X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:42:14 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Just in case you missed them

At the risk of appearing excessively self-righteous, I thought it was time
somebody posted these rules again.  By joining the list, you agree, either
implicitly or explicitly, to be bound by these rules.  Please take the time
to read this, and then perhaps we can get back to our regularly scheduled
programme:

Since politics is a very volatile topic,  where feelings are easily hurt
and people angered,  there are some rules  for anyone who wishes to join
this  list.    If you  feel  you  cannot  abide  by them,   then  please
UNSUBscribe from the list.   Otherwise,  you  will be expected to follow
these rules.  Failure to comply will result in expulsion from the list.

There may be no flames of a personal nature on this list.   According to
Quarterman and  Hoskins,  flaming  means "to  produce words  ...  in  an
abusive or ridiculous manner;  'raving' is almost a synonym for flaming"
(967).    For example,   comments like  "you're a  bluthering idiot  who
wouldn't know  a good theory  if you tripped over  it" do not  belong on
POLITICS.   Neither do taunts such as  "sure,  I'll bet even your mother
hates you" or "all of your friends are just commie pigs anyway".  Please
present your beliefs calmly with a semblance of politeness.

Topics should be political in nature.  Espousing your religious views is
not  political.   Arguing  that  prayer should  be  legalized in  public
schools is.  Insisting that another's sexual orientation is evil or ugly
is not political.  Arguing for the rights of homosexuals is.  Please use
some judgment in your topic selection.

In short, please keep your entries free of all racial,  ethnic,  sexual,
and religious slurs.

Thank you,

LISTSERV Management
University of Central Florida


------------------------------------------------------------------------

( From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
  Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 11:30:22 PST
  Subject: abuses of rhetoric....  )


Some things to watch for in arguments for or about something.....

Deductive Fallacies:
--------------------
Equivocation:   Changing the meaning or connotation of a word.

Ambiguity:      Leaving the meaning of a word or a phrase unclear
                when it can be interpreted in at least two ways.

Vagueness:      Leaving the meaning of a word or phrase unclear when
                it can cover a multitude of possibilities (e.g.
                democracy, efficiency, progress...)

Begging the
Question:       Presenting an argument in which one of the statements
                offered as evidence assumes the conclusion to be
                proved (also called circular reasoning/argument).

Contradiction:  Asserting two statements at the same time that cannot
                both be true at the same time and in the same way.

converse vs     A => B, therefore  B =>  A.     Incorrect.
inverse vs      A => B, therefore ~A => ~B.     Incorrect.
contrapositive: A => B, therefore ~B => ~A.     Correct

                A=>B:   If I fall in the pool, then I'll be wet.

                B=>A:   If I'm wet, then I fell in the pool.
                        (I could have gotten wet some other way).

                ~A=>~B: If I don't fall in the pool, then I won't be
                        wet.
                        (I could get wet some other way).

                ~B=>~A: If I'm not wet, then I didn't fall in the
                        pool.


Fallacies of Inductive Reasoning:
--------------------------------
Oversimplification:
                Attempting to support a conclusion with evidence that
                is too limited or one-sided, especially if the
                presentation of evidence is highly selective, ignoring
                contrary data (also called stacking the deck or
                "glittering generalities")

False Cause:    Drawing hasty conclusions about antecedent events or
                correlations. Also called "post hoc" arguments.

False Analogy:  Suggesting that because two different situations or
                things resemble each other in some respects, they do
                so in most if not all other aspects as well. Also
                called "Straw Man" argument.

Guilt by
Association:    Suggesting that because someone or something is known
                to associate with something bad or incorrect, they or
                it is also bad or incorrect. (e.g. "Fred had his
                picture taken with Ronald Reagan once, therefore he
                supports RR's positions vis-a-vie Central America.")


Fallacies of Emotional Appeals:
-------------------------------
Appealing to
pity:           Replacing facts or evidence with appeal for sympathy.

Appealing to
the people:     Invoking traditional values, attitudes, prejudices, or
                provincial interests. (e.g. "As our forefathers
                said....")

Jumping on the
bandwagon:      Appealing to the usually human desire to be like or do
                what others are like or do. (e.g. "You have to act
                now, because every city in the state except ours
                has...")

Appealing to
Laughter:       Replacing evidence or data with satire, parody, jokes
                or other diversions. (e.g. "Go ahead, don't increase
                the budget.  Make my day...")

Arguing aginst
the person:     Replacing evidence or data with attacks aginst your
                opponents.  This is also called Ad hominem argument.
                (e.g. "The councilman doesn't want to increase the
                budget in our part of the city because he is from a
                predominantly white district and is therefore against
                equal opportunity")
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU