The fallacy of the snappy answer

[Igopogo]

We’ve all been subjected at some time by what I call “the fallacy of the snappy answer”. It sounds so witty that it scores a point, & further discussion or thinking shuts down – even though a little circumspection shows it to be total BS.

Here’s a common example:

Q: “Why doesn’t God answer most prayers?”
SAF: “God answers all prayers. Sometimes he says ‘no’”

Point, game, done.


Why I’m writing this, is that I see ‘skeptics’ fall for this fallacy all the time. Here’s a couple examples I’ve seen repeatedly here at the JREF:

SAF #1: “You can’t logic your way out of something that you didn’t logic your way into.”

Sounds witty, but total BS. In fact, I’d say using logic is by far the best way to get out of something one didn’t logic their way into. I was indoctrinated into religion, but used logic to get out. Same goes for conspiracy theories and other situations I didn’t ‘logic’ my way into.

SAF #2: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

Not total BS, but hyperbole to be sure. I would say it’s the definition of ‘lack of wisdom’ maybe – but insane? If I flip heads on a coin 9 times in a row, would I be insane to expect tails to come up on the 10th? The probability goes down, but there’s always the possibility of a different outcome to the one you expected. Actually, what I think is closer to insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result”. Like my computer has never crashed before, so I don’t need to back up files, or my car has never crashed, so I don’t need seatbelts.

[AvalonXQ]

So, what are you proposing is the fallacy in the 'fallacy of the snappy answer'? Just the idea that a sound bite can meaningfully address a serious argument?

[Twiler]

I generally react with the stance of the literal-minded.

SAF: “God answers all prayers. Sometimes he says ‘no’”

'Does YHVH answer by telegram, or by email?'

SAF #1: “You can’t logic your way out of something that you didn’t logic your way into.”

'Is "to logic" an irregular verb?'

SAF #2: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

'Funny, I thought that was the definition of scientific pursuit.'

It occurs me that I'm just matching type with type, but that seems appropriate.

[Igopogo]

So, what are you proposing is the fallacy in the 'fallacy of the snappy answer'? Just the idea that a sound bite can meaningfully address a serious argument?

I would suggest the fallacy is in that a clever sounding statement can lead to an emotional response resulting in an erroneous conclusion. Because it 'sounds' clever, our knee jerk reaction is to give it merit.

I thought Bill Maher did a good example in Religulous where he asked the Christ actor how a deity could be father, son and holy ghost all at once.

The answer given was water could be ice, steam or liquid.

Bill admitted that it sounded so good he was taken aback, until you think about it for a minute.

[Stray Cat]

For "the snappy answer" to be a fallacy, surely it's use would have to be constantly how you describe it.
As a snappy answer is sometimes intelligent, logical, pertinent and addressing the issue, to say that "the snappy answer" is a fallacy is false.

[Igopogo]

For "the snappy answer" to be a fallacy, surely it's use would have to be constantly how you describe it.
As a snappy answer is sometimes intelligent, logical, pertinent and addressing the issue, to say that "the snappy answer" is a fallacy is false.

A logical fallacy doesn't have to be wrong all the time. In fact, I can't think of one off hand that is.

[Stray Cat]

A logical fallacy doesn't have to be wrong all the time. In fact, I can't think of one off hand that is.
The idea of a fallacy is that it is false reasoning yes?

If you are labeling something as 'false' based upon the fact it is a "snappy answer" and not taking into account if it is false or not, then calling it the "snappy answer fallacy" is in it's self false... The "snappy answer fallacy fallacy" so to speak. :)

[OlegTheBatty]

A fallacy does not mean that a conclusion is false, it means that the conclusion is not supported by the argument. It is possible for the conclusion to be true, and supportable by valid argument.

[AdMan]

I agree that such answers are often hyperbole and cliche and a lazy way to debate (and may very well be incorrect), but I agree that to call this technique a "fallacy" is incorrect.

[Stray Cat]

A fallacy does not mean that a conclusion is false, it means that the conclusion is not supported by the argument. It is possible for the conclusion to be true, and supportable by valid argument.
Exactly... so a "snappy answer" can be made in support of the argument in a reasoned and logically sound way. Therefore the "snappy answer" it's self is not a fallacy.

I am however pretty sure that many snappy answers can and do fit into the already categorised list of established fallacies.

[JoeTheJuggler]

For "the snappy answer" to be a fallacy, surely it's use would have to be constantly how you describe it.
As a snappy answer is sometimes intelligent, logical, pertinent and addressing the issue, to say that "the snappy answer" is a fallacy is false.

I agree.

I think the point is that the pithiness or eloquence (or meter or rhyme for that matter*) in itself is not a logical argument. If the snappiness takes the place of an argument, then it is simply another type of irrelevant fallacy. I wouldn't say this is a new category of fallacy, but perhaps a new subcategory of the irrelevant (or red herring) fallacy.

I really like this taxonomy of fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html).

* Remember, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"?

ETA: And the Johnny Cochrane example just made me realize that while the snappiness is altogether irrelevant, there could still be other fallacies in the argument. In this case, it's a false dichotomy. But the meter and rhyme is still irrelevant.

[bobc]

SAF #2: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

Not total BS, but hyperbole to be sure. I would say it’s the definition of ‘lack of wisdom’ maybe – but insane? If I flip heads on a coin 9 times in a row, would I be insane to expect tails to come up on the 10th? The probability goes down, but there’s always the possibility of a different outcome to the one you expected. Actually, what I think is closer to insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result”. Like my computer has never crashed before, so I don’t need to back up files, or my car has never crashed, so I don’t need seatbelts.

Repeating a procedure with a random element is not "doing the same thing". The probability of getting heads on the 10th flip is the same as the first flip, assuming an unbiased coin.

However, I do share your exasperation with cute one liners which appear to end the argument but are in fact BS. These are invariably used by the non-skeptical, but it's an easy trap to fall into for people who *think* they are skeptics.

"A witty saying proves nothing" is probably the only genuinely accurate one liner.

[technoextreme]

The idea of a fallacy is that it is false reasoning yes?
Nope. Formal fallacies are always implement incorrect logic and are always false reasoning. Informal fallacies are a bit more flexible in that there may be legitimate reasons as to why you would invoke them. Wikipedia surprisingly does actually list a very good example of an ad hominem circumstantional that isn't fallacious which is the disclosure of conflicts of interest.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Yes, I do think that whipping a snappy answer on someone can be useful (mostly), but it should not be seen as true in and of itself. That is the idea here, right?

"Authority by eloquence" would cover it I think.

Cheers

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nope. Formal fallacies are always implement incorrect logic and are always false reasoning. Informal fallacies are a bit more flexible in that there may be legitimate reasons as to why you would invoke them.

Be careful mixing the terms "incorrect logic" and "false reasoning" with the concepts of soundness and validity. A formal fallacy is an argument or statement that is not valid. An argument is sound if it's valid AND all the premises (and therefore the conclusion) are true.

At any rate, your point is a good one: fallacious reasoning refers to the invalidity of the argument, and not the truth value of premises or conclusions--at least formal fallacies!

It's easier to consider a perfectly valid argument that is unsound because one or more premises are false.

The following argument, for example, is not fallacious, but is not sound:

If the Cardinals won the World Series in 2010, Pujols will sign a 10 year contract with them.
The Cardinals won the World Series in 2010.
Therefore, Pujols will sign a 10 year contract with them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, I do think that whipping a snappy answer on someone can be useful (mostly), but it should not be seen as true in and of itself. That is the idea here, right?

"Authority by eloquence" would cover it I think.

I like that name, but it's not accurate. There is no appeal to authority. But "argument by eloquence" would be a fine name for it, but I still say it would be simply another type of red herring argument.

The fact that a sentence is pithy or eloquent or rhymes should not make it more logically persuasive.

ETA: I might also suggest: argumentum ad bumpersticker.

[Stray Cat]

Nope. Formal fallacies are always implement incorrect logic and are always false reasoning. Informal fallacies are a bit more flexible in that there may be legitimate reasons as to why you would invoke them.
If there are legitimate (logical) reasons to invoke them, they are not fallacious.

Wikipedia surprisingly does actually list a very good example of an ad hominem circumstantional that isn't fallacious which is the disclosure of conflicts of interest.
What it actually says is that in such cases are not considered an Ad Hominem.

[Bram Kaandorp]

I like that name, but it's not accurate. There is no appeal to authority. But "argument by eloquence" would be a fine name for it, but I still say it would be simply another type of red herring argument.

The fact that a sentence is pithy or eloquent or rhymes should not make it more logically persuasive.

I see what you mean. I also think that "making up a new logical fallacy" is not really useful in this case, now that I see your reasoning.

Cheers

[JoeTheJuggler]

What it actually says is that in such cases are not considered an Ad Hominem.

And again, this point becomes clear if we consider what is fallacious about the ad hominem fallacy--and look at the taxonomy of fallacies.

It is a fallacy only insomuch as it is irrelevant.

If the question, for example, concerns the character of a person, then remarks about the person's character are relevant. (However, remarks about the person's physical appearance would still be irrelevant in this example, and therefore fallacious if they are presented where one would expect an argument.)

[technoextreme]

If there are legitimate (logical) reasons to invoke them, they are not fallacious.


What it actually says is that in such cases are not considered an Ad Hominem.

No read the Wikipedia article. It says right there that its a classic logical fallacy but isn't always fallacious. Its the reason why ad hominem is listed under the ignoratio elenchi (Fallacies of relevance) category.
EDIT:
What Joe said above. Sorry I missed your well written post when I responded.
Be careful mixing the terms "incorrect logic" and "false reasoning" with the concepts of soundness and validity. A formal fallacy is an argument or statement that is not valid. An argument is sound if it's valid AND all the premises (and therefore the conclusion) are true.


Thanks for correcting me. You are correct and that is what I meant to convey. Formal fallacies are always not valid.
EDIT:
How many categories of logical fallacies are there?

[Stray Cat]

No read the Wikipedia article.
I did.

It says right there that its a classic logical fallacy but isn't always fallacious. Its the reason why ad hominem is listed under the ignoratio elenchi (Fallacies of relevance) category.

No it doesn't.

"Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem - it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial)

[fuelair]

I would suggest the fallacy is in that a clever sounding statement can lead to an emotional response resulting in an erroneous conclusion. Because it 'sounds' clever, our knee jerk reaction is to give it merit.

I thought Bill Maher did a good example in Religulous where he asked the Christ actor how a deity could be father, son and holy ghost all at once.

The answer given was water could be ice, steam or liquid.

Bill admitted that it sounded so good he was taken aback, until you think about it for a minute.Not sure why your response or Bill's. What specifically did he think about and how does it not apply? (I know,but I am curious if we have the same reason - there is a wrong reason that Bill may have used and more than one right depending.

[blutoski]

I like that name, but it's not accurate. There is no appeal to authority. But "argument by eloquence" would be a fine name for it, but I still say it would be simply another type of red herring argument.

The fact that a sentence is pithy or eloquent or rhymes should not make it more logically persuasive.

ETA: I might also suggest: argumentum ad bumpersticker.

I would call it 'sophistry' but that's describing the style rather than the content, and it's not related to fallacies.

In particular, a witty comeback could be totally on the mark.

(And I say this as a pain-in-the-ass skeptic who has spoken out practically ad nauseum about too many skeptical slogans being selected for their style over meaningfulness.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think we need to be careful that we do not assume that the person using the witticism thinks he is ending the argument in some clever way. He may be trying to be polite and not succumb to:

One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. ---H. L. Mencken


~~ Paul

[GlennB]

If the Cardinals won the World Series in 2010, Pujols will sign a 10 year contract with them.
The Cardinals won the World Series in 2010.
Therefore, Pujols will sign a 10 year contract with them.

never mind

[Bram Kaandorp]

I think we need to be careful that we do not assume that the person using the witticism thinks he is ending the argument in some clever way. He may be trying to be polite and not succumb to:

One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. ---H. L. Mencken


~~ Paul

Well, using a one liner can be seen as "scoring a cheap point", which I tend to avoid in an "in person" conversation, because it gets in the way of a good discussion.

Cheers

[Alan]

I have, for a long time, been annoyed by that supposed definition of insanity. It is not at all true.

[Soapy Sam]

Only insane people think that.











(Sorry. Couldn't resist).

[Ladewig]

We’ve all been subjected at some time by what I call “the fallacy of the snappy answer”. It sounds so witty that it scores a point, & further discussion or thinking shuts down – even though a little circumspection shows it to be total BS.

SAF #1: “You can’t logic your way out of something that you didn’t logic your way into.”



Not to sound overly skeptical, but can you give some examples where a JREFer used this line before it was obvious that further discussion or thinking had already shut down? I see it used once it is clear that the JREF guest refuses to acknowledge any fallacies on his or her part and refuses to look at evidence that might contradict his or her pet theory. For instance when DOC insists on using special pleading or when DOC insists on using an appeal to authority or when DOC insists on using an argument from ignorance, etc. There is no amount of logic that will ever make DOC even examine his views much less admit that he arrived at his conclusion through sloppy thinking.



SAF #2: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

The only thing that irks me more than this definition is when the user adds a prestigious name to it to give it a patina of respectability. The most common example is claiming that Albert Einstein said it.

[theprestige]

I have, for a long time, been annoyed by that supposed definition of insanity. It is not at all true.

I bet you keep telling people this over and over again, even though you never seem to get through to them, don't you ;)

[Rasmus]

Not to sound overly skeptical, but can you give some examples where a JREFer used this line before it was obvious that further discussion or thinking had already shut down?

I am sure I have seen it brought up in meta discussions about skepticism without any non-sceptics taking part in the debate at all.

[John Jones]

SAF #1: “You can’t logic your way out of something that you didn’t logic your way into.”


I never heard it that way. I heard it as "You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into".

[HansMustermann]

We’ve all been subjected at some time by what I call “the fallacy of the snappy answer”. It sounds so witty that it scores a point, & further discussion or thinking shuts down – even though a little circumspection shows it to be total BS.

Here’s a common example:

Q: “Why doesn’t God answer most prayers?”
SAF: “God answers all prayers. Sometimes he says ‘no’”

Point, game, done.

It's only "point, game, done", if you've shown up at that battle of wits unarmed ;)

Briefly, that's why we insist on falsifiable stuff. A test which can't deliver a "nope", is not a test at all.

So in that case the proper answer would be "so what's the difference between a God that sometimes says 'no' and a non-existent God? Do you have correlation that says stuff you prayed for happens more often than then to people who haven't prayed? Or what?"

Why I’m writing this, is that I see ‘skeptics’ fall for this fallacy all the time. Here’s a couple examples I’ve seen repeatedly here at the JREF:

SAF #1: “You can’t logic your way out of something that you didn’t logic your way into.”

Sounds witty, but total BS. In fact, I’d say using logic is by far the best way to get out of something one didn’t logic their way into. I was indoctrinated into religion, but used logic to get out. Same goes for conspiracy theories and other situations I didn’t ‘logic’ my way into.

Can't say I've heard that one, or not in that form. In fact the only hit when Google-searching the forums is your message in this thread. So, you know, at the very least it must not be as common as you make it sound.

SAF #2: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

Not total BS, but hyperbole to be sure. I would say it’s the definition of ‘lack of wisdom’ maybe – but insane? If I flip heads on a coin 9 times in a row, would I be insane to expect tails to come up on the 10th? The probability goes down, but there’s always the possibility of a different outcome to the one you expected. Actually, what I think is closer to insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result”. Like my computer has never crashed before, so I don’t need to back up files, or my car has never crashed, so I don’t need seatbelts.

Except it's not a logical refutation, but a pithy answer. And typically used in situations where there's also some other reason to not expect anything different, but we'd settle even for basic ability to learn from past outcomes.

But, yes, it's actually a pretty good one, if used correctly. Not bulletproof, but as one-liners go, it's not the farthest off the mark.

And by "if used correctly", I mean:

1. Do make sure that you are repeating the same action, and that also means in reasonably similar conditions.

2. Do understand that by "expect", is meant the result expected as most likely, not something that is not excluded. The fact that expecting X does not always 100% exclude non-X seems to be lost on many people.

3. Typically the implication is of an action intended to produce a desired outcome, not just failing to exclude an accidental outcome.

So, yes, basic ability to learn should cover even your examples.

If I flipped a coin 9 times and it came up tails, then I'd be an idiot to use that coin if I want to impress someone by predicting I'll flip a head. Or if you've started your computer 1000 times and it didn't crash and wipe out your files, you'd be an idiot if you tried to crash it by starting it the 1000'th time.

But, really, point #3 above is the crucial one. If your empirical evidence should tell you that outcome !X is far more likely than X, like because it never produced X before, then taking the same course of action with the expectation that this time it'll cause X, then it's likely an ineffective course of action and an unreasonable expectation for that outcome.

But really, the key is already by #2. Once you understand the difference between expecting a specific outcome and merely not excluding it, you're all set.

If I gave Wally 9 tasks and he failed to finish every one of them, then the _expected_ outcome when I give him the 10'th should be that he won't finish that one either. I'm not excluding the possible outcome that he will, but, basically, a simple ability to learn from the past, should tell me that it's far more probable that he won't.

If I come post some stupid copied-and-pasted apology on the same board, to the same people, and I'm asked to present the evidence, and it happens 9 times in a row, the rational expectation should be that the 10'th time likely the same will happen. Actually expecting the opposite to happen this time, is simply nuts.

And choosing it as a course of action towards that outcome is, simply put, choosing the course of action that is proven unlikely to lead to it. It's not exactly a sign of intelligence, really.

[Igopogo]

I never heard it that way. I heard it as "You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into".

Yes, you're right - this is how it's usually stated, sorry. Still total BS though.

[Igopogo]

Not sure why your response or Bill's. What specifically did he think about and how does it not apply? (I know,but I am curious if we have the same reason - there is a wrong reason that Bill may have used and more than one right depending.

He doesn't go into details, and you'd be best seeing his own description of the event than mine. I believe the movie is on Youtube. As for me, I don't see how because there's states of matter that this has any relevance regarding the existence of the trinity.

[Igopogo]

"argument by eloquence" would be a fine name for it, but I still say it would be simply another type of red herring argument.

The fact that a sentence is pithy or eloquent or rhymes should not make it more logically persuasive.

ETA: I might also suggest: argumentum ad bumpersticker.

Yes, this sounds right.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I agree.

I think the point is that the pithiness or eloquence (or meter or rhyme for that matter*) in itself is not a logical argument. If the snappiness takes the place of an argument, then it is simply another type of irrelevant fallacy. I wouldn't say this is a new category of fallacy, but perhaps a new subcategory of the irrelevant (or red herring) fallacy.

I really like this taxonomy of fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html).

* Remember, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"?

ETA: And the Johnny Cochrane example just made me realize that while the snappiness is altogether irrelevant, there could still be other fallacies in the argument. In this case, it's a false dichotomy. But the meter and rhyme is still irrelevant.


The second example the OP used was called a chiasm. Evangelists use them a lot.

It is sort of like a poem in that it has the form ABBA or ABAB, and it appeals to a simpleton in the same way a rhyme or music does.

ABBA example: "Control your wee-wee before your wee-wee controls you." You can make up any old thing.

You have a rhyme above that Johnny Cochrane used to smuggle a false dichotomy in.

So sure there are literary devices that masquerade as "argument". I think that is the idea in the OP.

People who watch a lot of sit-coms place a premium on the superficial one-line quip. Sad, but true.

It's hard to contend with in an environment where people don't want to think. They'll get angry if you try to dissect a bad argument logically.

The one-liner can be deployed in a way that makes responding to it tedious and lengthy. You lose 86.2% of posters after the third sentence. (Made up statistic!)

[angrysoba]

A fallacy does not mean that a conclusion is false, it means that the conclusion is not supported by the argument. It is possible for the conclusion to be true, and supportable by valid argument.

Yeah, I call it the "fallacy fallacy".

It's something like this:

"You are so smelly and disgusting that your theory about the world being ruled by newts is obviously wrong."

"Aha! That's the argumentum ad hominem fallacy! That means my theory about newts ruling the world is correct!"

"Aha! That's the fallacy fallacy, phallus face!"

"Aha! Too snappy! That's the snappy comeback fallacy and an ad hominem therefore it can't be the fallacy fallacy and you're wrong..."

[Igopogo]

ABBA example: "Control your wee-wee before your wee-wee controls you." You can make up any old thing.


