I have copied below a funny link from the net....you may have seen it, it is repeated on a few sites, but it does make me laugh........
A humorous example taken from the internet on exactly how not to use critical thinking!
How to argue effectively
By Dave Barry
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win on 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
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you are drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthrals your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy. You'd be a wealth of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insight 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 that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that you are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. Don’t say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The overage Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 below the mean gross poverty level.” NOTE: Always make up an exact figure. If on 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 an May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the some tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
Use Meaningless Rut Weighty -Sounding Words and Phrases
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Quo
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations sued as “Q.E.D.”,”e.g.” and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don'" 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 argument talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians quo 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 irrelevant 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 to orange.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody other than engineers and policy wonks has the vaguest idea what "parameters " means. Here's how to use your comeback:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873…” Your opponent says: “Lincoln died in 1865.” You say: "You're begging the question."
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.”
So that's it. You now know how-to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
Oi >:( - It's comments like that which led to the rise of Hiltler!Originally Posted by Dr B
That's a good piece.
Funnily enough, I've made some notes for writing a short article on how to spot whether you're arguing against a woo. It's all about the tactics they use to avoid an objective argument, but more extreme cases are just like that given above. :o
.
Ha ha!
I must say, I get REALLY annoyed when people trot out the old 'you're comparing apples with oranges'. UGH! Stop it! It's a cliche and no-one ever uses it properly!
[/rant]
I agree - but sometimes, it is appropriate.
On a similar note building on Teek's points - I remember reading a Jamie Whyte book where he was talking about the old saying "Hark at the kettle calling the pot black" (remember that one?).
Whyte's point was, that the statement is illogical simply because, sometimes the kettle is black and so its factually correct (within the context of the argument's metaphor).
Another nice example he uses (and others use as well) is when you say to your partner "You have been putting weight on recently"...to which they reply "Oi....you cannot talk look at you!" The point is, it may be true.....you may have put weight on. The retort is irrelevant.
(note to all - it is generallly considered to be a bad thing to accuse ones wife of putting weight on. The considered approach of the greatest thinkers in the world is simple - don't do it....ever! In addition, her bum never looks big in anything and 'fine' will never do to describe how she looks...
I've never been asked the question, but I think I would have a hard time deciding whether someone's bum looked big. I would want to normalise the scale, by insisting that they define "big" relative to some fixed reference point or other.In addition, her bum never looks big in anything and 'fine' will never do to describe how she looks...
So the line, 'I'm not saying you've put on weight but light seems to curve around the gravitational pull of your arse' is not a good one?
I think we are all talking from experience here
Median - fantastic.....but before you ever try that lock the knife drawer in the kitchen..... 8)
Dearie me you men are in some trouble :D
Although a friend did once asked me if her new jeans made her look fat, and I replied "no, your huge arse makes you look fat".
Not really, but it's a good gag.
The apples and oranges thing is sometimes appropriate, but it's become quite trendy to trot it out for everything and most people get it wrong. I can't stand people using the wrong phrase or misquoting - or even misspelling. Someone recently said to me (in writing) that they were going to bear their teeth at an enemy!
I know, I have no patience. But...arrrgggh! How does bearing your teeth make any sense at all? What, they are usually unbearable? And that your new tolerance of your own dentures will somehow make your enemy cower?
I also get annoyed with certain phrases. Just little pet hates for no reason, such as 'mea culpa'. It winds me up whenever I see it used. It's pretentious and arrogant, I find. But then I use equally fancy phrases myself and don't think anything of it.
Well, I never claimed to be consistent...
I'm confused.
I thought the whole point of saying this was because both parties are the same. I thought it was supposed to identify the idiocy of using a particular phrase to insult someone (the pot says the kettle is black - therefore dirty), when the insulter is in the same postion - usually more so (i.e., the pot is clearly much blacker than the kettle).
Like, if I was 20stone and eating a ton of burgers, and I was with my 12stone friend, who bought a big jammy doughnut, and I said "hey - all that junk food's making you fat".
(Can't think of a great example just now)
It's the illogic of the statement that is supposed to make the point. No?
That's the whole point. The fact that you may be 20 stone does not in any way affect the validity of suggesting your 12 stone friend eats less junk food. A statement does not become inaccurate or illogical just because it applies to the speaker as well as the audience.
Ah...gotcha.That's the whole point. The fact that you may be 20 stone does not in any way affect the validity of suggesting your 12 stone friend eats less junk food. A statement does not become inaccurate or illogical just because it applies to the speaker as well as the audience.
Never thought of it that way. :)
Yes thats it.
The fact it applies to all does not make it false - it still applies, as made, in the original assertion.
Hence, the objection from the 'Kettle' to the 'Pot' (or vice versa) is irrelevant to the original claim.
Isn't the quality of one's advice diminished if one does not follow it oneself, though? If I am very fat, and tell a very person to eat less junk food, what weight of authority does my advice carry? None, as far as the other person can tell. So by saying "pft, you can't talk, you bloater", they are pointing out that the advice could in fact be rubbish because the advisor clearly isn't prepared to follow it themselves.
That's why I was confused - because that is always how I thought it was supposed to be used.
That wouldn't be a logical argument though, it is an ad hominem or an appeal to (lack of) authority. Maybe you are fat because you have a medical problem, or you have terminal cancer and don't care about your health -- it is still perfectly good advice to your friend to eat less junk food.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks