I have maintained many times, particularly in my book, noted below, that Netiquette has, as part of its core, Logic and logical thought. The article below does a nice job in summarizing this without shaving to provide significant detail. For a more in-depth explanation, please read my book.
How To Respond To Fallacious Arguments On The Internet [Stuff to Watch]
On 17th March, 2015 from makeuseof.com
By Tim Brookes on 17th March, 2015 | Web Culture | 2 Comments
You should already know that arguing on the Internet is a fruitless endeavour that’s likely to raise your blood pressure, but sometimes you absolutely have to make your point. We get that.
But how often is your (naturally well-worded and kind-mannered) argument rebutted with an attack on your character, or a seemingly nonsensical comparison? Wouldn’t it be great if you could deflect these fallacious arguments while enlightening your detractors as to why their challenge falls short?
Well, with the help of these eight videos addressing common fallacies online, you can!
Debate club members and law students aside, there are a lot of problems with the way people argue on the Internet. You’ve probably lost track of how many times you’ve told someone to “never read the comments” without giving it a second thought as to why. Is it because other peoples opinions are really that bad?
Probably not. Other people’s opinions aren’t worse than yours, but it’s often the inability to listen to bad arguments that makes comment sections so painful to read. Whenever someone does put forward a compelling point of view that challenges the status quo, they’re so often shot down by one of these dominant logical fallacies – and the point is lost.
The next time this happens to you, you can just post a link to one of these videos instead. Consider it a public service.
The Strawman Fallacy
Quite possibly the most common point of contention you will find online, the strawman is an attempt (be it intentional or otherwise) to simplify an argument, so that it can be more easily defeated. This includes taking facts or figures out of context and even completely bypassing the existing argument by oversimplifying something entirely.
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Ad hominem attacks are also par for the course in Internet comment sections, just as they are in the political world. Put simply, an ad hominem attack would generally ignore the primary argument and attack the person making the argument instead – thus suggesting that their point of views are wrong because of some apparent character flaw.
The Black and White Fallacy
Also known as a false dichotomy or false dilemma, the black and white fallacy rears its ugly head when a limited range of options are presented as being the only options. One example would be to suggest that wanting more of one thing would mean that you would — by erroneous definition — want less of something else. These two matters of argument are frequently non-inclusive.
Moving The Goal Posts Fallacy
As the football-inspired name might suggest, this fallacious route of argument involves changing the “win condition” of an argument constantly so that a particular viewpoint cannot be defeated. If you’re arguing against someone doing this, you’re very much unlikely to “win” – they will attempt to find some way of rendering your point impossible to prove. You should just show them this video instead.
The Fallacy Fallacy
The fallacy fallacy is a bit like the ad hominem fallacy, in that it relates to the individual making the claim directly. It supposes that if this person themselves has committed a fallacy in drawing their conclusions, that their conclusions must therefore be incorrect. This isn’t true – even though someone’s argument may be constructed using fallacious means, the conclusions could still be correct.
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy reverses the roles of cause and effect, where an argument is constructed and subsequently confirmed using the same information. The name is derived from a story about a Texan shooting at the side of a barn, who then gets up and paints his targets on the wall to give the illusion that he has great aim.
The Authority Fallacy
The authority fallacy places supposition on the fact that because someone in a supposed position of power said it, it must be true. This doesn’t necessarily relate to those in positions of established authority, but those frequently perceived to have authority — like friends, family or respected figures who lack the expert field knowledge to back up their claims.
The “No True Scotsman” Fallacy============================================
**Important note** - contact our sister company for very powerful solutions for IP management (IPv4 and IPv6, security, firewall and APT solutions:
In addition to this blog, Netiquette IQ has a website with great assets which are being added to on a regular basis. I have authored the premiere book on Netiquette, “Netiquette IQ - A Comprehensive Guide to Improve, Enhance and Add Power to Your Email". My new book, “You’re Hired! Super Charge Your Email Skills in 60 Minutes. . . And Get That Job!” will be published soon follow by a trilogy of books on Netiquette for young people. You can view my profile, reviews of the book and content excerpts at:
If you would like to listen to experts in all aspects of Netiquette and communication, try my radio show on BlogtalkRadio Additionally, I provide content for an online newsletter via paper.li. I have also established Netiquette discussion groups with Linkedin and Yahoo. I am also a member of the International Business Etiquette and Protocol Group and Minding Manners among others. Further, I regularly consult for the Gerson Lehrman Group, a worldwide network of subject matter experts and have been a contributor to numerous blogs and publications.
Lastly, I am the founder and president of Tabula Rosa Systems, a company that provides “best of breed” products for network, security and system management and services. Tabula Rosa has a new blog and Twitter site which offers great IT product information for virtually anyone.