So true. There was a story on the news fairly recently about how politicians keep trying to write variations of JFK's speech "ask not what you can do for your country...". Exactly what you're talking about.

It also reminds me of a famous review that George S. Kaufman wrote for an up and coming Italian opera singer named Guido Nazzo:

"Guido Nazzo is Nazzo Guido"

Kaufman regretted writing it later, as it destroyed the poor guys career.

Dorothy Parker had the best ABBA line: 'I can't come into work today, I'm too f@#!ing busy, and vice versa.'

[Cuddles]

It is sort of like a poem in that it has the form ABBA or ABAB, and it appeals to a simpleton in the same way a rhyme or music does.

Because obviously rhymes and music only appeal to simpletons.

ABBA example: "Control your wee-wee before your wee-wee controls you." You can make up any old thing.

I assume that's a line from "Waterloo".

[Bram Kaandorp]

The second example the OP used was called a chiasm. Evangelists use them a lot.

It is sort of like a poem in that it has the form ABBA or ABAB, and it appeals to a simpleton in the same way a rhyme or music does.

ABBA example: "Control your wee-wee before your wee-wee controls you." You can make up any old thing.

You have a rhyme above that Johnny Cochrane used to smuggle a false dichotomy in.

So sure there are literary devices that masquerade as "argument". I think that is the idea in the OP.

People who watch a lot of sit-coms place a premium on the superficial one-line quip. Sad, but true.

It's hard to contend with in an environment where people don't want to think. They'll get angry if you try to dissect a bad argument logically.

The one-liner can be deployed in a way that makes responding to it tedious and lengthy. You lose 86.2% of posters after the third sentence. (Made up statistic!)

For example: a phrase such as "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is not necessarily meaningful by virtue of sounding good.

I can live with that.

[HansMustermann]

Yes, you're right - this is how it's usually stated, sorry. Still total BS though.

No, it's actually pretty good. If someone hasn't arrived to a position by using any kind of logic, chances are that no amount of logic you could throw at them that will change anything.

The reason being, basically, cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

If someone is actually following some premises and logic to whatever conclusion they may lead, you can point out the holes, and they'll adjust the conclusion accordingly.

However, enter believing X is true, just because it's important to one to believe X is true. E.g., believing in Jesus just because death scares the crap out of them. If it's important enough to them, their mental model will reform every time to rationalize X as true, and any piece of logic or reality that contradicts X as false. It's how cognitive dissonance works.

You can see it used even in the Bible, when Paul goes "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:13-14) Essentially he's tugging at the strings of their fears and wishful thinking to get a cognitive dissonance effect. As logic it's bogus, but it works _because_ they didn't arrive at that conclusion by logic. He's playing the "if X is false, then you don't get Y which you want" card, because that cognitive dissonance _will_ be resolved with Y being true, and he's tacking an X to it that should be resolved as true too in the process.

And yes, you can't reason most people out of a cognitive dissonance. If for them X is true just because it's important for them that X be true (or an Y depends on it that is important to them), then cognitive dissonance will resolve to a mental model where X is true. Reality, reason and logic be damned.

That's what that quip says. You can sway someone with logic if they used logic to arrive at a conclusion, you very likely can't if they're there in spite of logic in the first place.

Again, it's not bulletproof, but it's actually not very far off the mark, as one-liner wisecracks go.

[Drewbot]

I think there are situations where it is tempting to attempt hit a walk-off home run.

In most cases the attempt fails, but I have seen some that qualify as thread closers, they are so good. In fact, I think there should be a panel, which can decide to close a thread if someone nails a one liner, topic related, that answers the opening question.

Example:
Q. Can shaft vibration cause a chaotic system reaction?

A. That's what she said.

<Thread closed>

[technoextreme]

I did.



No it doesn't.

"Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem - it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial)
Yes and in your infinite laziness you didn't read it at all correctly because if you did you would realize that it contradicts itself.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

[Ladewig]

I am sure I have seen it brought up in meta discussions about skepticism without any non-sceptics taking part in the debate at all.

OK, I believe you. My question is "was it used by these skeptics as a snappy one-liner that was intended to 'shut down further thinking and discussion' or simply had the effect of 'shutting down further thinking and discussion'?"

[case#46cw39]

just goes to show ya, the sun don't rise from the west. case closed.

[Igopogo]

No, it's actually pretty good. If someone hasn't arrived to a position by using any kind of logic, chances are that no amount of logic you could throw at them that will change anything.


Sorry, I disagree. It's a crap concept that only refers to people who can't use logic at all, (like your examples). Yes - these folks are frustrating and exist, but I've run into exceedingly few in my lifetime, (or on this web-site). I think they have a mental block against logic, so I tend to ignore them.

What's far more common are people who actually can reason, but bought into something that didn't require reason to get there. I'm sure we've all done it at some point. The best way, (if not the only way), to get back to rationality is to reason your way out - like John Nash in A Beautiful Mind.


I see it happen with my students all the time. They're bright, but they're young, and sometimes fall for some conspiracy theory. It often takes surprisingly little reasoning to get them to think about it. For example, (I'm 3 for 3 on this following exchange):

STUDENT: "Are you crazy, of course extraterrestrials exist. I even saw one once."
ME: "Really, can you describe it to me."
STUDENT: Well, there was this bright light in the night sky, and it was moving strangely..."
ME: "Sorry to interrupt - this is off-topic - but did you know that ancient civilizations saw strange lights in the sky and swore they saw gods riding flaming chariots? So go on, what did the alien look like..."
STUDENT: (turns slightly red and goes back to work).

This one happened about a month ago - A student harangue me in front of class that the lunar landing never happened, to which I asked, "Which lunar landing?"
STUDENT: "What do you mean? THE lunar landing. Perhaps you've heard of it?"
ME: "You do know there were 8 flights to the moon with 6 of them landing on the surface, so I'm asking you, which one was fake?"
STUDENT: "Uh, the first one?"
ME: "So the others happened?"
STUDENT: "I'm going to have to look into this..." (turns slightly red and goes back to work).

[Stray Cat]

Yes and in your infinite laziness you didn't read it at all correctly because if you did you would realize that it contradicts itself.
And in your eagerness to be right, you seem to be missing the glaringly obvious fact that you're wrong.

Your quote does not contradict mine at all, it supports it and clearly points out that Ad Hom is a fallacy, but when it is not fallacious, it is not an Ad Hom.

Which is exactly what I was saying from the start.

[HansMustermann]

Sorry, I disagree. It's a crap concept that only refers to people who can't use logic at all, (like your examples). Yes - these folks are frustrating and exist, but I've run into exceedingly few in my lifetime, (or on this web-site). I think they have a mental block against logic, so I tend to ignore them.

Cognitive dissonance is actually ubiquitous, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether you rationalize religion, or a crap job, or rationalizing why you voted for a party whose agenda includes points X and Y which you didn't want (and often end up rationalizing them as really good points you were totally for), or just needing to be right on an internet forum. Even writing down a position as a joke or as a devil's advocate exercise actually makes you start shifting your actual position towards that, because for most people it seems to beat acknowledging that they wrote BS.

