From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 22 Jan 1993 20:25:41 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.93Jan21170557@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1jpl85INN697@armory.centerline.com>
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:48:00

In article <1jpl85INN697@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.93Jan21170557@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>In article <1jf5nbINNpsv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>>> I love the way libertarians are so inconsistant with each other
>>> and even themselves.

>>What species of fallacious reasoning attempts to generalize from
>>the specific actions of particular individual members of a group
>>to an implication that all members of that group share a
>>proclivity to act in such a manner?

> Induction.  A fallacy I haven't committed here, because it only requires
> two members of a class to demonstrate inconsistancy, not all the members.

You are confused.  Induction is a method of reasoning and a means
of constructing a proof.  It is not in the category of a fallacy,
and there is nothing fallacious about its use.  It is quite valid
in its place, which is not here.  So that you won't have had a
negative educational experience you receive a public school grade
of C+ for your efforts (equivalent to a solid F from a decent
private school, but don't tell the student, you'll damage his
self-esteem).  However, you are granted one more chance to
improve your grade.

>>Which one is it that implies that a property of all members of
>>a group is peculiar to a particular subset group?

> I forget this one's name.  Yet I made no such assertion: do you
> see the word "so" above?

That is just so fastidious of you.  Actually that points out yet
another fallacious aspect to your original statement.  You can
still pull out a good grade by naming this one.

> That indicates that I think libertarians are MORE inconsistant
> than other groups or individuals.

It's clear that you think so.  Why you think that your beliefs in
this matter are the slightest bit relevant to the topic at hand
is still an open question.  And why you felt compelled to share
this unsupported belief with us is mystifying.

>>For extra credit, what general category of verbal fallacy
>>subsumes both of the above subcategories?  (Hint: This one is far
>>and away the most popular of all the fallacies among the Usenet
>>contributors.)

> I'll grant myself extra credit for the one informal fallacy
> that I allowed myself in my sentence: ridicule.  Too bad you
> weren't able to detect it.

On the contrary, that you were being ridiculous was quite
apparent.  In any case, you get partial credit for the informal
classification of your statement as ridiculous.  The formal name
for your tactic is, of course, the ever popular 'argumentum ad
hominem', the clear favorite for Usenet slight-of-argument from
among the verbal fallacies of relevance.

Try arguing the point instead of casting unsupported and
irrelevant aspersions on your opponents.  Else others might be
tempted, as I have been to my own discredit, to lower themselves
to your level.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian