Through communication thoughts, wants, needs, and emotions are shared this sharing is important, without this kind of sharing it is impossible to know what the other party is thinking, feeling, or nee...Through communication thoughts, wants, needs, and emotions are shared this sharing is important, without this kind of sharing it is impossible to know what the other party is thinking, feeling, or needs. The ability to communicate speak, as well as listen openly, honestly and without fear of condemnation is vital to any relationship. When there is, fear of what the other party may think, do, or say encourages lack of communication and secret keeping between parties, secrets and communication breakdown, that almost inevitably damage or destroy the relationship when brought out into the open. Acceptance of differences, the willingness, and ability to see things from another viewpoint fosters trust, the cornerstone in which relationships are built by building trust in a relationship we have a strong foundation. In fostering trust, closeness, and respect in relationships, they become stronger; we are closer to those we trust that those we do not. Spending quality time with those, you have relationships provides time for communication, closeness, interaction, and support. With these, the relationship becomes stronger and thrives, without them it fizzles. Strong relationships stand the test of time, in meeting the needs of and respecting the other party relationships can only become strong.
There is a difference in accountability and responsibility considering this fact, we are in fact responsible from the day we are born whether we are knowing or not if we as a toddler put our hand on a...There is a difference in accountability and responsibility considering this fact, we are in fact responsible from the day we are born whether we are knowing or not if we as a toddler put our hand on a hot stove others are not at fault for this action, did the parent or someone else make us touch the stove or did we do it of our own volition. Who is responsible for the actions we do or do not take besides ourselves? Even as small children, we learn lessons sometimes the hard way once these lessons are learned, accountability begins (8-10 years old) parents, / caregivers bear some responsibility in our lives however, it is only a limited one, providing for our needs, teaching us right from wrong, and fighting for us if needed. (If we have, a problem at school that needs addressed etc.) After that, their responsibility ends becoming ours. If at 10 years old (as you mentioned) a child takes, a gun to school is the parent responsible for that act? No because they did not know about it (I do not believe any parent would allow their child to take a gun to school) and did not take the gun to school themselves. We cannot be responsible or accountable for the action (s) or inaction (s) of anyone other than ourselves, when we try to be we at best wind up feeling guilty for the actions of others (the same thing when we worry over things we cannot change) this only causes us unnecessary mental stress that fails to help or change anything.
Argument Types Demystified
Invalid and unsound: at least one premise is false, and conclusion does not follow from the premises
Valid but unsound: conclusion follows from the premises but at least one o...Argument Types Demystified
Invalid and unsound: at least one premise is false, and conclusion does not follow from the premises
Valid but unsound: conclusion follows from the premises but at least one of the premises is false
Invalid: premises may be true but conclusion does not follow from them
Sound: all premises are true and conclusion follows from the premises
Deductive arguments are those who contain a string of related statements that taken in totality prove or establish a conclusion.
deductive arguments can be attacked on two different fronts: 1) call into question the premises of the argument itself, 2) call into question the structure of the argument, specifically that the conclusion does not follow from the premise
See 1 more posts from Logically Speaking
Fallacies and Rhetorical devices, Short List
Euphemisms - a neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associations
Dysphemisms – Opposite of a euphemism Used to produce a negat...Fallacies and Rhetorical devices, Short List
Euphemisms - a neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associations
Dysphemisms – Opposite of a euphemism Used to produce a negative effect on a listener’s or reader’s attitude towards something or to tone down the positive associations it may have
Rhetorical comparisons - used to express or influence attitudes
Rhetorical definitions - smuggle prejudice of one sort or another into the meaning of a term
Rhetorical explanations – same as rhetorical definitions, only used as explanations
Stereotype - thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence
Innuendo - a form of suggestion
Loaded question - rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions. This is a form of innuendo.
Weaselers - linguistic methods of hedging a bet by watering down a claim down, e.g., weakening it, to give the claim’s author a way out in case the claim is challenged. Common weaselly words: “perhaps,” “possibly,” “maybe,” and “may be.”
Downplaying - an attempt to make someone or something look less important or significant. Stereotypes, rhetorical comparisons, rhetorical explanations, and innuendo can all be used to downplay something. Downplayers: “just another,” “mere,” “merely,” “so-called,” the use of quotation marks around a term, and the conjunctions: “nevertheless,” “however,” “still,” and “but.”
horse laugh – ridiculing someone or something by 1) laughing outright at a claim, 2) laugh at another claim that reminds us of the first, 3) tell an unrelated joke, 4) use sarcastic language, or 5) simply laugh at the person who is trying to make the point.
Hyperbole - extravagant overstatement. Commonly found in dysphemisms, ridicule, and rhetorical comparisons.
Proof surrogate - An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
Fallacies:
“Argument” from Outrage. Inflammatory words (or thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some sort; substitutes anger for reason and judgment in considering an issue. (favorite strategy of demagogues.) Results: 1) We may think we have been given a reason for being angry when in fact we have not. 2) Second, we may let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence our evaluations of an unrelated thing.
Scapegoating - blaming a certain group of people or even a single person for all of life’s troubles.
