Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

Doubt said:
Ah, no. There was no actual argument attacked there. Before you can have a strawman you must first have an argument to deviate from while claiming to address the argument made by the other party.

You claimed somebody did whataboutism but that was false. I provided the actual structure of somebody else's argument.

Get thee to a critical thinking class.
Click to expand...

False, that9 "structure" was grossly erroneous. Does anyone really think that framing it as a comparison renders it not fallacious? Ludicrous

Lets take a look:

The Soviet Union abuses human rights.
"response" Why is the fact that the Soviet abuses human rights more important that the fact you are lynching negroes?*

Totally fallacious, as it does not negate or rebut the first claim, and is a desperate attempt to change the subject

Don't bother going to a critical thinking class, TBD, just gave you a graduate level lesson.

*This the classic example of Soviet/Atheist whataboutism from the cold war, of course.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
False, that9 "structure" was grossly erroneous. Does anyone really think that framing it as a comparison renders it not fallacious? Ludicrous

Lets take a look:

The Soviet Union abuses human rights. "response" Why is the fact that the Soviet abuses human rights more important that the fact you are lynching negroes?* Totally fallacious, as it does not negate or rebut the first claim, and is a desperate attempt to change the subject Don't bother going to a critical thinking class, TBD, just gave you a graduate level lesson.

*This the classic example of Soviet/Atheist whataboutism from the cold war, of course.
Click to expand...

The point was exactly that it does not negate or rebut the first claim, but asks a legitimate question.

ETA: Plus, of course, that was not the question I asked in the first place. I asked why you demand that others concentrate on the same issue as you do.

Hans
 
Last edited:
"The point was exactly that it does not negate or rebut the first claim, but asks a legitimate question."

HI! lets us continue our discussion of critical thinking skills. The foregoing statement contains a very obvious fallacy, I have hilighted the section I want you to focus on.

The logically fallacy is ____ ___ ________
 
The logically fallacy is begs the question of course!

I know that plenty of our gentle readers knew that.

The assertion that it is a legitimate question assumes the very topic under discussion, namely that it is NOT a legitimate question because it totally fallacious whataboutism.

In other news, the Atheist Slave products have been exported to the United States. Disgusting
 
The Big Dog said:
The logically fallacy is begs the question of course!

I know that plenty of our gentle readers knew that.

The assertion that it is a legitimate question assumes the very topic under discussion, namely that it is NOT a legitimate question because it totally fallacious whataboutism.

In other news, the Atheist Slave products have been exported to the United States. Disgusting
Click to expand...

This massive display of ignorance is sort of like watching a car wreck. Cannot stop looking even though there is no substance. Correct fallacy identification is not an art and not all that hard. Yet those that cannot reason clearly to start with still flail away as living examples of how not to reason.

It is as if the following structure is valid:

All of A is part of B
All of B is part of C
Therefore All of B is wishy washy indecisive twits that won't pick a side.
 
Doubt said:
This massive display of ignorance is sort of like watching a car wreck. Cannot stop looking even though there is no substance. Correct fallacy identification is not an art and not all that hard. Yet those that cannot reason clearly to start with still flail away as living examples of how not to reason.

It is as if the following structure is valid:

All of A is part of B
All of B is part of C
Therefore All of B is wishy washy indecisive twits that won't pick a side.
Click to expand...

That is fascinating. There was not a single word in that post that addressed any single part of my absolutely correct analysis.

Yet it was posted.

Now for folks actually interested in critical thinking? Who know what else is wrong with the claim it is not whataboutism because it is a "legitimate comparison"?

I have already expertly dealt with the flaw in the "legitimate" part, now lets focus on the attempt to justify it based on the claim it is a "comparison," shall we?

I'll let you try to answer and then will follow up again.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is fascinating. There was not a single word in that post that addressed any single part of my absolutely correct analysis.

Yet it was posted.

Now for folks actually interested in critical thinking? Who know what else is wrong with the claim it is not whataboutism because it is a "legitimate comparison"?

I have already expertly dealt with the flaw in the "legitimate" part, now lets focus on the attempt to justify it based on the claim it is a "comparison," shall we?

I'll let you try to answer and then will follow up again.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, i could not wait, as many of you have already surmised, asserting that it is a comparison does not mean that it is not whataboutism, indeed most examples of whataboutism are an attempt to compare the actual proposition under discussion with some other topic that the other side wishes to divert the argument to.

Lets take a look:

Whataboutism can also be employed as a tool for creating a red herring. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

In the case of a whataboutism, the structure would be as follows:

Topic A, my side doing X, is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced: whatabout X done by the other side?
Topic A is abandoned.
Click to expand...

that is PRECISELY what I have been explaining.

Now lets play i predict!

I predict that there will be a bare assertion that I am wrong, with no attempt to explain how my rock solid analysis is wrong There may also be an attempt to cherry pick from the source I provided.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is fascinating. There was not a single word in that post that addressed any single part of my absolutely correct analysis.

Yet it was posted.

Now for folks actually interested in critical thinking? Who know what else is wrong with the claim it is not whataboutism because it is a "legitimate comparison"?

I have already expertly dealt with the flaw in the "legitimate" part, now lets focus on the attempt to justify it based on the claim it is a "comparison," shall we?

I'll let you try to answer and then will follow up again.
Click to expand...

There is no point since you cannot be bothered to learn what is and is not a fallacy.

Whataboutism is a form of Red Herring. Asking you to compare one atrocity to another is not a Red Herring. It is not forcing you to defend an irrelevant concept. It is asking you to make your case by contrasting it to another situation. This is also a standard form of essay question in history classes. Example:

Compare and contrast the reconquest of Spain to the Russian struggle against Mongol domination.

Any correct answer to such a question does not consist of claiming that the Mongols are a distraction from the subject of the reconquista. It is an excellent chance to make a case for a favored subject regardless of personal opinions on either case. It allows for emphasizing one or the other at the discretion of the person answering. (Hint: You missed a golden opportunity to make a your case here using actual facts and logic.)

To instead refuse the opportunity to answer such a question to further your own case indicates either a lack of knowledge on at least one subject or a lack of confidence that a case can be made.
 
Literally chuckling at "not a fallacy because of test question" analogy.

Folks, the fact that one can make a comparison that is not fallacious does not mean that every comparison is not fallacious.

Here we are discussing atheist's human rights atrocities, and there are many.

It is curious to see that "Whataboutism has long served as a tool for Soviet (and now Russian) propagandists..." tho.

Whataboutism must be an atheist thing huh?
 
Last edited:
TBD has made his point quite clearly. What I don't understand is why others are still bothering on about it? Or even why HE is still bothering on about it to anything but an empty room?
 
sylvan8798 said:
TBD has made his point quite clearly. What I don't understand is why others are still bothering on about it? Or even why HE is still bothering on about it to anything but an empty room?
Click to expand...

because the human rights atrocities have not ended.
 
Human rights will be violated as there are humans. Don Quixote also had a mission in his life. The windmills still stand.

World wide and everywhere someone is getting a raw deal from someone else and it may not be far from any of our homes. Why pick on China when the land of milk and honey has stuff just as bad.
 
The Big Dog said:
Literally chuckling at "not a fallacy because of test question" analogy.

Folks, the fact that one can make a comparison that is not fallacious does not mean that every comparison is not fallacious.

Here we are discussing atheist's human rights atrocities, and there are many.

It is curious to see that "Whataboutism has long served as a tool for Soviet (and now Russian) propagandists..." tho.

Whataboutism must be an atheist thing huh?
Click to expand...

Argument by assertion is not going to prove you right. You have failed again to tell when a fallacy is and is not being used. I am sure you will get it right sometime. Stop clocks are still right twice a day.
 
Doubt said:
Argument by assertion is not going to prove you right. You have failed again to tell when a fallacy is and is not being used. I am sure you will get it right sometime. Stop clocks are still right twice a day.
Click to expand...

Class? Your final exam will require you to write 500 words on irony.

:D
 
sylvan8798 said:
And do you expect that your posting here is going to bring about an end to those atrocities?
Click to expand...

Please do not think I have the slightest interest in getting into a silly discussion about why people post on a web forum.

C'mon man...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom