About special pleadings.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2014, 08:57 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 08:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 10:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  That is not a special pleading fallacy.

If the conclusion is excepted from the premise "All x require y" without justification.....then you have a special pleading. An argument can contain a premise which justifies why the conclusion is excepted from one of the premises.

Premise 1: It is against the law to drive of 55 mph.
Premise 2: Ambulance drivers enroute to an emergency are exempted from the law.
Premise 3: John is an ambulance driver enroute to an emergency.
Premise 4: John is driving 75 mph.
Conclusion: John is not violating the law.

There is no special pleading fallacy in the above argument.

That does not follow the definition I gave so it is not an example of special pleading nor a counter-argument.

The "uncaused cause" is special pleading.

Lets see....you defined a special pleading as: "If one premise is "All x require y", and another premise is "Except this x", that is special pleading."

In the above example Premise 2 exempts x from premise 1.

So the above argument does follow your definition. Your definition of a special pleading is wrong....but at least you were right about the above argument not being an example of the special pleading fallacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 09:05 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2014 09:09 PM by Chas.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 08:57 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 08:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  That does not follow the definition I gave so it is not an example of special pleading nor a counter-argument.

The "uncaused cause" is special pleading.

Lets see....you defined a special pleading as: "If one premise is "All x require y", and another premise is "Except this x", that is special pleading."

In the above example Premise 2 exempts x from premise 1.

So the above argument does follow your definition. Your definition of a special pleading is wrong....but at least you were right about the above argument not being an example of the special pleading fallacy.

"Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument
where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without
proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc.
without justifying the exception"

Your example had justification for an exception, hence not special pleading. My definition did not admit of justification.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 08:57 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lets see....you defined a special pleading as: "If one premise is "All x require y", and another premise is "Except this x", that is special pleading."

In the above example Premise 2 exempts x from premise 1.

So the above argument does follow your definition. Your definition of a special pleading is wrong....but at least you were right about the above argument not being an example of the special pleading fallacy.

"Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument
where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without
proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc.
without justifying the exception"

If you are going to quote wikipedia you should at least cite it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 09:19 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 09:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  "Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument
where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without
proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc.
without justifying the exception"

If you are going to quote wikipedia you should at least cite it.

Great response. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 09:48 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 09:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  "Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument
where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without
proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc.
without justifying the exception"

If you are going to quote wikipedia you should at least cite it.

Please cite your source that "Everything that comes into existence must have a cause." is a generally accepted rule. Especially seeing as how we know it's wrong, but ya what's your source for that?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
03-10-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
[Image: cry-baby.jpg]

/Blowjob

/Thread

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-10-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A special pleading occurs when someone attempts to cite an exception to a generally accepted rule without any justification.

For instance consider the following rule. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

If you go on to claim that the universe came into existence, but had no cause....then you are making a special pleading if you do not justify why it is an exception to the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

When a theist claims that God is un-caused it is not a special pleading. Why? Because the rule applies to those things which come into existence. An eternal God is something that does not come into existence and therefore is not governed by the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause
.

If you argue that the universe is something which always existed. It is not a special pleading to then go on to claim the Universe was un-caused.

[Image: youre-fucking-retarded.jpg]

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
03-10-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 09:48 PM)WhiskeyDumbass Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 09:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you are going to quote wikipedia you should at least cite it.

Please cite your source that "Everything that comes into existence must have a cause." is a generally accepted rule. Especially seeing as how we know it's wrong, but ya what's your source for that?

Its generally accepted by the theist making the cosmological argument.
Also if you don't accept the premise, then you reject the argument based on the fact that the premise is faulty. However if you reject the argument on the basis that it contains a special pleading fallacy.....that implies that you have accepted the premise(at least for the sake of argument).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 09:57 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 09:48 PM)WhiskeyDumbass Wrote:  Please cite your source that "Everything that comes into existence must have a cause." is a generally accepted rule. Especially seeing as how we know it's wrong, but ya what's your source for that?

Its generally accepted by the theist making the cosmological argument.
Also if you don't accept the premise, then you reject the argument based on the fact that the premise is faulty. However if you reject the argument on the basis that it contains a special pleading fallacy.....that implies that you have accepted the premise(at least for the sake of argument).

Isn't it just great to get so educated by this genius ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-10-2014, 10:31 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 09:57 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its generally accepted by the theist making the cosmological argument.

HJ I want you to see if you can figure out what is fucking stupid in this statement. Read it a few times if you have to but I'm sure you can figure it out.

*waves doggy treat* Come on boy!

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: