Logic question

It's a syllogism.

Thanks Inky_Wretch and others.

Don't worry, when the time comes to explain dating to our daughter, mom will take over.

But, then again, looking at what she ended up with, it might be a job for grandma.

 

All red things are fast.
My car is red.
Therefore: My car is fast.

Flawed logic (see also Chris_L, hondo and Boom) would be concluding the following:

"My car is fast, therefore it must be red" (Mistaken reversal) or
"My car isn't red, therefore it cannot be fast" (Mistaken negation)

 

My car is red, but it isn't fast because it's a Yugo

 

"My car is red. Cars run on gasoline. Ergo, we're in Iraq." (Mistaken invasion)

 

Yeah, you're right. It's called a syllogism when you're talking about ideas, and the transitive property when you're talking about numbers. But they're essentially the same thing.

Syllogisms always remind me of a classic Norm MacDonald joke about dogs. I won't be able to do it justice, but he told a story about how he was taking a walk with a friend of his who was attending "the University of Science" and majoring in logic. Norm asks him what logic is, and his buddy says he'll explain it to him. The buddy says, "See that guy over there walking that big dog? I'll bet you he's straight." Norm asks how he knows this, and the buddy explains that people with big dogs generally own houses with yards, and people who own houses with yards generally have families, and people with families are generally straight.

So Norm was fascinated by this, and he went home and told his neighbor about logic. The neighbor asked him what logic is, and Norm says he'll explain it to him. Norm asks, "Do you have a dog?" The neighbor says, "No." And Norm says, "What're you, one of them gays?"

 

Of course, red is not a color.

It's a word used to describe a color.

 

It could also be called a non sequitur, couldn't it?

Hey I'm wondering... by definition, what's a "strawman argument"?

 

It's part of the whole strawman justice thing.

 

Strawman Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

For example: The Democrats don't want us to listen to terrorists' conversations.

 

You set up an argument that has a false premise to begin with, then knock the false premise.

"Billy Beane claimed he was a genius when he wrote Moneyball. But he hasn't even been to a World Series, so how can he be a genius?"

Stick around the board a while, luggy. Strawman is the argument of choice here, by far.

 

My favorite thing I've read on the internet:

How to win an argument
by Dave Barry, 1981

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

* Drink Liquor. (JD)

Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot entralls your date. But if you drink several large shots of Jack Daniels, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
* Make things up.

Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."

NOTE: Always make up exact figures.

If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
* Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.

Memorize this list:

* Let me put it this way
* In terms of
* Vis-a-vis
* Per se
* As it were
* Qua
* So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."

Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say:

"Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."

You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."

Only a fool would challenge that statement.
* Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.

You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:

* You're begging the question.
* You're being defensive.
* Don't compare apples and oranges.
* What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.

Here's how to use your comebacks:

You say - As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponents says - Lincoln died in 1865.
You say - You're begging the question.

OR

You say - Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponents says - Liberia is in Africa.
You say - You're being defensive.
* Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

 

Wow, I think half of the people on the political threads use this strategy almost verbatim.