Just Shut Up Your Opinions

Saw this posted in a thread reply, by me, and figured it could do with the attention/status of a thread OP:

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=lifehack_netflix

Are you FAMOUS?
Are you FAMILY?
Are we FUCKING?
Are we FRIENDS?

If no, then WHY THE FUCK would we need your opinion?

BTW this obviously doesn't ONLY apply to Netflix or even entertainment related opinions, so I don't know wtf that's about.

REFRESHING BROWNNESS

Bump this for people who are wondering who.

If your not 1 of the 4 big Fs, just STfU with your "opinions"

>>1

If no, then WHY THE FUCK would we need your opinion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

>>6
Fallacies are like stereotypes, they only exist because they are true and only Jews deny their truth.

>>7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_analogy.htm
Description

X has property Y. Z is like X. Z therefore has property Y.

Use analogical comparisons to connect the item in question to another item that has desired characteristics. You can then claim that the first item has the desired property.
Example

People are like dogs. They respond best to clear discipline.

This soap is like a dream. It lifts you up to a spiritual plane.

A school is not so different from a business. It needs a clear competitive strategy that will lead to profitable growth.
Discussion

Analogy is saying 'A is like B' and is a powerful way of explaining one thing in terms of another. Where it falls down is when A is assumed to be like B in all respects and any attribute or characteristic of B can be unequivocally attributed to A.

In the false metaphor variant, the comparison is metaphoric. As analogies say 'A is like B', metaphors say 'A is B'.

Analogy: She is like a dog
Metaphor: She is a dog

The effect is still the same: the attributes of the analogy or metaphor are brought back to the original subject. The major difference is that in a metaphor, the equation is more explicit and direct.

The typical fallacy in this is that the comparison is not a good one and creates significant falsehood.
Classification

Analogy, Inductive, Falsehood
Also known as

False Metaphor
See also

Analogy, Metaphor

Using stereotypes as basis for arguments is essentially "Appeal to Common Belief" mixed with Composition Fallacy:
That doesn't make the belief wrong by itself, only using "popularity of X" as basis of strength of argument and asserting that "All X are have property N, since some/most of X are N".
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/common_belief.htm
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/composition.htm

Inductive reasoning is strictly probability-based, which has immediate evolutionary utility "This looks like 40% probability of a Snake in a bush -> Its a snake => RUN away", the brain neural networks evolved to quickly build inductive reasoning chains for speedy judgement of unclear situations with a strong stimulus of increasing chances of survival. If inductive reasoning fails, its failure had likely much less of a negative cost than ignoring the association:
Our pattern recognition engine is essentially biased in favor of finding less probable connections and fast associations from memory(stereotypes/folk beliefs/tradition/religion infused by society), as long as we can build a reduced case justification like the composition fallacy.

Beliefs that involve incomplete picture of reality, are especially prone to it: a flimsy connection chain where very little data exists can bring forth a strong belief system, since it "fills the gaps" without much competion and "feels like solving the problem"( a specific form of http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/hasty_generalization.htm is the perfect example of "fast, inductive, instinctual reasoning" that evolution rewards)

E.g."This video has suspicious artifacts" -> "NASA is hiding something because this video is faked"-> "Space is fake" -> "Earth is flat"

Actually we are only conditionally comparing fallacies to stereotypes, and the conditions of this comparison are laid out in the second half of the statement in question. In other words, the only attribute that is compared is how correct, and thus derided by Jews, both fallacies and stereotypes are.

>>11
The Earth is flat from my point of view. Ask yourself this: if it is not flat, how are you standing up?

While it is true that atoms with much space between them them make up all objects, it doesn't mean we can walk through walls and that nothing is solid. Similarly, while it is true that planets and stars would appear round (and tiny) to something larger than a solar system, this has no bearing on our experience of the Earth's shape.

>>12
This thread has a great discussion on why stereotypes exist and spread.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246507