Online dating hasty generalization

A mysterious man in black chases after Vizzini and his thugs. First let’s drink: me from my glass and you from yours. Vizzini knows that at least one of the goblets is poisoned but does not consider that this doesn’t mean that both of them can’t be poisoned at the same time.

He bests the first thug (Mandy Patinkin) in a sword fight which rivals the Basil Rathbone/Errol Flynn sword fight in The Adventures of Robin Hood for the title of “greatest filmic sword fight ever” (though many people say the same of a fight between Liam Neeson and Tim Roth in Rob Roy, which I have not yet seen but plan to). They do so; Vizzini carefully makes sure that the man in black starts drinking first. Now as for Vizzini’s specific reasoning: All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s?

Iocane comes from Australia--as everyone knows--and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. This is where you argue from something’s origin rather than from the thing itself.

It’s like if I told you that you can’t trust any American cop because the police force in America started as a measure to keep slaves in line.

But you must have known I was not a great fool: you would have counted on it. Because iocane comes from Australia--as everyone knows--and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. (The Man in Black disproves this false premise himself presently.) The second hasty generalization is that only a great fool would reach for his own goblet.

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in black: (scratching his chin in both amusement and bemusement) Truly, you have a dizzying intellect! The third is that the Man in Black would have been using reverse psychology.

So Vizzini commits at least twenty fallacies of seven different sorts in only ten lines. Next installment (God willing): Sir Bedevere’s rationale on how to determine if a woman is a witch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

But the ethnocentric remark about going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line is another non-sequitur and another argument from origin.

Salam Good stuff btw (^_^.) Salam Salam Yahya A question for you : Is this not the first fallacy..: "It's so simple!

" .would have lead Vizzini to conclude fallacy number two. To me, it seems it all spiralled from this very statement, which is poetic in a way, in that he set himself up, right from the word go!

We’re going to start with a classic scene from the classic film The Princess Bride, which if by some chance you haven’t seen, you must at all costs. (He should have known better than to accept anything offered to him by a known enemy anyway.) Vizzini was also committing the fallacy of affirming a disjunct.

It has, in the film’s own words, “fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles…” The scene we will be looking at comes when one of the film’s protagonists, Princess Buttercup (Robin Wright Penn), has been kidnapped by a criminal named Vizzini (Wallace Shawn). This is where you assume that two things are mutually exclusive when they are not: It can be X or it can be Y. This is the fallacy I would be committing if I told you that you love your sister so therefore you don’t love your brother, and I don’t take into account that you could love both.

Leave a Reply