Get the key ready, but it's worth asking...

Everyday syllogistic mistakes

People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically.

For instance, given the following parameters: some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C. However, this does not follow. For instance, while some cats (A) are black (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it is false that some cats (A) are televisions (C). This is because first, the mood of the syllogism invoked is illicit (III), and second, the supposition of the middle term is variable between that of the middle term in the major premise, and that of the middle term in the minor premise (not all "some" cats are by necessity of logic the same "some black things").

Determining the validity of a syllogism involves determining the distribution of each term in each statement, meaning whether all members of that term are accounted for.

In simple syllogistic patterns, the fallacies of invalid patterns are:

Undistributed middle - Neither of the premises accounts for all members of the middle term, which consequently fails to link the major and minor term.
Illicit treatment of the major term - The conclusion implicates all members of the major term; however, the major premise does not account for them all.
Illicit treatment of the minor term - Same as above, but for the minor term and minor premise.
Exclusive premises - Both premises are negative, meaning no link is established between the major and minor terms.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise - If either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be.
Existential fallacy - This is a more controversial one. If both premises are universal, i.e. "All" or "No" statements, they don't imply the existence of any members of
the terms. In this case, the conclusion cannot be existential; i.e. beginning with "Some".

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

 

Also, for the record, I think the Gay Games are stupid.

Paralympics, Senior Olympics, Special Olympics, fine -- they involve people who are different in ways that affect their athletic performance. What does being gay have to do with anything? Homosexuals are perfectly welcome to compete in the regular Olympics, and it seems to me the Gay Games send a message that they need to be separate and segregated.

My support of gay rights does not require me to support this event.

 

Well, jgmacg's post is as effective as any Moddy lock.

And with any luck, we're done here.

 

That Wiki entry has better crafted sentences than Yawn's posts in this thread.

 

I agree AB ... In fact, I would suggest that support of the gay games is counterproductive to the support of gay rights.

 

So for me to support gays, i have to march in a gay pride parade? I have several friends who are gay and they all say friendship is about the best support anyone can give.

 

Can you support gay rights and still hate Carrot Top?

 

I have a friend who went to one of the first gay games and she said that it was really about community and inclusion. Remember, organized sports isn't exactly gay-friendly--even now.

My only regret was that she came out of the closet. She was drop dead gorgeous, funny as hell and I had this HUGE crush on her.

 

Can you support gay rights and still watch a ESPN? Or do I have to get all my sports info from Fox Sports Net?

 

You mean you didn't try the old line:

"So, you ever been penetrated?"

 

Look at the source, spnited. Why would you expect him to apply logic or reason to anything he posts?

 

4 pm EST.