Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[YES]

I am have trouble understanding why red herring is a fallacy.

Basically, someone tries to change the subject with vaguely relevant data

but vaguely relevant data is not a fallacy; nor it changing the subject

[Theldorrin]

Basically your whole mode of operation is fallacious.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[YES]

True, but that is more of a crime of intent or psychology than a fallacy per se.

Does what I'm saying make sense? I know this could be said of all fallacies, but something about red herring isn't *necessarily* a fallacy (changing the subject is dumb but not a fallacy, especially if it's based on data)

[Fagzilla]

Is this thread about sucking dicks?

[Theldorrin]

No, it's a fallacy, Outland.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Potatoes]

It could be a fantasy phallusy fallacy.

[YES]

FOR SOME REASON, RED HERRING FALLACY IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO UDNERSTAND!WQDD

[Nickass]

Would you say you have difficulty swallowing it?

[YES]

Nickass.....If you were near me I would blow you to explain to me why red herring is a logical fallacy.

To me it seems more like a data clutter than a logical fallacy

[Richard Cristopolis]

gigantic red herring cock

[Sporkism]

It is easy to get red herring confused with smokescreen.

"The crucial difference is that while the smokescreen works via its rhetorical power, the red herring is still an attempt to persuade by argument: it gives reasons for accepting a claim, just not good reasons. When we are trying to distinguish the smokescreen ploy from the red herring fallacy, we must first work out whether or not the writer or speaker is attempting to persuade by argument."

So, smokescreen is actually more about "changing the subject" -- avoiding discussion of an issue by diverting or distracting from the issue being discussed, by bringing up a different (though sometimes related) issue.

Red herring is about giving irrelevant premises as a reason to accept a conclusion.
_________________


@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Sporkism]

And smokescreen is a rhetorical ploy, not a fallacy, so you're right in thinking that changing the subject is just dumb, not fallacious.
_________________


@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[YES]

Haha, Morgan answered a question on [size=24]logic [/size]better than theldorrin did

[Theldorrin]

Extraneous premises are fallacious by nature.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Sporkism]

Yeah, but smokescreen is a tactic that applies to non-arguments. Rhetoric is just an attempt to persuade without trying to give any good reasons.

If you're actually trying to make an argument, then it's a red herring, and fallacious.
_________________


@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Big Fagot]

fallacio us

[Action Hank]

please use your mouth

[Magic Juan]

Theldorrin is the master of the SMOKE SCREEN! Also of his arguments turn into insane tangential monsters