It happens to me, to you, and likely to everyone you know. Very arguably it's been shown to happen even in monkeys and cats. Of course, I don't see my blind spots and you don't see yours, but it would be presumptuous to proclaim being above basic brain functions.

Of course, not everyone will want to fight it out with a complete stranger, but, yes, chances are you've met a lot of people who swung back to what they wanted to believe and forgot all the evidence to the contrary you may have given them, often within the next hour.

Your not having paid attention to the problem before doesn't make it something to just handwave over.

I see it happen with my students all the time. They're bright, but they're young, and sometimes fall for some conspiracy theory. It often takes surprisingly little reasoning to get them to think about it. For example, (I'm 3 for 3 on this following exchange):

STUDENT: "Are you crazy, of course extraterrestrials exist. I even saw one once."
ME: "Really, can you describe it to me."
STUDENT: Well, there was this bright light in the night sky, and it was moving strangely..."
ME: "Sorry to interrupt - this is off-topic - but did you know that ancient civilizations saw strange lights in the sky and swore they saw gods riding flaming chariots? So go on, what did the alien look like..."
STUDENT: (turns slightly red and goes back to work).

You do realize that here you've just pulled a snappy non-sequitur yourself, right? You know, since you rant about them. Just because some ancient guy thought he saw Gods doesn't mean they couldn't have been aliens, nor that both can't be true. E.g., just because we've seen lights moving in the sky before and thought they're gods, doesn't mean you can dismiss airplanes at night as the same thing. Sometimes A and B are just different things, even if they can be superficially similar.

Plus, chances are that what you've seen there is someone not pushing a confrontation too far -- especially when the implicit threat exists to end up looking crazy -- rather than someone who suddenly was convinced by your snappy logic. A lot of those guys won't actually start doubting aliens just because they backed off there, and a lot of the rest will resolve that cognitive dissonance back to "but the one I saw is REAL, dammit."

At any rate, you haven't shown that you actually reasoned someone out of anything.

This one happened about a month ago - A student harangue me in front of class that the lunar landing never happened, to which I asked, "Which lunar landing?"
STUDENT: "What do you mean? THE lunar landing. Perhaps you've heard of it?"
ME: "You do know there were 8 flights to the moon with 6 of them landing on the surface, so I'm asking you, which one was fake?"
STUDENT: "Uh, the first one?"
ME: "So the others happened?"
STUDENT: "I'm going to have to look into this..." (turns slightly red and goes back to work).

But, again, was he actually argued out of it? Have you had some third party ask them next month if the landing is real? Or how do you know that you reasoned them out of it?

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It also reminds me of a famous review that George S. Kaufman wrote for an up and coming Italian opera singer named Guido Nazzo:

"Guido Nazzo is Nazzo Guido"

Kaufman regretted writing it later, as it destroyed the poor guys career.



Too funny! (Not for Guido) yup, that's ABBA with a pun. Deadly!

Bram - You got it.


Here is an ABAB form:

The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


Not exactly Biblical proof against homosexuality.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I assume that's a line from "Waterloo".

No. Just made it up on the spot to show an example of a chiasm

[Cuddles]

No. Just made it up on the spot to show an example of a chiasm

:rolleyes:
Abba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba)
Waterloo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_%28ABBA_song%29)
Wee-wee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urination)
Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water)
Loo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet)

[Igopogo]

Here is an ABAB form:

The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.



Whenever I repeatedly hear something in the media like:

"..our blah blah blah proposal is 'good for Wall Street and good for Main Street,'" I assume some PR firm is behind it with some list of poetic criteria they follow.

While watching the news one night, I made one of my usually cracks about the build up to the Iraq war and my wife turned to me and said with a straight face, "you're not anti-war, you're anti-American." I instantly realized a PR firm somewhere scored a touch-down. (And it felt like I'd been delivered a 'when did you stop beating your wife.'

Thanks for the info on chiasms, you learn something new everyday. I keep running into another form of mnemonic that I wonder if you know about. Way back I memorized a free-mason ritual and found that it was all broken into groups of three. I was told that most oral tradition literature has this pattern. Now I often notice historians or pundits listing of points in three - something like:

The stimulus is "good for short term capital, it's good for long term investing, and it's good for employment"... (put in whatever 3 things you want, it doesn't matter).

[Stray Cat]

The stimulus is "good for short term capital, it's good for long term investing, and it's good for employment"... (put in whatever 3 things you want, it doesn't matter).

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Good-Gadger-Ugly.jpg

[Sledge]

Igopogo, can you point me to a thread where this "snappy comeback fallacy" has occurred? So far, it just seems like you're annoyed that people sometimes say stuff you don't have a good response for.

[fuelair]

He doesn't go into details, and you'd be best seeing his own description of the event than mine. I believe the movie is on Youtube. As for me, I don't see how because there's states of matter that this has any relevance regarding the existence of the trinity.

Technically it doesn't - but if the observed "flaw" that Bill thought of was "but it is not solid, liquid and gas all at the same time" he would have been wrong as at the triple point it is all three at once - but if he did mean one does not = other then he was correct.:)

[AlaskaBushPilot]

:rolleyes:
Abba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba)
Waterloo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_%28ABBA_song%29)
Wee-wee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urination)
Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water)
Loo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet)

Not worth my time trying to figure out, cuddles. Don't confuse disinterest with stupidity.


Yes, Igopogo - that's exactly what they do. I don't know the name for grouping things by three, but that is a good observation on your part.

I see the similarities in poetry and in music too. By far the most common pop hit tunes come in groups of three, with the 1-4-5 pattern. The 1 is the key chord. 5 is the strongest harmonic. 4 is the second strongest.

Your lyrics can be about cutting the hearts out of babies and eating them, but as long as it follows the 1-4-5 pattern of three, it will be a "catchy" tune.

From doing a lot of public speaking and musical performing I saw some very interesting parallels between them.

[HansMustermann]

Whenever I repeatedly hear something in the media like:

"..our blah blah blah proposal is 'good for Wall Street and good for Main Street,'" I assume some PR firm is behind it with some list of poetic criteria they follow.

Actually, if you think that's perverse, ouch, you may not like this ;) Truth is, that's more like basic ad stuff. PR is even sneakier than that nowadays.

Basically, for example sake, let's say I had a big business selling business suits. Marketing would be telling you to buy one from me and maybe come with a snappy slogan or wording like above. PR, on the other hand, will write a barrage of news articles about how the suit is back, all successful companies only hire people in suits nowadays, and even have a few guys quoted in there saying that (A) they'd only think someone is a pro if they wear a suit, or (B) how much better job offers they got for wearing a suit.

It may seem pointless, but that's an example of a real PR campaign. Not even the most insidious one, but easy to explain.

Also, you know all those studies that coffee is good for you, wine is good for you, beer is good for you, chocolate is good for you, etc? That's PR at work. For enough silvers it even gets a Ph.D. to sign his name on it. Studies that show a certain month is best for taking a vacation, that incidentally coincides with the month a travel agency is running a special offer? That's PR. Scare stories about how some villages of 100 people don't even have enough kids for a school and have to bus them to the next village, and OMG population implosion, THERE'LL BE NOBODY TO PAY YOUR PENSION WHEN YOU'RE OLD? Actual PR case over here, paid for by some insurance companies trying to get into the pension business. Etc.

And try to get them published in every newspaper they can reach. The regional minor ones are even easy. Those are quite happy to publish some professionally written article that isn't about some local cat getting stuck in a tree. A good PR agency will get you into major ones. A really goon one will get you on national TV.

Those guys don't sell you snappy one-liners. They try to redefine the very facts you base a judgment on. And chances are you'll never know it was a PR job instead of news.

While watching the news one night, I made one of my usually cracks about the build up to the Iraq war and my wife turned to me and said with a straight face, "you're not anti-war, you're anti-American." I instantly realized a PR firm somewhere scored a touch-down. (And it felt like I'd been delivered a 'when did you stop beating your wife.'

Again, I don't think you need a PR company for that. It's basic conformism stuff and used by politicians long before there even was such a concept as PR agencies.

Waay back when Rome was drafting thousands of peasants into wars they gained nothing from, kept them away from the farm for years, then slapped them with back-taxes to bankrupt them and make them sell the farm to a latifundiary, you can bet your donkey that they played the same "if you're not for the war in Iberia, you're anti-Rome" (and/or a coward and/or unpatriotic and/or dishonourable) card. And Rome didn't invent it either.

[Igopogo]

Igopogo, can you point me to a thread where this "snappy comeback fallacy" has occurred? So far, it just seems like you're annoyed that people sometimes say stuff you don't have a good response for.

I see it happen from time to time, like someone bringing up the you can't reason your way..." line and no one calling him on it. I haven't bothered calling them on it either, so maybe there's others like me who can't be bothered either.

I'm not here to win any arguments, it's just something I notice even skeptics falling for at times. I brought it up here to bring it out so I don't have to go find all the threads where it happened, just see if you see it happen from time to time as well.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes there is a long history of slogans in polemics and in protest.

If I can find it, there's a great parody of this in one of Pratchett's Discworld novels (Interesting Times, I think). The "red army" is part of an extremely polite culture, and they have a tough time coming up with revolutionary slogans that are very punchy.

Ah, here we are:

"Necessarily Extended Duration To The Red Army! Regrettable Decease Without Undue Suffering To The Forces of Oppression!"
<snip>
Cohen had been right. There seemed to be a revolution. But the Empire had been in unchanged existence for thousands of years, courtesy and a respect for protocol were part of its very fabric, and by the sound of it the revolutionaries had yet to master the art of impolite slogans.

From Interesting Times.

But what I was actually thinking of was the attempt at chanting by the newly formed Night Watch Guild in The Fifth Elephant:
'All right, one more time,' he said. 'Whadda we want?'

The strike meeting had been going on for some time, and it had been going on in a bar. The watchmen were already a little forgetful.

Constable Ping raised his hand. 'Er . . . a proper grievance procedure, a complaints committee, an overhaul of the promotion procedures . . .er. . .'
'-better crockery in the canteen,' someone supplied.
'-freedom from unwarranted accusations of sucrose theft-' said someone else.
'-no more than seven days straight on nights-'
'-an increase in the boots allowance-'
'-at least three afternoons off for grandmothers' funerals per year-'
'-not having to pay for our own pigeon feed-'
'-another drink.' This last demand met with general approval.

Constable Shoe got to his feet. He was still, in his spare time, organizer of the Campaign for Dead Rights, and he knew how this sort of thing went. [For the uninitiated, Reg Shoe was a zombie.]

'No, no, no, no, no,' he said. 'You've got to get it a lot simpler than that. It's got to have bounce. And rhythm. Like "Whadda we want? Dum-deedum-dee. When do we want it? Now!" See? You need one simple demand. Let's try it again. Whadda we want?'

The watchmen looked at one another, no one quite wanting to be the first.

'Another drink?' someone volunteered.

'Yeah!' said someone at the back. 'When do we want it? NOW!'

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see it happen from time to time, like someone bringing up the you can't reason your way..." line and no one calling him on it. I haven't bothered calling them on it either, so maybe there's others like me who can't be bothered either.

I'm not here to win any arguments, it's just something I notice even skeptics falling for at times. I brought it up here to bring it out so I don't have to go find all the threads where it happened, just see if you see it happen from time to time as well.

It happens on bumper stickers all the time.

Also in various other kinds of propaganda--like those awful Pro-Life billboards.

And I've also given the Johnny Cochrane example. While I suppose these aren't exactly "comebacks" the same principle is at work. The pithiness of the statement takes the place of a logical argument. The fallacy, again, is that the pithiness (or eloquence or prosody) is logically irrelevant.

ETA: I also hear televangelists use this sort of thing with some regularity. In these cases, they are snappy comeback lines, but they often provide their own artificial set-up line. (That is, they're comebacks to a strawman.) One example I can remember is a guy saying that his critics claim his behavior (going all Jesus-loves-you and absurdly over-enthusiastic) is unnatural. "It's not unnatural, baby; it's supernatural!" This followed by a smug look as if he has actually refuted any criticism at all.

ETA: I don't think I said it yet, Igopogo, but I think the snappy comeback fallacy is a very good observation. Even though I would place this "new" fallacy as another type of irrelevant fallacy, I think it's a perfectly good subtype of that category of informal fallacy. I would also generalize it a bit to the Bumper Sticker or Slogan Fallacy and not limit it merely to comebacks.

[Alan]

Not worth my time trying to figure out, cuddles. Don't confuse disinterest with stupidity. [...]
I thought it was great, Cuddles.

People who used faulty reasoning or bad information to support reach their conclusion still reasoned their way into a belief. The statement refers to when people base their conclusions on emotional needs or something.

[HansMustermann]

I think most slogans fall already quite naturally under appeal to emotion, wishful thinking, appeal to consequences and a few others. You don't need to move something to a new category just because it's a zinger.

And at the very least most (as most fallacies) fall under a bigger umbrella category, such as non-sequitur, genetic fallacy, etc. Which tends to indicate exactly what's wrong with the reasoning employed, whereas filing something as "snappy answer fallacy" is as uninformative as it gets there. You can tell that, say, a genetic fallacy is wrong _because_ it attacks or praises the source instead of the logic and that is almost invariably wrong (make that absolutely invariably for formal logic), whereas for a "snappy answer fallacy" it's not clear at all why something would be a wrong reasoning mode just because it's a one-liner zinger.

Plus, I'd like to point out that something is only a fallacy if used in an "X ... therefore Y" chain. If there is no "therefore" attached, not even an implied one, it's really not a fallacy. Sometimes a zinger is just a zinger.

At least two of the supposed "fallacies" that our friend is annoyed by, I've haven's seen used as a fallacy much. Both the "definition of insanity" and "you can't reason someone out of something they haven't reasoned themselves into" don't usually really come with a "therefore I'm right" or "therefore you're wrong" attached, at least around here. Usually the reason why the opponent is wrong has already been stated, typically several times in more than one thread, and the pithy remark is just that: a remark on someone's inability to learn. There is no "God doesn't exist because Epix is insane" conclusion attached.

And again I'll return to the existence of more informative categories, if one feels that an actual fallacy is being used. If there actually were a chain of reasoning along the lines of "X is insane (e.g., because he repeats the same thing and expects different results), therefore X's claim is wrong", that falls quite nicely under ad-hominem already. You don't need to move it to another category.

Ditto for the other one. If anyone actually pulled a reasoning along the lines of "I'm right because X won't let himself be reasoned out of the opposite", that's again at the very least an Ignoratio elenchi, whereas "I'm right, but X won't admit it", is just a form of bare assertion, a.k.a. Ipse-dixitism fallacy. I see no reason to move the snappy ones to a category defined by just being snappy, as opposed to by what's wrong with the mode of reasoning.

And just to have the full set, there are ways to use a snappy zinger as a derail, which already has a name too. It's called a red herring. Well, or as an argumentum ad baculum, or poisoning the well, or a few other. But again, there are already names for those and better reasons why they're invalid inference modes.

And, generally, I remember reading a remark once that usually when someone says "there ought to be a law against that", either there _is_ one, or there is a good reason why there oughtn't. Same here. Almost invariably when someone thinks there ought to be a new fallacy, either there _is_ one and they're just not good at spotting it, or chances are there really oughtn't.

We've had over 2000 years of spotting and categorizing invalid reasoning modes. If one can't point out an existing category for a zinger, nor as the fall back why that's not one of the few known valid modes, chances are it's simply not a fallacy. The chances that someone would basically reinvent logic and find an actual invalid subcase of one of the valid cases, are, shall we say, slim.

[Óðinn]

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Good-Gadger-Ugly.jpg

Badgers! We don't need no stinking badgers! :p

[Skeptical Greg]

A snappy answer is only fallacious it it is fallacious ..



( Wow! Did I just commit the " Snappy answer fallacy ? )

[Fnord]

We’ve all been subjected at some time by what I call “the fallacy of the snappy answer”...
.
Says you!

:D

[Igopogo]

We've had over 2000 years of spotting and categorizing invalid reasoning modes. If one can't point out an existing category for a zinger, nor as the fall back why that's not one of the few known valid modes, chances are it's simply not a fallacy. The chances that someone would basically reinvent logic and find an actual invalid subcase of one of the valid cases, are, shall we say, slim.

I never thought I came up with anything new, it's just something I noticed, and figure out what what fallacy it was or is it one, or what is it? - so I posted it here to find out from the experts.

The fallacy simply is: what is it called when an argument is won based on how good it sounds. Sorry you didn't like my examples, but I'm sure you'll find better out there, as I see it happen fairly frequently. I do regret calling it the "snappy answer fallacy", (since if I came up with a boffo name, you would have embraced the concept).

To me it's clearly it's a fallacy, (or something related), if it wins an argument, and it's winning merits are unrelated to the veracity of it's content. Others have given good examples of how it can be a carrier for other fallacies, which is true, but still doesn't completely cover it for me.

I agree with JoetheJuggler that it somehow falls under the umbrella of informal fallacy, though I'll have to read more to figure out where.

Thanks all. Many very thought provoking posts - and remember - we don't want good, sound arguments, we want arguments that sound good.

[marplots]

That's just your opinion.

[Óðinn]

A snappy answer is only fallacious it it is fallacious ..



( Wow! Did I just commit the " Snappy answer fallacy ? )

Nope, cuz you're right. A fallacy must be fallacious and a snappy answer doesn't necessarily qualify. As for any statement it's the content that makes it fallacious, not the construct.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Thanks all. Many very thought provoking posts - and remember - we don't want good, sound arguments, we want arguments that sound good.

Ha ha! You are awful!

On the loose now!

[Drewbot]

The fallaciousness of an answer is not related to the snappiness of the answer.

[Cuddles]

Not worth my time trying to figure out, cuddles. Don't confuse disinterest with stupidity.

There is nothing to figure out. Abba are one of the most successful pop bands in the world, ever (behind only the Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson according to Wiki). Waterloo is one of their best known songs. You said something involving ABBA and going to the toilet, so a joke involving Abba and Waterloo should be obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 40 years.

Given that you not only didn't get the joke, but apparently still don't understand that my post was not deadly serious, I'm starting to understand why you dislike snappy answers so much. You probably wouldn't hate them so much if you could actually recognise them.

[dlorde]

I see it happen from time to time, like someone bringing up the you can't reason your way..." line and no one calling him on it.
I've used it myself - usually where a large number of thread pages have failed to get someone to realise their position is irrational. It's like "Meh - you can't reason someone..." - a generalisation that happens to apply in that instance. Clearly such pithy aphorisms can't replace a reasonable argument, they're just throwaways. In general, I like them - especially used ironically. They shouldn't be taken seriously. YMMV.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

There is nothing to figure out. Abba are one of the most successful pop bands in the world, ever (behind only the Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson according to Wiki). Waterloo is one of their best known songs. You said something involving ABBA and going to the toilet, so a joke involving Abba and Waterloo should be obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 40 years.

Given that you not only didn't get the joke, but apparently still don't understand that my post was not deadly serious, I'm starting to understand why you dislike snappy answers so much. You probably wouldn't hate them so much if you could actually recognise them.

He hee! Too funny! Thanks, because I just love dissecting these heroic efforts at put-downs.

Wrapped up with a snappy fallacy one-liner at the end! :) Juicy!

Oooohhhh, I am SO EMBARASSED to be exposed as *gasp* as uninformed as you on this pop band.

Here's a music video that I wrote the lyrics for, wrote the music for, played both lead and rhythm guitar for, arranged and directed all of the other instruments, and produced. Piloted the plane for most of the photos, some of which are of my wife 30 years younger:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLZMxqYzfw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLZMxqYzfw)


I am especially proud of the piano although Mike performed it. He is definitely better than me on piano. Note the placement of the full-chord presses vs. the raindrop tinkle-tinkle-tinkle though. Played just behind the beat. The strings, the chimes - exactly as I wanted everything.

The reason I wasn't much of a music fan through my life was because I played three instruments, sang, and ran my own band for years as lead singer and guitarist. That's my last band on the music video.

So epic fail there bud on the attempt to shame me. I remain blissfully ignorant of far more than you thought about pop culture music, and I couldn't care less because instead of being a music fan... I'm a musician. I fully composed 34 songs and have dozens of others half-baked.

