, right there. In theory, 1+1 might seemed like to be a 2, but in practice, and in real life, one can never prove 1 + 1 = 2, and never will. Cos in reality, 1 is never an exact = to another 1.

Say you have 2 apples. So you say 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. But then you set out to prove them. You measure the apple, and then you discovers that those 2 apples are not exactly the same, with one of them weighing 77g, while the other = 82g. So you didn't have exactly 1 apple to begin with. If you assume 77g of apple = 1 apple, then 77 + 82 = 159 or 2.03 apples.

So in reality, 1 + 1 apples = 2.03 apples, *NOT* 2 apples. Therefore in reality, 1 + 1 = 2.03 (in your case). And your case will be different from my case.....bottom line, you failed to prove 1 + 1 = 2.......hehe

There's your fallacy, right there. In theory, 1+1 might seemed like to be a 2, but in practice, and in real life, one can never prove 1 + 1 = 2, and never will. Cos in reality, 1 is never an exact = to another 1.

Say you have 2 apples. So you say 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. But then you set out to prove them. You measure the apple, and then you discovers that those 2 apples are not exactly the same, with one of them weighing 77g, while the other = 82g. So you didn't have exactly 1 apple to begin with. If you assume 77g of apple = 1 apple, then 77 + 82 = 159 or 2.03 apples.

So in reality, 1 + 1 apples = 2.03 apples, *NOT* 2 apples. Therefore in reality, 1 + 1 = 2.03 (in your case). And your case will be different from my case.....bottom line, you failed to prove 1 + 1 = 2.......hehe

An apple is conceptualized not by size or weight, that is just relative to the size of other apples. You're even saying "1 apple" weighs this much and "another apple" weighs this much. Furthermore, you used an arbitrarily sized apple to discern what the weight of "1 apple" is. You're trying a bit too hard. Again, we're proving by definition and nowhere in the definition of an apple is there a parameter for weight.

The first scenario you are super-imposing subjectivity on an objective argument. 2+2=4, it's a universal constant and is not open to any interpretation, a more clear way of presenting this would be y+y =2y. It's senseless to argue what defines 2 (or y) because once you change the definition or interpretation, you change the equation, but the underlying math stays the same. Anyone who doesn't think y+y=2y should also be prepared to argue that y!=y.