And I'm talking about the quality of posts on ATRL. I noticed that while I was banned again that people don’t know how to have an argument and it always turns into stan wars soon after the opening of the thread. Doing a little research I have come down to the reasons why everything is so messy. It’s from logical fallacies. Read the following and the examples that follow and try to clean up your posts. It’s not impossible but it will definitely help ATRL overall and increase the quality of posts.
Logical Fallacies
A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. So a logical fallacy is a common type of argument that is used to try to convey a point, but the reasoning behind it is completely wrong.
Example:
Its aim is to get you to see their side but the debate is totally misconstrued and the concept is thrown out the window. There are 8 types of common fallacies that I continually see on ATRL. I will name all 8 and examples of 8 and explanations why they are wrong.
Ad hominem: An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
Example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7727885
Quote:
 at only Beyoncé's stans caring about this. PRESSED.
|
This stupi…excuse me. This Rihanna “stan” is clearly ignoring the argument of which one reigns supreme, like the BB200 number 1 position ignores Rihanna’s attempts. It clearly needs help to keep its head on the topic and not wrapped around the Bey stan’s ****.
Ad ignorantiam: The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7446644
Quote:
|
They don't understand the rule. That's not the point. The point is that .99 cents sales shouldn't count because the price is too cheap for a body of work. If .99 cent sales didn't count Gaga's total would have been 668k. Far and away from her 1 million plus total for her first week. Billboard knew it was ridiculous to count them in the first place hence the rule change.
|
Monroe. You’re so damn annoying tbh and you are here for my example. You took the 99 cents (99 cents, not .99 cents) from Born This Way’s total sales and said it would have sold 668K. You say that it’s true because we don’t know that it wouldn’t be if it 99 cents album sales were taken away from Gaga. You need help too
Red Herring: A red herring is when a person completely and blatantly ignores the question, but tries to distract you from it.
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7759528
Quote:
|
I'll tell you whats desperate, this poll.
|
Like bitch, what THE **** does THAT have to do with the question. Get ya head out that ass!
Confusing association with causation: This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=3113096
Quote:
|
How Yes is winning? LMAO.
|
You're racist, and now you solidified yourself as a blockhead. Just because you’re on ATRL doesn’t automatically qualifies you as a homosexual. Are you dumb?
Inconsistency : Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others.
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7830845 ;
http://atrl.net/?p=7830955 ;
http://atrl.net/?p=7830999
Quote:
|
think she had more integrity with One Of The Boys
|
Quote:
|
You can't be serious. All she does in the song is talk about things that are "gay" and in effect ends up emasculating him because he is so "gay but doesn't like boys." She is attacking homosexuals and the guys masculinity at the same time. Do you not understand how this song could be seen as offensive?
|
Quote:
|
Basically. She is using the term "gay" as something negative and something the guy should be ashamed of and the dichtomy that represents with her other hits makes her look insincere when she talks about acceptance for everyone (Firework) or pleads with others to understand her confusion about her sexuality (I Kissed A Girl).
|
Monroe again, what a surprise. So after first being quoted as saying she had more integrity in the OOTB era, he goes on a rant about her "Ur So Gay" song and bashes her saying she doesn't have integrity. I see this going around all the damn time, like how the hell do you have any credibility if this is what you do?
Argument from Authority: The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false.
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7898271
Quote:
Where's the 8 million of Born This Way? 
|
Just because Mediatraffic doesn't have it at 8 million doesn't mean it's not there. It's like they put mediatraffic up there to a god of music, when they are just two irrelevant grown ass men with nothing better to do but tickle their penis with how much an album sold through estimates.
False Dichotomy: Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7756048
Quote:
|
Dead at them acting like Madonna is going to flop and disappear for good.
|
Like bitch? Anyways, just because some monsters think that Madonna may not be able to survive (which no one said by the way, but what you implied in your post) doesn’t mean that she’d flop. There are shades of gray in between, and this is why no one takes you seriously.
The “Shut the **** up comment”: Ok this may not be a real fallacy, but it should be pointed out nonetheless. When an argument is said that is good, and all the next person does is either cosigns it or restate it. Like shut the **** up, we already know that because 5 comments before yours the same thing was ****ing said.
ATRL example:
http://atrl.net/?p=7379472
Anyways I really felt like ranting. Grow up ATRL puhleeeease.
And this:
