zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. textge+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-17 11:54:56
Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.
replies(1): >>DagAgr+G7
2. DagAgr+G7[view] [source] 2020-06-17 12:57:20
>>textge+(OP)
"Kafkatrap" is a meaningless term, beyond "stop calling me a racist just for saying racist things".

Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.

replies(1): >>textge+ag
◧◩
3. textge+ag[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 13:49:53
>>DagAgr+G7
Well lets see... oh that's odd, that meaningless term appears to have a real meaning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap . Now why would you be willing to lie about that?

Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.

replies(1): >>DagAgr+Dg
◧◩◪
4. DagAgr+Dg[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 13:52:54
>>textge+ag
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kafkatrap?s=t

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kafkatrap

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=kafka...

replies(1): >>textge+em
◧◩◪◨
5. textge+em[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 14:20:45
>>DagAgr+Dg
Yes those are dictionary's for definitions of words not a repository of debate tactics; if you'd checked you'd also notice that there's no entry for "motte and bailey falacy", "Appeal to Ignorance" or "appeal to authority"; funnily enough it doesnt prevent those existing either.
replies(1): >>DagAgr+fp
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. DagAgr+fp[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 14:33:57
>>textge+em
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

Still not seeing it.

replies(1): >>textge+jr
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
7. textge+jr[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 14:43:31
>>DagAgr+fp
Well yes if you purely limit yourself to a single college of liberal arts list of definitions then you won't, however search engines are your friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.

replies(1): >>DagAgr+Wr
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
8. DagAgr+Wr[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 14:46:13
>>textge+jr
Ah yes, Wikipedia, with one source form a libertarian propaganda rag. Very reputable.

Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.

replies(1): >>textge+ev
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
9. textge+ev[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 15:03:51
>>DagAgr+Wr
And at last you've taken my advice

> Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.

Allow my to quote from one your trusted sources: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

> Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.

replies(1): >>DagAgr+xv
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
10. DagAgr+xv[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 15:05:02
>>textge+ev
Feel free to provide me wrong by showing a non-libertarian source that takes this term seriously.
replies(1): >>textge+vy
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
11. textge+vy[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 15:19:30
>>DagAgr+xv
Appeal to authority (points for variety at least) is a logical fallacy that I literally pointed out earlier.
replies(1): >>DagAgr+mI
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
12. DagAgr+mI[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 16:12:54
>>textge+vy
You really don't understand how logical fallacies work at all, do you.
replies(1): >>textge+NQ
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
13. textge+NQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 16:51:37
>>DagAgr+mI
Well I must admit I haven't had as much practice at them as you have.
[go to top]