Logical Fallacies

今日宝石 – 没有鼓励重论据脆弱弱，不会飞

Gem of the Day – No Encouragement Heavy Arguments Brittle Weak, Won’t Fly

感谢 Shiny Blue Marble 投资我的 Vlog！

Thank you Shiny Blue Marble for Investing In My Vlog!

主动倾听不是给定的，听到的消息的所有部分都不是给定的，将争论简化为一个可以用多种方式措辞的可强化系统可能是高价值的

Active Listening is Not a Given, All Parts of Messages Heard is Not a Given, Reducing Argument into a reinforceable system that is worded in more than one way can be high value in

最重要的是，“对自己的自己是真实的”，从一个逻辑谬误较少的地方开始，更有可能提供较少的逻辑谬误

This above all, “to thine own self be true”, starting from a place of less logical fallacies more likely to deliver less logical fallacies

对论点的“是”不是系统中的所有值

Yes to an argument is Not an All Value In System

争论需要时间，就像分布式系统一样，如果你一开始就不做的话，那么它可能会带来更高的价值

Arguments Require Time, like Distributed Systems if you can get away with not making one in the first place, potential for higher value in

动摇别人的信心，你不能真正支持的可能性是所有的附加值？

Potential for shaking another persons confidence that you can’t truly support is all value added?

Light and Breezy 可以更鼓舞人心，更有可能真正说服人们对没人愿意听到的激烈争论

Light and Breezy can be more Encouraging, more likely to actually convince people over heavy arguments nobody wants to hear

每个人都想整天待在法庭上的想法是不明智的，总是保持警惕总是要降低风险并不是一个真正令人鼓舞的系统

The idea everyone wants to be in a court room all day would be unwise, always on guard always have to mitigate risk is not really an encouraging system

更有趣的故事，还是与观众争论？

More Enjoyable Story, or Argue with the Audience?

法制主义和法律并不总是兑现值得信赖的倡导者，即需要限制腐败者的可见度，这些腐败者可能会滥用数据将我投入监狱

Legalism and Law does not always deliver on Trust Worthy advocate over need to limit visibility from corrupt people that might misuse data to throw me in Jail

辩论教室或法庭，您觉得哪一个更有可能进行真正的讨论？盔甲上还是空中剑？

Debate classroom or a court room, which one would you feel more likely to be open to having a real discussion? Armor on or Swords in the Air?

争论压力不是所有的时间都添加到系统中不是所有的系统和平

Argument Stress is Not All Time Added to System is Not All Peace to System

人们很多时候在争论时不考虑是否应该争论。人们倾向于通过竞争来取胜，而不首先考虑是否应该获胜

People many times make arguments without considering whether they should make an argument. People tendency to want to win via competition without first thinking about whether they should win

颁奖典礼比赛带着女孩走开？

Trophy ceremony competition walks away with the girl?

带着斯坦利杯在溜冰场上再滑一次，然后发现你的妻子要离开你了吗？

Just one more skate around the rink with the Stanley cup then find out your wife is leaving you?

这个的字面版本是有用的，一个不那么字面的版本，与这个想法相结合的是一个类似的不精确的系统，它是有用的

The literal version of this is useful, a less literal version, married to the idea is a similar not exact system that is useful

有值得结婚的理由，杀人是错的，有不值得结婚的理由，不能在视频上画戒指来炒作

There are arguments worth being married to, killing people is wrong, there are arguments not worth being married to, rings can’t be painted on videos in ways to stir up shit

如果人们被要求与他们的论点结婚，那会如何改变事情呢？人们可能会停止接受他们从一开始就不想参与的争论

If people were required to be married to their arguments, how might that change things? People might stop buying into arguments they never wanted to be in in the first place

嫁给争论，你提出的信息，不适合宽恕和恩典

Married to the argument, message you present, not ideal for forgiveness and grace

未与争论结婚，并非所有理想的尽职调查都能获得更好的数字和更好的论据

Not Married to the argument, not all ideal due diligence for better numbers and better arguments

我试图传达的想法是，提出论点的投资成本并不总是得到充分重视，并且可能是维护成本并不总是增值

The idea I am trying to convey is that making an argument has an investment cost that is not always fully appreciated and possibly a maintenance cost that is not always value added

维护，需要解释，并不总是增值

Upkeep, Required to Explain, Not Always Value Added

参数有点像从属处理，开始一个视频，想要在视频结束之前停止视频变得更加困难，买进成本会导致更大的买断成本，这并不总是被充分理解

Arguments are kind of like Slave to Process, starting a Video, it becomes more difficult to want to stop the Video before the end of the Video, buy in cost leads to greater buy out cost that is Not Always Fully Appreciated

进入争论比迅速摆脱争论更容易

Easier to get into an argument, than it is to swiftly get out of one

质量选择需要以实际的方式选择战斗

Quality Choices requires choosing Battles in a Practical Way

No Encouragement Heavy Arguments Brittle Weak, Won’t Fly

自我增强的高能量，为您会购买的系统创建购买

Self Reinforcing High Energy, Create Buy In for a System you would buy into

If I have 5 minutes to tell a story better to give 20 details or 3 key details that are useful?

Same words, argument said in same way can be less value in than rewording

Arguing with people can lead to beating the point in without actually generating agreement

If I say the phrase

2+2 = 4 because 1+1+1+1 = 4

Reiterated in same way can be considered disrespectful

If we say things in one way and they are not comprehended, saying it in the same way again is entirely encouragement added to system?

Sometimes getting people to invest in Math requires something that is not so boring value added, can’t appreciate why Math is cool more divests likely

人们并不总是完全理解相似的不精确系统中的力量，例如可以导致对生存所必需的系统的更多理解的词桥

People don’t always full appreciate the Power in Similar Not Exact Systems, such as bridge of words that can lead to more appreciation for systems that are necessary for survival

词在逻辑上加起来就是句子，更好的句子导致更好的故事

Words Logically Add Up to Sentences, Better Sentences Lead to Better Stories

更充分地认识基本粒子可以走很长的路

Elementary Particles More Fully Appreciated can go a long way

被惩罚的人被强迫感到无聊的人被视为有趣而不是无聊？

People being punished people forced to be bored seen as Interesting instead of as Boring?

惩罚和战争在痛苦放大系统中被破坏的供应线被视为有趣吗？

Punishing and War seen as interesting over broken supply lines out misery amplifying system?

过去，对许多政党来说，为和平而战似乎是个好主意

War over peace buy in likely seemed like a good idea for many parties in the past

领导层被高价收购，因为他们没有足够的钱进行长期投资？

Leadership gets upsold to buy in that they don’t have the money to fully invest in over the long term?

战争的维护成本没有得到充分的重视？只需接管它，然后期望长期没有问题吗？

Maintenance costs for war not fully appreciated? Just go in take over that, then expect no problems over the long term?

维护者和勇敢的解放者向长期支持的海盗们买单？

Vindicators and Valiant Liberators Upsold to Pirates of Consistent Support Out Over the Long Term?

传播使人，国家软弱

Spread makes people, countries weak

公司擅长制造手机，涉足汽车行业？很容易在有用的基础上增加点差，同时降低两个系统的附加值。因此我们没有Apple Car？

Company is amazing at making phones, get in the car business? Easy to increase spread based on useful while decreasing value added on both systems. Thus we don’t have an Apple Car?

增加表面积的公司也增加了潜在的竞争表面积，重视竞争和竞争系统中的力量以及他们以非理想方式影响供应线的能力似乎是不明智的

Companies that increase the surface area also increase their potential competition surface area, valuing out the power in competition and competitive systems and their ability to effect supply lines in non ideal ways seems unwise

苹果有钱，这些钱可以用来建造更多的水瓶工厂，或者可以留在银行，而我的水瓶数量更少

Apple has money, money that could be used to build more Water Bottle Plants or could stay in banks while I remain with less Water Bottles In By Design

要求 Water Bottle 18 Wheeler 在开车去 Apple Facility 之前先来我家？

Require the Water Bottle 18 Wheeler visit my house first before driving to Apple Facility?

