Log in

No account? Create an account

Theoretically speaking...

it's where the world is what you make of it.

Theoretically Speaking
Posting Access:
All Members , Moderated
This community is for the discussion of theory and its applications in society. Personally, I'm not too keen on the mathematical and physical theories, but more into things that will allow intelligent people to progress and work together. For instance, religion oppresses people (women as well as entire races) ritualistically, theory does not. We should get to the bottom of that which we were taught, realize the limitations of our societies, and then seek to change them.

I will expect the users who post here not to put each other down or refer to each other in manners that are less than flattering. Here is a list of the fallacies of argumentation:

Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument
Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument
Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time
Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Circular Argument - see Begging the Question
Division - assuming that the what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible
Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion
Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument
Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand
Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself
Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth

Do not do these things when discussing or commenting on someone else's post, it is ridiculous to do so and you will never be taken seriously again. These are the reason our society is so fucked up in the first place: you believe someone who proves something totally stupid by using these methods (ie, everyone else is doing it, so you should too, etc). Also, people make spelling mistakes. Even if someone is trouncing your argument, do not call them on a misplaced semi-colon. Feel free to joke about it with the people in your house, or even on your personal lj, but this isn't the place for it. The purpose of this community is to facilitate discussion.

Everyone is free to join. If you have trouble figuring it out, ask me (leave a comment on one of the1andonlycj's posts) and I'll send you an invite. I can't imagine kicking anyone out, either, as long as you're civil about what you do in the forum. A discussion of theories is *not* something that should lead to personal attacks. Common courtesy is appreciated.

Also, dismantling religion is welcome in this community. Though this will anger quite a few people (as most of the world is highly religious in one way or another), it is valid from a theory standpoint. Progression of the human race is stopped dead in its tracks by religion everyday. Just remember, keep it civil. No "fucking stupid christians" or the like. There's simply no point (and it's one of the fallacies of argumentation, you'll note).

Lastly, the point of this lj versus the other theory lj's is that I would like to see theory applied to society, reality, and life in general. If you want to bring up movies, books, etc, to prove a point, go for it. If you want to discuss a text (written by a theorist or one that is deep in theory) go for it. If you want to discuss the theory of a particular book, go to one of the other lj's. I want anyone to be able to come in and put their two cents in, and if you go too deep into the eccentricities of a particular book, it makes for wonderfully ostracizing opportunities and people probably won't be able to relate that well.