>>I wonder sometimes if criers o’ shill even know why they’re reaching for thistautology as a conceptual shield. It may seem like a strong tactic to the person using it, because it feels useful to knock down any argument against them. But it’s merely a paradox–an unfalsifiable loop. 1. Now that the cryer o’ shill has invalidated anything the ‘shill’ says, that person can no longer defend themselves, because they could be lying about not being a shill. Why do they lie? Because they’re a shill. 2. The “evidence” for the person being a shill is the fact that they have a stance against the crier o’ shill. Calling someone a shill with no proof to back it up, is the logical equivalent of saying, “You are wrong, because I am never wrong.“ Not only is the shill argument empty and sad, it’s one of the most common mistakes made by people in any argument. It’s a logical fallacy, known as an ad hominem. (Against the person.) The crier o’ shill is attacking the person making a statement in an attempt to render that target’s argument invalid, rather than demonstrating any falsehood in the argument through attacking the argument itself.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 07:24:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015