Name that fallacy...

[FlashDangerpants]

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

Have you read any of Age's posts? What on Earth makes you think he's accurately calling out fallacies?

Age is one of the people who's post I don't read because I have already interacted with them and found them to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as being intellectually dishonest. I was speaking in general terms that applies to everyone, not just one specific person. Why would you create a thread that is about one person, who doesn't deserve this type of attention? You have to much time on your hands that could be spent doing more productive things.

It isn't about just one person. There are lots of people who dismiss counters to their arguments with spurious accusations of fallacies.

I don't need to reference every one of them by name to accurately answer the question you posed. A single example of somebody who does fallaciously assert fallacies rather than address counters is sufficient to demonstrate that I am not suggesting all assertions of fallacy are fallacious.

You should stop trying to make everything personal, I really don't give any sort of a fuck about you.

[Age]

Can we suggest new names?
Misunderstood Narcflakeism Fallacy?

I think in certain cases, the fallacy should include the name of its creator. Some are not rare (here): for ex, the greatest philosopher claim or implicit claim. But others are more rare. Kudos can be conveyed in the name.

Age's hallucinationes de se fallacy: Justify using memories of the future as evidence.

"iwannaplato" is obviously hallucinating if 'it' thinks or believes that I do or have done what 'it' is alleging here.

Iambiguous' heus, dixi nescio ideo nihil iustificare habeo fallacy: implicit appeals to incredulity and implicit certainty somehow bear no onus.
The accelafine/Wizard Asserta argumenta sunt, contumeliae iustificatio fallacy: Conflating insults and assertion with arguments. In extreme toxic cases with good arguments.
The megalomania tautologicus fallacy: arguing that given they are the best philosopher in the world their self-evaluations are free of bias.

[Age]

And WHO is "kenneth", "flashdangerpants"?

That would be you, Ken.

If 'that' is what 'you' want to call 'me', then okay.

[Age]

The megalomania tautologicus fallacy: arguing that given they are the best philosopher in the world their self-evaluations are free of bias.

That's a prevalant one. We may need subclasses to distinguish Kenneth from Roydop, from Advocate.

Well considering the Fact that I have NEVER CLAIMED ANY such a 'thing', putting my label here is ANOTHER False AND Wrong PRESUMPTION or BELIEF here.

[Age]

The megalomania tautologicus fallacy: arguing that given they are the best philosopher in the world their self-evaluations are free of bias.

That's a prevalant one. We may need subclasses to distinguish Kenneth from Roydop, from Advocate.

I think you called Age Kenneth. If so, the he is also using...
Age's hallucinationes de se fallacy: Justify using memories of the future as evidence.

False AND Wrong AGAIN.

Is there a name for spreading PRESUMED or BELIEVED False AND Wrong CONCLUSIONS?

Roydop would be using the
Megolomania tautologicus spiritualitas fallacy

Advocate uses the Megolomania tautologicus brevitate caecum fallacy [for his pithy vagueness]

[Age]

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

Have you read any of Age's posts? What on Earth makes you think he's accurately calling out fallacies?

Age is one of the people who's post I don't read because I have already interacted with them and found them to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as being intellectually dishonest.

you are FREE to think absolutely ANY 'thing', but just sharing what you think is true does NOT, obviously, mean that what you think is true IS True at all.

The REAL reason you do NOT interact with me is for the SAME REASON as "others" do NOT interact with me. you do NOT like it when I POINT OUT and SHOW your False,Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect BELIEFS, CLAIMS, or ACCUSATIONS.

I was speaking in general terms that applies to everyone, not just one specific person. Why would you create a thread that is about one person, who doesn't deserve this type of attention?

But I do NOT not deserve this type of attention also.

You have to much time on your hands that could be spent doing more productive things.

But 'these types of people', internally, at the very shallowest of level anyway, THRIVE on ATTEMPTS of ridicule and/or humiliation of "others"

[Age]

Have you read any of Age's posts? What on Earth makes you think he's accurately calling out fallacies?