增加了资金和资源，而部分人口被设计减少到没有水瓶，并长期信任该系统？相信上帝不会以他们的系统为榜样吗？

Having increased funds and resources while part of population is reduced to no water bottles in by design and trust the system long term? Trust that God won’t make an example of their system?

我喜欢苹果产品，还不够重要的支持被抢，苹果破产作为金牛犊为社会增加支持？

I like Apple Products, Not enough to be robbed of crucial support, Apple Bankruptcy as Golden Calf for support added to society?

成为系统中的价值导致有用的系统中的价值

Being the value in system leads to useful as the value in system

一个系统在一致的基础上导致非理想的水在设计的基础上，而它根据已从公众手中夺走的知识产权法获利？

A system that leads to Non Ideal Water In By Design on a Consistent basis while it profits based on IP Law that has been robbed from the public?

社会受苦，然后你的产品有一个巨大的广告牌，事情加起来并不完全理想

Society Suffers then there is a giant billboard with your product, How things add up not all ideal

保护系统不足以应对未来

Protecting the system is insufficient for the future

这个想法是创造价值，但提供相反的东西应该被视为值得奖励吗？

The idea is value creation, yet delivering the opposite should be seen as worth rewarding?

当支持受设计限制时，逻辑作为系统中的价值减少了价值

Logic as a Value In System Less Value In When Support Is Limited In By Design

Provable 是 Perceived as Proven 的？

Provable that is Perceived as Proven?

重申生命价值的重复次数？

Number of Reiterations to Reaffirm Value in Life?

被视为艺术的数学有时比基于初始条件和非理想舍入误差加上插值的硬数字更有价值

Math seen as Art sometimes more value in than hard numbers that are greatly modified based on initial conditions and non ideal rounding errors plus interpolation

人类将 10 次中有 9 次的追加销售潜力正确添加到 10 次中有 10 次

Humans that add correctly 9 times out of 10 potential for Upsell to 10 times out of 10

知道了权利可以在非理想方式中出现，支持再好不过了可以在非理想方式中出现

Got that right can be turned up in Non Ideal Ways, Support couldn’t have been better can be turned up in Non Ideal Ways

打出一张牌的要求，顺序处理的要求被视为所有价值，初始选择被视为不明智的所有价值

Requirement to play one card, Requirement for sequential processing seen as all value in, initial choice seen as all value in unwise

我的vlog是一组选择，说它是一组各方的最佳选择是不明智的

My vlog is a set of choices, to say it is a set of optimal choices for all parties would be unwise

我的 vlog 是基于有限支持的一组选择，有限支持胜过不支持不等于设计中的完美支持

My vlog is a set of choices based upon limited support, limited support beats no support does not equal perfectly ideal support in by design

这是一个完全有效的论点，即初始条件和支持可能更理想

It is a perfectly valid argument that initial conditions and support could have been more ideal

如果不能保证初始支持和初始条件会导致最佳支持，这会导致基本属性，则并非所有人都会以最佳交互方式进行训练

If initial support and initial conditions are not guaranteed to lead to optimal support, that leads to a fundamental property, not all will be trained in optimal ways for interactions

Disrespected In By Design 是一个默认放大的系统，因此 Grace 和 Support 胜过重新放大更多的 Disrespect In By Design

Disrespected In By Design is a system that is amplified by default, thus Grace and Support beats re-amplifying more Disrespect In By Design

默认放大的非理想支持和逻辑谬误是不尊重的，因此不尊重是设计的，默认的

Non Ideal Support and Logical Fallacies Amplified by Default is Disrespectful, thus Disrespected is In By Design, In By Default