Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the name of that fallacy?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is the name of that fallacy?

    I must be losing the plot because I've forgotten the name of the fallacy often used by feminists to bolster their flim-flam. One of them creates a statistic out of thin air, this is cited, cited again, and becomes true. I think it begins with M perhaps after a person. Can anyone help? Thanks.

  • #2
    Originally posted by TheDarkMan View Post
    I must be losing the plot because I've forgotten the name of the fallacy often used by feminists to bolster their flim-flam. One of them creates a statistic out of thin air, this is cited, cited again, and becomes true. I think it begins with M perhaps after a person. Can anyone help? Thanks.
    I've usually seen that referred to as a "woozle", and there is an older term, too: Furphy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy ).

    I don't know that it is technically a separate fallacy of its own, since it is, in reality, a mere piece of false information.

    It does fulfill the criterion of being thought to be a reason without being a reason (in good or bad faith),
    so perhaps it could be called "false appeal to authority" (bad faith/a lie), or "appeal to false authority" (good faith/ignorance)...?

    It very often rests on overextension of the area of validity of any given proposition (like, the numbers don't prove an "epidemic" of rape, much less a "rape culture"),
    something which might occur at any stage in e.g. a study: definition of terms to be used, sample universe, interpretation, presentation, etc. etc. etc.

    HTH,

    M

    Comment


    • #3
      I'd call it combination of lying and "Appeal to Authority".

      Lying isn't really a logical fallacy, it's just lying. It's not a failure of logic, it's a failure of character.

      Women's Studies professor Hairy Armpits VonFreeBleeder makes up a statistic (lie). Then a bunch of feminists point to the statistic and claim it's legitimate because she's "an expert in her field". (appeal to authority)

      (Should have read M's full post first...glad to see my conclusion wasn't wildly different)
      "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
      "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

      Comment


      • #4
        "Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction" pay gap

        "McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making a decision based only on quantitative observations, discounting all other considerations." yes all women

        "Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction." Schrodinger's rapist (all men are potential rapists because some men have been proven to rape therefor, it is justifiable to fear and hate all men)

        "Presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past" Women have always been oppressed

        "Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes." Pay gap " paygap is caused by X, Y, and Z" "No, paygap is because sexism"

        "False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument." Any argument citing a gender studies Prof lol

        "False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea." Same as above

        "Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong." 70% of violent crime is committed by men, therefor, men are violent.

        "Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)" [Gender vs sex] vs [gender = sex].

        "Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording." The constant "new" definitions of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, racism, sexism, etc.

        "Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity." Feminism is cancer (specifically, feminists reaction to this).

        "Survivorship bias – when a small number of survivors of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures" Women are just as good as men at STEM, look at Marie Curie






        Oh fuck it, I'm tired of going through these. Feminism is full of fallacies. Take your pick it's probably true.

        Comment


        • #5
          Here, a helpful sheet:
          10304976_853112141376465_8441316208434686914_n.jpg
          I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mifune View Post
            Women's Studies professor Hairy Armpits VonFreeBleeder makes up a statistic (lie).
            No, the lie is almost never entirely "made up" - they leave that dirty work to their popularizers in the trivimedia.
            They always go through cargo-cult-like imitations of research, like phoning five other feminists and calling it a "poll" or giving a questionnaire to 50 freshmen in Vermont and calling it a "study", which they then use to claim something about all men in the world and world history.
            There are errors all the way, beginning with researching to find confirmation of something you want to be true, the choice of methodological tools ("Patriarchy" ...), introducing bias into definitions og terms and formulation of questions and answers options, to "cleaning up" of "data" ("eliminating ouitliers", i.e. data that don't fit), interpreting the data, drawing conclusions, naming the study, writing a sensationalizing - the trivimedia, for the use of - abstract, distributing results to reporters sympathetic to The Cause ... and many more.

            Then a bunch of feminists point to the statistic and claim it's legitimate because she's "an expert in her field". (appeal to authority)
            She probably may be, nobody else "studies" what they "study", nor how they "study" ... but the first step is always publication.
            Then the publication is cited, with that claim you refer to above. Then original author A gets re-cited by author B, a bigger name, and B re-cited by author C, an even bigger name, and soon the claim is based on some really Big Name quoting in it Real Big Name's book, making it an Eternal Truth - and there you have your woozle.

            Although all these minor steps are in effect equivalent to lying, they each belong to separate, and analyzable, methodological categories.
            So some attention to technical detail can be in order, sometimes.

            M

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
              Feminism is full of fallacies.
              Indeed.
              But while your eminent list doesn't really address the overall question, I think most of them apply to many a single step in the Cargo type research I describe.
              IOW, the list provides yet another tool.

              So ... thank you for your sacrifice ... have a cyber-whisky on me. A good Ardbeg, that should clean out most of the taste


              Take your pick, it's _all_ true.
              And fixed that.

              M

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
                Here, a helpful sheet
                "Helpful" ...? Sheet, no, you phallogocentric fe-mind-fucking rationality-rapist.

                M

                Comment


                • #9
                  Woozle! Magic dude. Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In the 80's, as feminists were pushing mightily for large alimony payments re-labeled as child support. a fiend named Weitzman, I think, maybe Lenore, produced a paper which said the standard of living of men went up by a tremendous percentage, while the standard of living of women went down by an equally large percentage. She claimed it was based on a serious study.

                      Soon, as planned, another dearie social worker printed another paper, quoting Weitman's statistics. Then, another. Then, another. Soon there were many academic papers all touting the same fake news that men were living the life of Reilly, while dearies and their children were dying of hunger. The fiends handed copies of all these bogus documents to various judges and county law libraries, and of course to the Swamps of various legislators.

                      Based on these lies, support payments increased dramatically. Men already ordered to pay tens of thousands of dollars in property settlements, then add large child support payments, and thus you have men living in their cars or in their mother's basement.

                      We knew immediately it was all lies. But, the fiends own the press.

                      After quite a few years, she told an FRA she didn't actually do the study. She simply entered things she knew of her own knowledge. Later when other studies showed totally different results, reporters went and asked to see her data package, showing the actual study. She said, well, the graduate student she paid to process them lost them.

                      Part of child support calculations these fiends made were like this. I have no idea what rents are in the US any more. So, I will use my fly-over memories from the 90's when I left the US for the first time.

                      Suppose you could rent an apartment in my small city with one bedroom for $700 a month. And, a two bedroom cost $950. That means housing cost for one child of divorce was $250 a month, and his half would be $125, right? The fiends said cost of housing total was $950, half for the child, $475 for child, his half $237.50.

                      Ditto for car costs and everything else. So, he is essentially ordered to pay an amount equal to true full costs for the child.

                      But, a much more important point is if divorce truly impoverishes women like that, tell them, Tough Titty, B****, clearly it is better your request for divorce is denied. We are going to save you from poverty.

                      Analysts of the paper later realized she did not actually fully subtract child support payments from his income. And, she also did not allow for loss of standard of living from living in a family environment to being stuck in his mother's basement. But it wasn't important. After all, men aren't really human and do not have feelings, right?

                      And, all the while a few of us were trying to counter this nonsense, most men were attacking us and calling us every name in the book for picking on those poor; poor; poor; dearies.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X