Re: UBF issues and potential fallacies -- ExUBF's Parlor

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:02:23 01/30/05 Sun
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Re: UBF issues and potential fallacies
In reply to: PECAS 's message, "UBF issues and potential fallacies" on 11:38:00 01/25/05 Tue

1. If we state to a UBF member that if they remain in UBF, they will experience abuse, depception, and manipulation is that a fallacy?
It's an assumption with a high probability though it's not a fact. When making these kinds of statement, you're entering the realm of fuzzy logic and leaving the realm of "true/false". A fallacy would be to say "I wasn't abused in UBF, so UBF is not abusive". This is fallacious because one takes a stochastic equation into the boolean realm, where it doesn't belong.
Likewise, we should be clear to not do it vice-versa.

Yet, if you'd tell someone "If you go 85mph against the traffic on Interstate-5 in rush hour, you're gonna die in a car-wreck." - chances are, they won't, yet probability makes it obvious that the statement is sound.
Telling UBF'ers that if they remain in UBF, they'll suffer abuse and spiritual shipwreck is the same kind of statement. If it's true for 99% of people, it's fair enough to give that warning.

2. I have noticed a tendency to argue that because UBF is not forthcoming with financial accounts, they are misused or misappropriated. Is this a fallacy?

That would be a classical fallacy because that would imply that out of the first follows the latter, or even would imply equivalence. Yet, while obviously the latter implies the first and the first makes the latter likely, there's no equivalence here.
But it's fair enough to say that if they have no misuse or misappropriation, WHAT exactly do they need to hide? WHY do they need to be so secretive about something which doesn't need to be a secret?

3. There seems to be a hindsight fallacy common in UBF. Leaders argue that everything has worked out so the past actions were not wrong. However, good results in the present does not validate a previous action.
"The end justifies the means." This entire assumption is a fallacy because it doesn't follow from boolean logic.

A -> B
So, if B, it means A?
Guess what, boolean logic says:

A B A -> B
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T

So, if B is true, A may or may not be true, whereas if B is false, A MUST be false in order to make the logic proper.

So "The end is okay" means: "The means MIGHT have been okay, or they MIGHT NOT have been okay". The only thing that can be definitely said: if the result you get was bad, then the means used were wrong.

I ask you: are all the spiritual shipwrecks in the wake of UBF good? If only one of them is bad, it implies by mere logic that the means UBF used were bad!
Everything else would be fallacious.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]