Age is one of the people who's post I don't read because I have already interacted with them and found them to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as being intellectually dishonest. I was speaking in general terms that applies to everyone, not just one specific person. Why would you create a thread that is about one person, who doesn't deserve this type of attention? You have to much time on your hands that could be spent doing more productive things.

It isn't about just one person. There are lots of people who dismiss counters to their arguments with spurious accusations of fallacies.

EXACTLY as 'you' ALSO DO "flashdangerpants".

I don't need to reference every one of them by name to accurately answer the question you posed. A single example of somebody who does fallaciously assert fallacies rather than address counters is sufficient to demonstrate that I am not suggesting all assertions of fallacy are fallacious.

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER DONE 'this. Which 'you',
"flashdangerpants", WILL PROVE 'me' True here.

You should stop trying to make everything personal, I really don't give any sort of a fuck about you.

[Iwannaplato]

"iwannaplato" is obviously hallucinating if 'it' thinks or believes that I do or have done what 'it' is alleging here.

'It'??
In the time that this was written this would be considered dehumanizing.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

Then to the meat of the matter.

You often refer to the current time in the past tense and claim to have knowledge of what will happen in the future.
In case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, yes. Deduction can lead to false assumptions.
But if you did not mean what that use of language entails,
then you have assumed false things about communication and we humans in the time this is being written.

Welcome to humanity!

[Iwannaplato]

Is there a name for spreading PRESUMED or BELIEVED False AND Wrong CONCLUSIONS?

Wow. BOTH false and wrong. Not just false, but also wrong. That's, like, really incorrect. Perhaps it is False and wrong and incorrect. But then of course it would likely, if not to say, necessarily, be untrue also. I am not sure why you stopped at two synonyms.

In any case....

Legally if spoken, such spreading could be called slander.
If written, libel.

Other options: defamation, calumny, bearing of false witness, or perhaps the ever lovely phrase: rumormongering.

[Age]

"iwannaplato" is obviously hallucinating if 'it' thinks or believes that I do or have done what 'it' is alleging here.

'It'??
In the time that this was written this would be considered dehumanizing.

Okay.

Does 'this' somehow , harm, hurt, or offend 'you' "iwannaplato", in some way?

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

WHY NOT?

After all 'you' do NOT KNOW who and what 'i' AM, EXACTLY, YET.

Then to the meat of the matter.

You often refer to the current time

And what do 'you' refer to as the 'current time', EXACTLY?

in the past tense and claim to have knowledge of what will happen in the future.
In case you hadn't noticed.

Okay.

to
Yes, yes. Deduction can lead to false assumptions.

And one can START WITH false assumptions, ALSO, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

But if you did not mean what that use of language entails,
then you have assumed false things about communication and we humans in the time this is being written.

Well, lucky then, I did NOT ASSUME ANY such 'thing'.

Also, your CONCLUSION here does NOT, necessarily, logically follow on from your previous remark.

Welcome to humanity!

I look forward to, one day, welcoming 'you' to the next phase and stage of evolution, itself, AS WELL.

[FlashDangerpants]

The REAL reason you do NOT interact with me is for the SAME REASON as "others" do NOT interact with me. you do NOT like it when I POINT OUT and SHOW your False,Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect BELIEFS, CLAIMS, or ACCUSATIONS.

Ah, an excellent example of the art form under discussion, well done Ken. Here we see the "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS" from the proper source. See how we are all on the run from Age's mega truth bomb and that is the only reason we don't aknowledge his wonderousness.

Thank you for that, obviously we can now dispense with your Other thing...

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER DONE 'this. Which 'you',
"flashdangerpants", WILL PROVE 'me' True here.

As we have clearly seen you carry out that exact move today.

[Age]

Is there a name for spreading PRESUMED or BELIEVED False AND Wrong CONCLUSIONS?

Wow. BOTH false and wrong. Not just false, but also wrong. That's, like, really incorrect.

WHY?

Perhaps it is False and wrong and incorrect. But then of course it would likely, if not to say, necessarily, be untrue also. I am not sure why you stopped at two synonyms.

