Although your post is unnecessarily biased and focused on one particular incident (some of the examples are in and of themselves borderline straw man fallacies or anecdotal evidence), the points are mostly reasonable and at least intelligently stated, so I thank you.
Hopefully this can motivate everyone, regardless of their views on any one particular subject, to reason more logically.
However, I have a few gripes.
Please explain to me how this statement is remotely objective in any sense whatsoever. "reasonably"? "common sense"?
In general, I fail to understand how using specific examples, most of which are (albeit in my opinion) extreme cases, from one particular incident lends credibility to your points; I would postulate that it does the opposite through alienating those pro-Pirate and causing those anti-Pirate to be motivated to agree with you for reasons related to the political leaning of your post rather than the legitimacy of logical fallacies presented therein. What is the goal here: more objective debates, or another pro/anti Pirate battleground thread?
Anecdotal evidence is a highly subjective term, and not clearly or uniformly defined. The point relating to "Meet A Pirate" could perhaps be more accurately argued to be a case of subjective validation. In either case, categorizing this as anecdotal or subjective validation without further explanation or proof of such is meaningless.
All in all, please do not forget to remember that all generalizations are false.
I agree that many of the points made by Pirate supporters are logical fallacies. The same can be said about points made by Pirate opponents. The same can be said about half the posts in this forum. The fact that some proponents of a certain viewpoint utilize logically flawed methodologies of debate does not in any way whatsoever invalidate that viewpoint.
Hopefully this can motivate everyone, regardless of their views on any one particular subject, to reason more logically.
However, I have a few gripes.
The pirateat40's opponents have called this BS and reasonably asserted that pirate is running a ponzi scheme based on logical reasoning and common sense.
Please explain to me how this statement is remotely objective in any sense whatsoever. "reasonably"? "common sense"?
In general, I fail to understand how using specific examples, most of which are (albeit in my opinion) extreme cases, from one particular incident lends credibility to your points; I would postulate that it does the opposite through alienating those pro-Pirate and causing those anti-Pirate to be motivated to agree with you for reasons related to the political leaning of your post rather than the legitimacy of logical fallacies presented therein. What is the goal here: more objective debates, or another pro/anti Pirate battleground thread?
Anecdotal evidence:
"we had a dinner with pirate, therefore he is not anonymous"
"we had a dinner with pirate, therefore he is not anonymous"
Anecdotal evidence is a highly subjective term, and not clearly or uniformly defined. The point relating to "Meet A Pirate" could perhaps be more accurately argued to be a case of subjective validation. In either case, categorizing this as anecdotal or subjective validation without further explanation or proof of such is meaningless.
All in all, please do not forget to remember that all generalizations are false.
I agree that many of the points made by Pirate supporters are logical fallacies. The same can be said about points made by Pirate opponents. The same can be said about half the posts in this forum. The fact that some proponents of a certain viewpoint utilize logically flawed methodologies of debate does not in any way whatsoever invalidate that viewpoint.