I've always had music going on in my head like a constant sweet river of joy, not worth interrupting to be a fan of whatever was going on in pop culture. To be forthright, there were a few things I did actually study like James Taylor's guitar work because his ideas about placement of minors, 7ths, and progressions matched my ideas about music.

This is all germane to your framing of the "snappy answer" at the end:

You probably wouldn't hate them so much if you could actually recognise them.

Oooh ooohh! The bit about hate - none of which I have expressed - that's great because you paint your mark as this irrationally emotional, hateful person.

Yea that's me! Mr Hate! :)

Because I can't recognize snappy answers. :o


And yes, I did understand it was supposed to be some kind of joke, ie "snappy answer". You think too highly of yourself in terms of how I view the value of my time.

Now you got me interested because of the fallacy one-liner at the end.

Note how the whole thing starts of with a logical nonsequitor: allegedly there is "nothing to figure out", except the pun that is explained immediately after denying there was an explanation to figure out.

The whole thing is a put-down, called "shaming" in the personality disorder literature, and this is a particular kind of specialty on message boards.

The pseudo-fallacy we are discussing is the "snappy answer" fallacy, and you very often see it in the form of shaming like this. The mark is supposed to slink off in embarassment, in this case the personal insult is being "stupid".

Living under a rock is a metaphor, a personal insult - you're a worm or an ant or a bug of some kind. The only way it can work is on a person who lets you manipulate their emotions.

This one I relish with glee because the assertion I am ignorant about music is most definitely true in the sense of following pop music. But the reason why is hilarious to me. That I should be embarassed by such a thing. Too busy playing/performing myself to listen much to others.

Too much fun!

"Loo" I take it has something to do with bathroom? And I said something about going to the bathroom? No, I didn't. Quote where I said "Bathroom" until this very post.

You can't!

So you have yet another fallacy going there. A presumption untrue. I was randomly throwing ABBA form together specifically without having to mean anything. That was rather the point. Look how your willie can be thrown in there with "control" and have the appearance of logic only because it is in the form ABBA. If it applies to anything in reality, it would be sex and not urination.

Now that I look at it, your pun is not very clever IMHO. Strained. Over-reaching. For the "snappy answer" at hand - I'm immune to shaming on music knowledge.

Good example of the "snappy answer" fallacy in action, thanks.

Cheers.

[Drewbot]

ABP
I could see how 'wee-wee' could be assumed to be the act of urination, a verb.
Some small children and England use the verb 'wee', as in 'I have to wee'. Control your Urination, before your urination controls you.

I got what you meant, though about your willie can get you in trouble. But, I could see some taking it as a potty reference.

[Sledge]

It really seems to me that people complaining about snappy answers don't have a sense of humour but don't want to just say "I don't get it."

[Stray Cat]

Here's a music video that I wrote the lyrics for, wrote the music for, played both lead and rhythm guitar for, arranged and directed all of the other instruments, and produced. Piloted the plane for most of the photos, some of which are of my wife 30 years younger:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLZMxqYzfw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLZMxqYzfw)

You totally ripped off REO Speedwagon.


I'll explain, this is also a 'joke', though 'getting it' isn't compulsory (luckily).

[Cuddles]

He hee! Too funny! Thanks, because I just love dissecting these heroic efforts at put-downs.

Wrapped up with a snappy fallacy one-liner at the end! :) Juicy!

Oooohhhh, I am SO EMBARASSED to be exposed as *gasp* as uninformed as you on this pop band.

Here's a music video that I wrote the lyrics for, wrote the music for, played both lead and rhythm guitar for, arranged and directed all of the other instruments, and produced. Piloted the plane for most of the photos, some of which are of my wife 30 years younger:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLZMxqYzfw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLZMxqYzfw)


I am especially proud of the piano although Mike performed it. He is definitely better than me on piano. Note the placement of the full-chord presses vs. the raindrop tinkle-tinkle-tinkle though. Played just behind the beat. The strings, the chimes - exactly as I wanted everything.

The reason I wasn't much of a music fan through my life was because I played three instruments, sang, and ran my own band for years as lead singer and guitarist. That's my last band on the music video.

So epic fail there bud on the attempt to shame me. I remain blissfully ignorant of far more than you thought about pop culture music, and I couldn't care less because instead of being a music fan... I'm a musician. I fully composed 34 songs and have dozens of others half-baked.

I've always had music going on in my head like a constant sweet river of joy, not worth interrupting to be a fan of whatever was going on in pop culture. To be forthright, there were a few things I did actually study like James Taylor's guitar work because his ideas about placement of minors, 7ths, and progressions matched my ideas about music.

This is all germane to your framing of the "snappy answer" at the end:



Oooh ooohh! The bit about hate - none of which I have expressed - that's great because you paint your mark as this irrationally emotional, hateful person.

Yea that's me! Mr Hate! :)

Because I can't recognize snappy answers. :o


And yes, I did understand it was supposed to be some kind of joke, ie "snappy answer". You think too highly of yourself in terms of how I view the value of my time.

Now you got me interested because of the fallacy one-liner at the end.

Note how the whole thing starts of with a logical nonsequitor: allegedly there is "nothing to figure out", except the pun that is explained immediately after denying there was an explanation to figure out.

The whole thing is a put-down, called "shaming" in the personality disorder literature, and this is a particular kind of specialty on message boards.

The pseudo-fallacy we are discussing is the "snappy answer" fallacy, and you very often see it in the form of shaming like this. The mark is supposed to slink off in embarassment, in this case the personal insult is being "stupid".

Living under a rock is a metaphor, a personal insult - you're a worm or an ant or a bug of some kind. The only way it can work is on a person who lets you manipulate their emotions.

This one I relish with glee because the assertion I am ignorant about music is most definitely true in the sense of following pop music. But the reason why is hilarious to me. That I should be embarassed by such a thing. Too busy playing/performing myself to listen much to others.

Too much fun!

"Loo" I take it has something to do with bathroom? And I said something about going to the bathroom? No, I didn't. Quote where I said "Bathroom" until this very post.

You can't!

So you have yet another fallacy going there. A presumption untrue. I was randomly throwing ABBA form together specifically without having to mean anything. That was rather the point. Look how your willie can be thrown in there with "control" and have the appearance of logic only because it is in the form ABBA. If it applies to anything in reality, it would be sex and not urination.

Now that I look at it, your pun is not very clever IMHO. Strained. Over-reaching. For the "snappy answer" at hand - I'm immune to shaming on music knowledge.

Good example of the "snappy answer" fallacy in action, thanks.

Cheers.

Wow. I've honestly never seen anyone so desperate make an idiot out of themselves in response to a short, totally inoffensive joke. Please just put down the keyboard and back away slowly from the computer before you strain something.

I got what you meant, though about your willie can get you in trouble. But, I could see some taking it as a potty reference.

Yeah, but I can't think of any Abba songs about penises, so that probably wouldn't have worked as well.

[Skeptical Greg]

" Rubber Ball Man " is close...

[Delvo]

obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 40 years.Ya, that's perfectly rational, sound logic there.