Okay.

In any case....

Legally if spoken, such spreading could be called slander.
If written, libel.


Other options: defamation, calumny, bearing of false witness, or perhaps the ever lovely phrase: rumormongering.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay.

Does 'this' somehow , harm, hurt, or offend 'you' "iwannaplato", in some way?

Given who is it coming from, at this point in our communication, no.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

WHY NOT?

After all 'you' do NOT KNOW who and what 'i' AM, EXACTLY, YET.

So, I presume you are a person, not an it. If you're an AI. I can live, quite happily, with my assumption of your humanity. I'm happy to err in that direction, Turing be damned.

And what do 'you' refer to as the 'current time', EXACTLY?

Well, that depends on the time.

to
Yes, yes. Deduction can lead to false assumptions.

And one can START WITH false assumptions, ALSO, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

Yes, I've noticed you often do.

But if you did not mean what that use of language entails,
then you have assumed false things about communication and we humans in the time this is being written.

Well, lucky then, I did NOT ASSUME ANY such 'thing'.

Right, then there were problems in your assumptions about language and/or those you are communicating with.

Also, your CONCLUSION here does NOT, necessarily, logically follow on from your previous remark.

Sure, don't mention how.

I look forward to, one day, welcoming 'you' to the next phase and stage of evolution, itself, AS WELL.

You're making assumptions again. Your beliefs are showing, you naught boy, you.

[Iwannaplato]

The REAL reason you do NOT interact with me is for the SAME REASON as "others" do NOT interact with me. you do NOT like it when I POINT OUT and SHOW your False,Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect BELIEFS, CLAIMS, or ACCUSATIONS.

There's a thing called bias, in the time this is being written. People interpret things in ways that suit their own needs, desires and also in avoidance of fear, etc. Above you have made a mindreading claim. I'm sure you're aware that some people find your typography irritating. I'm sure you're aware that you communicate within a framework related to time and your identity that are out of the ordinary. You may not be aware that there are other ways to find out what assumptions are and what people mean when they say things. That your questioning approach is just one of many ways to do this. That this approach may also irritate people, not because you show their false beliefs, etc., but because of the interpersonal dynamic and the dominance game your approach involves.

So, your bias leads to interpreting people's rejection of you or your approach of both or being critical and dismissive of it in the most flattering way related to yourself.

Conifirmation bias then takes over and sees nearly any criticism or rejection of what you think the steps should (must) be to be effective, as their dislike of what is, yes, most flattering to you.

You might want to follow Iambiguous' posts for a while. He has a very similar pattern. His posts are quite different from yours, but a similar bias allows him to think he can read people's minds and seemingly has very little to learn.

Sometimes this being mirrored - seeing a pattern on has mirrored in another - can lead to a breakthrough.

[Age]

The REAL reason you do NOT interact with me is for the SAME REASON as "others" do NOT interact with me. you do NOT like it when I POINT OUT and SHOW your False,Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect BELIEFS, CLAIMS, or ACCUSATIONS.

Ah, an excellent example of the art form under discussion, well done Ken. Here we see the "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS" from the proper source.

BUT, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, I NEVER SAID NOR WROTE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' like 'this' here. In Fact I have NEVER EVER even THOUGHT such a 'thing'.

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER PRIME example of how PRESUMPTIONS or ASSUMPTIONS can all too quickly, all too simply, and/or all too easily lead one COMPLETELY ASTRAY.

See how we are all on the run from Age's mega truth bomb and that is the only reason we don't aknowledge his wonderousness.

See how FAR ASTRAY 'these people' could, and DID, GO.

Thank you for that, obviously we can now dispense with your Other thing...

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER DONE 'this. Which 'you',
"flashdangerpants", WILL PROVE 'me' True here.

As we have clearly seen you carry out that exact move today.

WHAT, supposed and alleged so-called 'move'?

Also noted IS the Fact that 'you' ARE PROVING my CLAIM True here.