Quote from: Mr Psychologist on October 28, 2015, 07:47:40 PM

The ban was for insulting mordo actually.

Report the posts where people have done so and they'll get the same treatment, afaik we haven't had any on it.

It's an insult to call somebody a spaz?

...Yes.

I really don't see how it's insulting to call someone a spaz, but whatever.

It's a slur for people with cerebral palsy.

Quote from: PSU on October 26, 2015, 09:46:17 AM

Soon we'll be accepting pedophiles and rapists too! "They can't control it, it's how they were born"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I'd like to note that extraploating data isn't a fallacy but a statistical technique. Like all statistics there's an ass load of caveats that go with it, and it's entirely possible to extrapolate the wrong thing like:

But the notion of looking at a trend of "we are increasingly accepting more sexual deviancies as a society" and saying "so we're probably going to keep doing so" is not inherently flawed.

I love how people act like "logic" is some big trump card and that emotions should have no play in anything

You may not be aware of it but mathematics is effectively constructed from propositional logic, so it's one of my specialties.

Now the thing about maths and logic is that the labels you give to any concept do not actually change that concept (the labels only have use in communication). A cube and a triangle will always be different things even if you call one by the other's name. We can extend this notion of concepts being distinct from their labels to the abstract concept of logic itself.

When people refer to logic, provided that they are talking about the very well defined mathematical concept of logic, and not the poorly defined english language concept that shares the same label, then they are referring to a process by which a person starts from something they consider to be a fundamental truth, and then demonstrates how the properties of that truth can imply properties of something else.

For example, you could take the existence of clouds as a fundamental truth, and then say that because clouds exist, rain exists, and because rain exists, weather exists. This is a very weak argument because the fundamental truth, the existence of clouds, is not very fundamental, for a cloud to exist you need the existence of atoms, forces between atoms, energy itself, entropy, the earth and solar system...there is a lot of things that precede the existence of clouds.

Furthermore, the way in which one would go from the existence of clouds to the existence of rain is not explained at all under this definition, which is another reason why the argument is logically weak. I realize I could get quite a bit more pedantic here but It wouldn't be helpful and I'd need to refer to some textbooks.

So what we're looking at with logic is just a method of explaining how the properties of one thing implies the properties of another, it's not an esoteric idea but really quite a simple one, but unless you sit down and examine it through a mathematical context you will get caught up on the subtleties of it and have only yourself to blame.

Now the point i'm building up to is this, if using emotions, you were able to formulate an argument from something we can all agree upon as being true, and derive a conclusion that makes sense and does not skip over important details, then you would not have used emotions at all, but simply used logic, because the labels do not matter.

People essentially define "emotional thinking" as "not logical thinking" which by even this crude definition means that "emotions" are incapable of creating a meaningful and truthful argument, because if they could then that would contradict their definition.  And I cannot stress just how important that last sentence is, but it cannot be conveyed without a formal understanding of logic.

"Vigorous mathematically logical perspective"