Don't Look Up
-
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
So you've Motte-and-Baillied your way from "gliders were used to attack small villages" to "gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets" to "a para-glider was referenced in this article". Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.
You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had "so many logical fallacies" in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase "logical fallacy" like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.
If you actually think that I'm not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don't actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.
That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.
Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it's true; you can't just declare it to be true.
What news agencies do you trust?
As someone who has repeatedly talked about "reading critically" you should probably know that it's not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the article's biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread.
1. Ad Hominem
Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.
Quote:
“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”
Formal Logic:
(I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.
2. Genetic Fallacy
Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.
Quote:
“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”
Formal Logic:
(Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬CYou reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.
3. Motte and Bailey
Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.
Quote:
“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”
Formal Logic:
Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians” You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza” Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article” Then argue: ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬PIt's a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!
4. Fallacy Fallacy
Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.
Quote:
“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’...”
Formal Logic:
(∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A) Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).
5. Begging the Question
Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.
Quote (from your rebuttal):
“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.”
“That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”Formal Logic:
(You assume: ¬P) Then argue: ¬P \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.
6. Poisoning the Well
Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.
Quote:
“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?”
“If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”Formal Logic:
Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.
edit: fixing formatting
