Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

I think you are doing a fantastic job at discussing your side of things.Unfortunately I am not really on your side of the fence, as it were, but I enjoy reading your posts nevertheless.Keep up the good work!
Don't give Straggler an easy time of it!

Ok - I'll address this false dichotomy first.
Oh - you are using a logical fallacy! (Are logical fallacies good or bad?) Ok - my true answer is: "It depends - different situations require different amounts of open-mindedness".
But you are not allowing me to answer honestly. (Is honesty good or bad?)As an example (which someone else referred to previously):
I received an email from a stranger. They told me about the death of their wife. They needed my help.
All I have to do is send them 100.You think that I should be "open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence", yes?
Well, I have no reason to not believe him - I do not know anything about him.I do know about other emails from different people claiming similar things.
But to use those other emails as evidence against this new email would be closed-minded pseudo-scepticism.To follow your structure:
Is it good or bad to employ open-mindedness?
If I think it is bad, I should not send him any money.
If I think it is good, then I should send him the 100.I know what I would do.
What would you do, RADZ?

You are adding another option?
So there was at least 1 missing option?
It was therefore a false dichotomy to say there were only 2 options.
(So - you are playing dumb?) By putting forward a false dichotomy and telling me to chose one option.
(Your replies are becoming more disingenuous.) Barely. It is now a false trichotomy.
(What is ironic is that your whole post is based around a logical fallacy.) Can you be 1/2 stupid? No.
But you can be slightly stupid or moderately stupid or very stupid.
(You are being disingenuous again. Perhaps you should try pretending to be knowledgeable instead.) But his email is not contradicted by any objective empirical evidence.
Why would you not send him 100? But there is no evidence that his email is fraudulent.
Why would you not send him 100? But there is no evidence that his email is fraudulent. Why are you investigating him?
Why would you not send him 100?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Yes. The change you made did not stop it being fallacious. Yup. Those were the only two options you allowed. Ah...so your 'test' is only applicable to people who are either 100% in the {good} direction or 100% in the {bad} direction.
Gotcha. *nods* Maybe that made sense when your were first thinking it. Yes. It is. And why do I need to offer a better approach?
It is your faulty logic. It is not my job to fix it. Excellent.
I got what I needed.
Thanks!

I particularly liked 8:

quote:

---

Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim.

---

I was surprised that Chuck77's support had not set off alarm bells in RADZ's head.
But it seems that RADZ has actually turned to the dark side...

Which is paraphrasing Pascal's Wager, yes?Islam, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
Hinduism, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
Judaism, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.It doesn't help much as it applies to any religion which describes a 'consequence' to our lives.