This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Brimestonecow: I accidently pressed enter before I finished my edit reason on the Biden statement. While Biden may or may not be an idiot, it didn't really serve an an example of logic or a failing thereof. In fact, that entire thread (including possibly my contributions near the end) may be completely off-topic and just people bitching at each-other and resorting to "he/she is an idiot" attacks in logic drag.
Dalek Kan Noladti: Is this page for trolls in the internet sense who're trying to get a rise out of people, people who actually make logic errors while thinking they're correct all along, people who're making the logic errors to deceive others into believing something they know is false, or people who use bad logic to rationalize something they believed a priori?
Working Title: Insane Troll Logic: From YKTTW
TBeholder: Classification by motivations? And who would tell them apart?.. This one wasn't defined as something substantially different from The Same But More version of You Fail Logic Forever so it just collects examples so egregious they are beyond any classification. And, well, anything deemed close to this level. :]
Po8: Deleted the following as a pro-gun and not very sensible troll. Yes, I know the page is called "Insane Troll Logic"…
- 10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery. ©
BTW, what's the random copyright symbol doing at the end there?
Hydro Globus: My guess? Copy-paste.
Majin Gojira: The last entry counts itself as Insane Troll Logic or just not being bothered to pay attention since the crux of the article linked discusses first and foremost what Racism is and what it is not. In formulaic terms: "This is not X. X is This. X can be seen here." The description provided is pattently false. Ergo, I am removing it.
Air Of Mystery: I'm not familiar with many logical fallacies, but isn't the Invisible Pink Unicorn thing "We can make your idea sound stupid, therefore it's stupid, therefore it's wrong?"
lockhead: Pretty much. I'll add that one up if it's not there already.
I cut the Saturday Night Live bogus Sarah Palin Russia quote because it's not an example of flawed logic.
Weegee: But what she said on The O'Reilley Factor is.
Luc: Question: Should the Unintentional Examples section just flat out ban politics, rather than political natter?
T Beholder: No, it would be enough to ban objections to stupid Did Not Do The Research pratfalls. Or only liberal sort of stupid Did Not Do The Research pratfalls (because these were vast majority here).
Luc: I could care less about conservative or liberal; I just want insane political blather kept away from this page. The Sarah Palin "Alaska's Governor has foreign policy chops" one seems to be a valid example; the "Liberal Fascism" one seems to invite natter. I'm not going to remove it just yet, though. I'll see if any more people employing insane troll logic show up.
:Can anyone explain why that's illogical? I'd trust an Alaskan official to know a tad more about Russia than average just like I'd be a bit more inclined to think Florida's governor can deal better with Cuban matters.
{Madrugada}} It's illogical because simple physical proximity doesn't mean anything in international politics, and States aren't on the same level as Countries in questions of policy. Claiming that Alaska's geographic location gave her experience in international politics is the equivalent of saying that because there's a newspaper stand outside your apartment, you know all about the publishing business.
T Beholder: this one was about crapstorm around someone who really thought "national socialism" is an oxymoron. The rest being references to references to parodies, well, it always ends here.
Weegee: I think we should keep the part about Sara Palin because it follows the Rule of Funny, and after appearing on The O'Reilley Factor, she blatantly used this herself. I feel sorry for the Republican Party if it continues to take her seriously after this.
Dammerung:
- Many popular religions claim you must believe, without evidence, several totally unsubstantiated claims about the deity or you will be punished in a burning pit for all of eternity without any hope whatsoever of recourse.
There is absolutely no reason this should not be in there, excepting only the sentimentality of liberal pantywaists terrified of potentially offending anyone anywhere ever. It should be shouted from the rooftops. There should be a call to prayer five times a day announcing it as not only Insane Troll Logic but the most pernicious, divisive, and anti-human philosophy known to exist; disanthropic and blasphemous against God.
Offense is not something that happens to people. It is something they choose. No one should be protected from it.
