Let's analyze this logically, shall we?
I've been trying to figure out what about your comments and questions push my buttons.
Assertion: She's been trying to figure out why your comments bother her.
Everything always seems logical, seems to make some sense, but ends up in circular arguements, in power plays, with you getting that last stab in. I knew I'd had those feelings before. Then it struck me. It's "crazy making" talk. It's the kind of comments, arguments, attacks, that are typical of addicts and alcoholics. It brought back those memories of my exWS before he got into Recovery, and when he was having his affair. It's "Dry Drunk" behaviors!!
Conclusion:
The above is not a logical argument. It's an explanation. It follows the form "X because Y" and therefore assumes the result and works backwards.
It wasn't asserted to be a logical argument. It can't be treated as a logical argument because it's not valid as a logical argument. It's simply an explanation of an anectdotal experience.
If we were using logic, then this would be a combination of the Ad hoc fallacy and anecdotal evidence fallacy. However, this statement does not appear to be attempting to establish a definite proposition aside from the opinion of the author and thus an explanatory tone is to be expected and accepted. (ie. we can resonably conclude that the above statment is indeed the opinion of the author. It's validity outside of that opinion is unknown and unasserted.)
Part II:
How rude and obnoxious of you to say so
Not an argument. Once again, we can conclude this is the opinion of the author. It's validity outiside of that opinion is unknown and unasserted.
But, I think perhaps it's the LOGIC and REASON that bothers you,
Assertion: Logic and reason bother the original poster, heartmending.
This looks like the beginning of a Straw Man argument since the original poster, heartmending, never indicated that logic or reason in general was troublesome for him/her. It might also be an example of the fallacy Circulus in demonstrando (the premise appears to be a conclusion the author is attempting to reach), a red herring (an irrelevant argument that is used to distract), or a simple non sequitor (a conclusion drawn from a premise that is not connected to it).
Let's see,
because I have noticed that you use a high level of feeling and emotion in your posts,
This is anecdotal evidence. No necessarly invalid as it relates to the opinion of the author.
which is the antithesis to a reasoned argument
Premise: High levels of feeling and emotion is(are) the antithesis of a reasoned argument.
Possible logical fallacies:
Red Herring - an irrelevant argument that is used to distract.
Affirmation of the consequent - arguments of the form "A implies B is true, therefore A is true." I'm sure we're all aware that anything false implies a true across an implication so that fallacy here should be obvious. (The consequent in this case being that there are high levels of emotion or feeling.)
Vacuous argument - no proof is offered the high levels of feeling or emotion are, in fact, the antithesis of a reasoned argument. Perhaps, the author here, Melody Lane, is referring to the various logical fallacies in the Appeal to Emotion category( Appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flatter, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, or wishful thinking). This is suspiciously audiatur et altera pars (not bothering to state all the assumptions used to construct an argument).
. You value nice, empty words over straightforward truths and "think" with your emotions, rather than reason and logic.
Possible logical fallacies:
Petitio principii - the premise is at least as questionable as the conclusion.
Non sequitur - the premise is not logically connected with the argument.
Non cause pro cause - something has been identified as the cause of an event that is not been shown to be the cause of the event:
I've noticed you use a lot of emotion and feelings in your posts. You value nice, empty words over straightforward truths and "think" with your emotions, rather than reason or logicThat is probably why I find your posts so vacuous.
Simple opinion, we can assume it's valid for the author, Melody Lane, but make no assumptions about it's validity or truthfulness otherwise.
Conclusion:
But, I think perhaps it's the LOGIC and REASON that bothers you, because I have noticed that you use a high level of feeling and emotion in your posts, which is the antithesis to a reasoned argument. You value nice, empty words over straightforward truths and "think" with your emotions, rather than reason and logic.
Is not a valid logical argument. It is more likely to be an explanation rather than an argument ("a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition" - Monty Python sketch)
It has no validity as a logical argument due to the large number of logical fallacies that render it utterly meaningless in any deductive sense. It does, however, have validity as an opinion and true respresentation of the thoughts/feelings/opinions of the poster, Melody Lane and, as such, can not be refuted as her personal truth.
---
As an aside, I make no claim to be 'any good' at building logical arguments. I am, as Melody Lane might say, highly emotional and use my feelings to 'think' and process information rather than sequential processing or deductive logic.
I do not believe that logic is necessarily useful for discussions regarding human experiences because .. let's see if I can present an argument for this (bear with me, I'm awful at this).
Premise: Logic is not a set of rules or steps that describes or governs human behavior.
Argument:
People often don't behave logically.
Therefore logic does not describe human behavior.
Fallacies:
Vacuous argument: No proof is offered to support the premise. False always implies true across and implication.
Darn! Let's try againArgument:
People often want illogical things.
Therefore logic does not describe or govern human behavior.
Fallacies:
Vacuous again!
I mentioned I was bad at this, didn't I?Since I have a hard time proving that logic has anything to do with the human experience, it must follow that logic does not describe or govern human behavior.
Fallacies:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam - just because something hasn't been proven to be false, it must be true.
Yikes!Ok.. last try.
Logical arguments have certain, specific, and defined characteristics: a proposition, a premise, a set of inferences, and, finally, a conclusion. There is no evidence (that I have found) of a mechanism that ensures that a human being will use those characteristics in decision making. Therefore, the absence of logical characteristics to an argument seems to imply that logical arguments are not used. (ie. if you must have certain ingredients to make a logical argument and those ingredients are not found, then it can be determined that the conclusion is false.)
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. We know that the only way an implication can be false is if the premise is true and the consequence if false. This seems to be getting close, though I'm sure it's a pretty weak argument. I told you I was bad at this.Conclusion:
What appeals to one person may not appeal to another, huh?
This I agree with 100%.
Mys
P.S. Oh. Somehow I thought logic was going to be discussed. Darn. I guess I'll post this anyway for any who are interested. Darn my slow typing.
