Amstrad CPC

1. Ad Hominem

Original Identification (by me):

“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

Formal Logic: (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

This directly rejects my claim (that the BBC article is credible) by calling me a fascist rather than addressing the evidence about credibility.

Your Rebuttal:

“Wrong, that is not the argument I made: strawman fallacy.”

Why Your Rebuttal Is Incorrect:

1. Quote vs. Interpretation: The quote is literally, “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.” That is an attack on me (calling me “a fascist”) because I called the BBC “highly credible and close to centre.”

2. Formal Logic of Your Attack:

   • You treat my statement “I consider BBC credible” as the premise.

   • You conclude “I ∈ Fascist.”

   • From “I ∈ Fascist,” you implicitly derive “¬Credible(BBC).”

   • Symbolically:

     Credible(BBC) ⇒ (I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

   • This is exactly the Ad Hominem pattern: rejecting my assessment by attacking my character (“you are a fascist”) instead of discussing the article’s content.

3. Strawman Claim: You claim I mis-represented your argument, but I quoted your exact words. There is no misquote or bending of meaning. You literally attacked my person instead of debating the claim. Hence, it is not a strawman to label this as Ad Hominem.

2. Genetic Fallacy

Original Identification (by me):

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

Formal Logic: (Source© = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

You dismiss the BBC’s factual content solely because you label it “far right, pro-genocide propaganda,” without assessing the specific evidence.

Your Rebuttal:

“Again, not the argument I made: strawman fallacy.”

Why Your Rebuttal Is Incorrect:

1. Exact Quotation: You said, “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” That is indeed rejecting “C” (the claim that paragliders attacked civilians as reported) on the basis of “BBC = bad source.”

2. Formal Logic of Your Rejection:

   • You treat “BBC” as “bad source.”

   • You conclude “All BBC reports are false,” i.e., ¬C.

   • Symbolically:

     Bad(BBC) ⇒ ¬C

   • This is exactly the Genetic Fallacy: rejecting a claim purely because of the source’s alleged origin or nature, rather than its actual evidence.

3. Strawman Claim: By saying “not the argument I made,” you ignore that you literally attacked the source (BBC) and drew a conclusion about the truth of its content. Claiming “strawman” here misrepresents what you literally wrote.

3. Motte and Bailey

Original Identification (by me):

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

Formal Logic:

1. Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians.”
2. I assert P.
3. You first challenge P as “gliders attacked small villages,” then retreat to “gliders attacked civilian targets,” then retreat again to “article references para-glider,” finally concluding that if the article doesn’t say “gliders attacked villages,” then ¬P.
4. Symbolically, you shift from: ¬(Mentioned “attack villages”) ⇒ ¬P₁ ¬(Mentioned “attack civilian targets”) ⇒ ¬P₂ ¬(Mentioned “para-glider in article”) ⇒ ¬P This is a textbook Motte-and-Bailey: you keep shifting the precise claim to a less controversial one, then treat failure to prove that narrow claim as “proof” that the broad claim is false.

Your Rebuttal:

“Third time: not the argument made, strawman fallacy.”

Why Your Rebuttal Is Incorrect:

1. Check Your Own Words: You literally wrote:

   “So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.” That is exactly describing you shifting your target definition: from small villages ⇒ civilian targets ⇒ mere reference of “para-glider.”

2. Formal Logic of Your Shifting Claims:

   • Initial broader claim (Bailey): P_bailey = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets/villages.”

   • You demand proof that P_bailey is stated exactly with that phrasing in the article.

   • When I point to an example (Kfar Aza civilian target), you move to P_motte: “Was a para-glider literally mentioned?”

   • Then you argue that absence of the exact phrasing “para-glider attack on Kfar Aza” implies ¬P_bailey.

   • Symbolically:

     ¬(Article states: “attack villages/civilians”) ⇒ ¬P_bailey

   • This is precisely a Motte-and-Bailey structure.

3. Irony Point: You accuse me of claiming you did a Motte-and-Bailey, yet the quote is your own admission of shifting. Denying it is itself ironic.

4. Strawman Claim: You misrepresent my point by saying “not the argument made,” even though your own words explicitly describe the shifting. Therefore, labeling the identification as “strawman” is incorrect.

4. Fallacy Fallacy

Original Identification (by me):

“You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’ in their comments.”

Formal Logic: (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A) Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

You assume that because you claim I used fallacies, my conclusion (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians) must be false.

Your Rebuttal:

“lol ok. So now you care about fallacy fallacy? hypocrite.”

Why Your Rebuttal Is Incorrect:

1. Exact Quote: I pointed out that you quoted me as saying, “There are so many logical fallacies in your comments…,” which implies “if I committed fallacies, my conclusion is false.” That is the Fallacy Fallacy.

2. Formal Logic of Your Retort:

   • You respond by calling me “hypocrite,” which is itself an Ad Hominem (attacking me instead of addressing whether you committed the fallacy).

   • You do not address the logical structure of “I cited your fallacies ⇒ So your claim must be false.”

   • Symbolically:

     If (∃ Fallacy in Greg’s argument) then (Greg’s conclusion is false). That inference is invalid because identifying a fallacy in Premise ≠ the Conclusion must be false.

3. Strawman/Deflection: You evade the point by labeling me “hypocrite”—this does not refute the identification of Fallacy Fallacy. Therefore, your rebuttal fails to engage the logical structure you yourself used.

5. Begging the Question

Original Identification (by me):

“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true. ‘That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…’”

Formal Logic: You assume: ¬P (i.e., “Paragliders did not attack civilians”). Then you use ¬P as if it were proven: “That was factually untrue…,” treating ¬P as a premise. Symbolically: ¬P ⇒ ¬P

You assume the very point at issue (“no paraglider attacks on civilians”) without providing evidence, then use it to argue your case.

Your Rebuttal:

“Not remotely the argument made, not even close: massive fucking strawman, again.”

Why Your Rebuttal Is Incorrect:

1. Check Your Words: You quoted me as saying, “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view…”—you presuppose that “my statement (P: paragliders attacked civilians)” is already false. You treat “¬P” as if it has been demonstrated, rather than proving it.

2. Formal Logic of Your Circular Reasoning:

   • You start by assuming ¬P.

   • Then you say, “That was factually untrue,” which is restating ¬P.

   • You provide no independent argument against P, but simply assert ¬P as a given.

   • Symbolically:

     (Assume ¬P) Argue: ¬P

   • This is exactly Begging the Question (circular).

3. Strawman Claim: By shouting “not even close,” you ignore that your own words do exactly assume the conclusion (¬P) in the premise. Denying that is a mischaracterization of your own argument.

6. Poisoning the Well

Original Identification (by me):

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources? … If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

Formal Logic: Uses(BBC) ⇒ (You ∈ Fascist) ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(Your Arguments)

You preemptively label anyone who trusts the BBC as “fascist,” thereby dismissing anything they say without addressing it.

Your Rebuttal:

“For the fifth fucking time: not the argument: strawman.”

Why Your Rebuttal Is Incorrect:

1. Exact Quote: You literally wrote, “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.” That is an attempt to discredit me in advance by labeling me as “in a media bubble” for trusting BBC.

2. Formal Logic of Your Attack:

   • You define: Uses(BBC) ⇒ (I ∈ Fascist/Mediabubble).

   • Then you treat that as if I cannot possibly have a valid point.

   • Symbolically:

     Uses(BBC) ⇒ PoisonedWell(I) Therefore: ¬Consider(Any(I’s arguments))

   • This is classic Poisoning the Well.

3. Strawman Claim: Claiming “strawman” here ignores your own words. You did discredit me in advance without addressing any single argument I made.

Sure, I’ll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you’ve committed in this thread.

1. Ad Hominem

Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.

Quote:

“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

Formal Logic:

  (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)
  Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.

2. Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.

Quote:

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

Formal Logic:

  (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.

3. Motte and Bailey

Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.

Quote:

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

Formal Logic:

  Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”
  You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”
  Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”
  Then argue:
  ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P

It’s a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!

4. Fallacy Fallacy

Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.

Quote:

“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…”

Formal Logic:

  (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)
  Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).

5. Begging the Question

Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.

Quote (from your rebuttal):

“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”

Formal Logic:

  (You assume: ¬P)
  Then argue: ¬P
  \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]

You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.

6. Poisoning the Well

Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.

Quote:

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

Formal Logic:

  Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)

This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.

edit: fixing formatting

Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.

If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.

There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith. You made a comment that implied that paragliders were not used to attack villagers in your initial post. That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down. To be clear, you can agree that paragliders were used to attack villager AND be against the IDFs genocide in Gaza. Don’t make the truth the enemy when it’s inconvenient.

What news agencies do you trust?

If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.

I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies. Check out Ground News if you’re interested in that kind of thing.

propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC

If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble. Critically read articles, especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.

But back to my original point before this side track, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.

The paragliders were used to attack Israeli military bases.

You made this comment implying that paragliders were not used to attack civilian targets. Which is not true and was very easy to verify. I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.

Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting

Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.

But back to my original point, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets. This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.

Have you considered changing the size of your head with experimental surgery?

Paragliders were also used to attack civilian targets like Kfar Aza. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67065205

t

To be fair this did happen 10 days after the October 7 attacks where paragliders attacked small villages

I hope the other 30% are just kids that don’t like needles

I pay a lot in taxes because I earn a lot. I earn a lot because I work hard and I was lucky (had the right opportunities, enjoyed work that is well compensated by capitalism, etc). I don’t care paying high taxes

You can only make things worse

Super strength

My wife and 3yo have already has ticks attached this season near Belleville Ontario.

Is there a footpath there? Often tow hooks extend over the curb and can be a hazard and difficult for folks with mobility issues

Thanks for digging it up and sharing the photo! It’s nostalgic seeing this

I liked OpenSolaris, you could order a free CD from their website and they’d post it, even internationally.

Nice try pickpocketer!

To be considered proficient in Linux you need to have contributed to the Linux kernel AND be able to exit from vim (without just rebooting the machine).