Luc: Go read Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement. Until you do, and until you absorb it's lessons, you will be reverted and ignored. Have a nice day.
Dammerung: This rule so-called ought not to be used to remove totally accurate portrayals which fit the trope perfectly. If you're so afraid that someone may take offense, let me point you to the Scientology article which would be bound to cause significant annoyance to any of our dear Scientologists reading today. It's a goddamned double standard pure and simple which is set up to protect the sentiments of the lowest common denominator.
Dammerung: I am going to take a deep breath. I am going to be a civil as a human can possibly be.
First, unban my work computer. Like, right now. Every example I erased I can give you a justification for being offended by. Who the fuck do you think you are? What makes your sentiments so much more important than mine? If I can't put "popular religions" up on this page, you goddamn well can't keep up Discordianism. What's good for the goose, the gander had better take a big fat bite outta. I can't even read TV Tropes while at work now. Thanks, asshole.
If you do not unban my computer, here is what I and my eight million proxies will do - I will go through every single page I have contributed to and delete all of my own writing. If I am not welcome here, you fucking well can't use my writings as part of your site. I have a very good memory. I will carry grudges to the grave. I will be here five years from now deleting my writing if I must, because if I'm not welcome you will not benefit from my input.
Luc: Uh, you do realize that I'm not an admin of any sort, right? You need to talk to Janitor or Fast Eddie, who are.
Dammerung No trouble with you then Luc. I have nothing personal against people I argue with over how a page should proceed. It's when somebody cuts off the discussion that I go ballistic. And really... considering how much work I put into Gnosticism or California it seems utterly outrageous to me that I should be cut off from editing because we had a scuffle.
Janitor: A person who deletes things out of spite will always be blocked. This was clearly spiteful deletion. If a person can't be polite, we don't need them.
lockhead: Quick tip for those who are misotheist, whose who hate god and religion. Believe it or not there are some who have a soft spot for people's beliefs, and just about everyone on TV Tropes would like to avoid being caught up in flame\edit wars, so they try and exercise some judgment in what is put up.
Weegee: "Popular religions" was an obvious Take That! to Christianity. Assigning Characteristics to God isn't an example of any logical fallacy. I'm surprised Dammerung wasn't banned entirely, but by his own words he has nothing personal against me, even for saying this. Also this Article is Insane TROLL Logic. Intersting...
Mbututu:
- Most of Micheal Kelso arguments on That 70's Show fall into this
Removed this, as it is not an example of anything.
elbitjusticiero: I propose to cut this:
"University students in Vienna are protesting against school fees, capital quota and the overcrowding of the Austrian universities.
Whats wrong with that? Sounds like they want the Austrian government to invest more money in universities so there are more facilities and more space.
With what money?
Pointless subsidies for dying industries. Even more true in Germany, whose students demands the same. The latter could also cut its defense budget."
It's not a problem of logic, but of priorities. Education budget is not a closed system: more money can be obtained from outside. You can disagree with that, but in an ideological (not logical) sense.
Lawyer Dude deleted the following:
- From the 2008 Get Smart movie:
Siegfried: How do I know you're not from CONTROL?Maxwell Smart: If I were from CONTROL, you'd already be dead.Siegfried: If you were CONTROL, you'd already be dead.Maxwell Smart: Well, neither of us is dead. So I'm obviously not from CONTROL.[Pregnant pause]Schtarker: That actually makes sense.
Believe it or not, the argument is logically valid even though it isn't sound. Just because the premise is false doesn't mean that the conclusion doesn't logically follow. The fact that the premise is false and leads to a false conclusion isn't actually important. Here's the argument:
1- "If Smart was from CONTROL, then either he or Siegfried would already be dead." (False Premise) 2- "Neither Smart nor Siegfried are dead." (Deny the Consequent) 3- "Therefore, Smart is not from CONTROL." (Valid, yet False, Conclusion)