Scare tactics - trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position
“argument” by force – threatening someone to make them do what you want
“argument” from pity – when feeling sorry for someone drives us to a position on an unrelated matter
“argument” from envy - finding fault with a person because of envy
apple polishing - Allowing praise of oneself to substitute for judgment about the truth of a claim, or trying to get others to do this
guilt trip – Eliciting feelings of guilt to get others to do or not do something, or to accept the view that they should or should not do it
wishful thinking - when we accept or urge acceptance (or rejection) of a claim simply because it would be pleasant (or unpleasant) if it were true
peer pressure “argument” - accepting a claim not because of its merits, but because we will gain someone’s approval (or will avoid having approval withdrawn).
group think fallacy - when one substitutes pride of membership in a group for reason and deliberation in arriving at a position on an issue
nationalism - a powerful and fierce emotion that can lead to blind endorsement of a country’s policies and practices. (“My country right or wrong” explicitly discourages critical thinking and encourages blind patriotism.) Nationalism is also invoked to reject, condemn, or silence criticism of one’s country as unpatriotic or treasonable (and may or may not involve an element of peer pressure)
rationalizing - using a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests
“argument” from popularity - accept a claim (or fall prey to someone’s doing it to us) simply on the grounds that all or most or some substantial number of people (other than authorities or experts, of course) believe it
“Argument” from common practice - trying to justify or defend an action or practice (as distinguished from an assertion or claim) because it is common.
“argument” from tradition - doing things because they have always been done
Relativism - truth depends on what the people within the culture think
Subjectivism - what is true for one person is not necessarily true for another
· “two wrongs make a right.”- Wrongful behavior on someone else’s part doesn’t convert wrongful behavior on your part into rightful behavior; any more than illegal behavior on someone else’s part converts your illegal activity into legal activity.
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
Red herring – an intentional distraction from the original topic
Ad hominem - confusing the qualities of the person making a claim with the qualities of the claim itself.
personal attack – equating shortcomings in a person to shortcomings in that person’s ideas, proposals, theories, opinions, claims, or arguments.
Inconsistency - rejecting what somebody says because what he or she says seems inconsistent with what he or she does
Circumstantial – because someone’s circumstances are such and such; therefore, his claim (belief, opinion, theory, proposal, etc.) stands refuted.
Poisoning the well – when A poisons your mind about B by relating unfavorable information about B, so you may be inclined to reject what B says to you
genetic fallacy - when we try to “refute” a claim (or urge others to do so) on the basis of its origin or history
straw man - when you “refute” a position or claim by distorting or oversimplifying or misrepresenting it.
false dilemma - when you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available
perfectionist - If policy X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them met (i.e., “perfectly”
, then policy X should be rejected.
line-drawing - insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a line be drawn.
Slippery slope - to think that Y has to follow X when there is no reason to think that X will lead to Y Misplacing the burden of proof - when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an issue.
Initial plausibility - The more a claim coincides with our background information, the greater its initial plausibility. The less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater the burden of proof we place on someone who asserts that claim.
Affirmative/negative. Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side.
appeal to ignorance - When someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn’t so
Special circumstances. Sometimes getting at the truth is not the only thing we want to accomplish, and on such occasions, we may purposely place the burden of proof on a particular side.
Begging the Question - when we ask our audience to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion we’re arguing for and are controversial on the same grounds. AKA circular reasoning or arguing
In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.The general structure of an argument in a natura...In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. (Thanks Wiki)
1) Look for the premise(s) and conclusion arrange the statement-putting premises then conclusion.
2) Are there any unstated premises?
3) Any point that alludes to something else.
4) Check for clearness or ambiguity (vagueness) of the argument or statement.
5) Does the argument use emotional or conceptual components; if it contains both can, they be unconnected from each other and still stand?
6) Is there a bias or slant present?
7) Confirm the logic of the statement presented, is the argument inductive or deductive?
In inductive arguments, the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true as well.
9) In deductive arguments, the claim is the conclusion is true as long as the premises are.
10) Look for any fallacies in the statement (s). Is the argument valid, invalid, sound, or unsound?
11) When arguments are analyzed for soundness and validity, Use these guidelines if an argument is invalid the premises may be truthful but the conclusion does not follow from them. In sound arguments, the premises are true and the conclusion does follow from the premises.
12) Are the premises / conclusion evidenced or believable?
13) Are there any doubtful or false premise(s)?
14) Are there omissions in the information presented?
Invalid and unsound: at least one premise is false, and conclusion does not follow from the premises
Valid but unsound: conclusion follows from the premises but at least one of the premises is false
Invalid: premises may be true but conclusion does not follow from them
Sound: all premises are true and conclusion follows from the premises
Deductive arguments are those who contain a string of related statements that taken in totality prove or establish a conclusion.
Logic explained.
People use logic daily to solve problems, in conversation and in actions. Even children use logic on adults and others, many have had a child say for instance they would clean their ro...Logic explained.
People use logic daily to solve problems, in conversation and in actions. Even children use logic on adults and others, many have had a child say for instance they would clean their room or other chores if they could have or do something like an item at the store, money, or be allowed to go somewhere (skating, spending the night with a friend, etc.) (they also use it to try to get out of trouble). Adults use it as well for things like oops, sorry I'm late for work or how will I tell her that I parked her car illegally and it was towed. Logic deals with statements and their validity (truthfulness, falsehood) the logic of writing and grammar is called propositional, though propositional logic is not limited to this. Logic involving with uncertainties and vagueness (again not limited to this) is called predicate logic. While there are other forms these two are basic to all other types. A statement such as turn on the air conditioner and it is hot outside, or change the channel are not propositions (propositional). However, statements that can be appraised as false or true are propositions, such as the tree is green (it could be fall or winter, dead, etc. and the tree might not be green) or honey, even though there is lingerie on the credit card, and I didn't give you any, I swear things are not what they look like. When sentences, paragraphs, or statements become large and compound, connectors join them together (transitional phrases / words etc.) although, however, if, not, and, or, are all connector words (just a few of the basic ones) When connectors are added, statements can become propositional, statements like it's hot outside and the beer is cold is a propositional statement because of 2 reasons (1) two different items are connected (2) a connecting word is used.
page=1&callback_module_id=pages&callback_item_id=14&year=&month=
View More
