Talk:Bare assertion fallacy

message: Holy cow! It's the bible!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the most obvious example, but I guess if the article said so, a lot of people would take offence.88.15.193.200 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey! Ain't that a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV? :|  TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Is there any relationship between bare assertions and circular logic? - BergZ (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope --Kurulananfok (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible 

message: Has anyone else noticed the irony in saying that this article doesn't cite any references? Chile Nose Jam (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I remove the "citations" warning at the top of the page now? :|  TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations 

message: "(1) Jesus was the messiah. 
(2) Premise (1) is true.
Therefore, Jewish people are going to hell."
This example definitely does not follow this structure:
"Fact 1: X claims statement A.
Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
Conclusion: Therefore, A is true."
Since the statement at the beginning, "Jesus was the messiah," and the statement at the end, "Jewish people are going to hell," are not identical, this is not a bare assertion fallacy. To follow the structure, the example would be something like this:
"Joe claims Jesus was the messiah.
Joe claims Joe is not lying.
Therefore, Jesus is the messiah."
However, we do not need this example; the example that we already have, in the following form, is sufficient.
"Fact 1: Simon says that Jack eats ice cream.
Fact 2: Simon says that Simon is not lying.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jack eats ice cream."
Furthermore, the link at the end of this "example" to a Christian website seems to show that the person who put it into the article is motivated by trying to disparage the website rather than illustrating the subject of the article. This is why I am removing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.202.168 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right (in that the example was a poorly constructed one) but I am not trying to "disparage" the website in any way; I was merely trying to extend the article with more examples: you can see how poorly made this stub-class article is. I would advise you to comment simply on the content next time; otherwise I'll interpret that as a personal attack.:|  TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think this example is constructive 

message: As the discussion above has failed to yield an authoritative definition of this as a formal fallacy, I'm redirecting this page to Ipse-dixitism. Ipse-dixitism is the closest thing to this page, as it's a fallacy (though informal instead of formal) and is about unsupported premises or assertions.
This change should be undone if a source is ever found, and a formal definition of the fallacy is provided.
I have also deleted it from the template. I will (over the course of a few days) look over the "What links here" for this page and fix any links there as well. GManNickG (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting