Lou's Unsafe Fried Chicken Place

Who doesn't love some internet drama? Sure, we like watching things go down, but not when it involves the best comedy channel of all time ever® as well as the best writer/Billy Mays look-alike Lou. No, no - I'm sorry but, we must draw the line somewhere. This far, no further. We can not withstand such a war, for it will destroy us all.

I made a video about Lou once: Click me to watch video. And, try as they might, We The Internet TV (WTIT from now on) could not make my video go viral. :(

Oh well. I guess fame can wait. Anyway. Today I was just minding my own business when I saw that horrible tweet of doom and gloom that will kill us all. I knew then.... I had to act.

I'm pretty good with logic, my whole channel is me pointing out logical fallacies (mostly) so I think I've got a pretty good grasp upon it. What I see from this post is several logical fallacies, and my hope is, by pointing them out here in this blog post, Lou and WTIT will give each other a hug and forget this nonsense before it blows up the multiverse as we know it.

First Lou says: 

Fried chicken is overrated.

This is a subjective statement. We can know this by the word "overrated" - Lou has offered us no data on how many people have rated fried chicken, nor if they are rating it higher then they should. There is not any method suggested anywhere of what the rating of said fried chicken "should" be set at. Even if Lou had a large sample size of people rating Fried Chicken, he could not hope to resolve where the rating "should" be as a standard to match it against any other food or type of food.

Therefor, although this seems at first glance to be a statement of fact, it can not be, because of the subjective word "overrated". However, if one wanted to push the point that this IS a statment of fact,  then WTIT should respond, "prove it" since the burden of proof would be upon Lou in full, as whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof.

Lou then says:

Don’t ”fight me.”

Fighting in this context could mean any number of things, but given that this a statement of subjective value, we can infer that Lou is referring to an argument - that is, a debate on the matter. He is telling us that his mind is made up on this view point, and that adds upon the idea that this is purely subjective, rather then objective. This is not an argument, Lou doesn't want to argue, he wants to put out this view, and that is that. He does not want your view, he does not need your view, one could speculate that he does not care about your view as well. However with the quotes around fight me we might speculate upon what Lou's intent here is. Does he mean to imply that fight me in this context is not in fact, a fight at all - it is the mere illusion of fight? Placing things in quotes adds to confusion here, and is further indication that this is a point of view, written perhaps late at night in the dark, alone and drunk, after failing to masturbate to futanari hentai for the tenth time. (NTTIAWWT)
Anyway, this is not a statement of fact. However, Lou then says this:

Just accept this truth.

Oh dear. This is a problem Lou, as we can not accept the statements you have made as being true - OTHER then to accept them being a taste selection that is true - TO YOU, and yes, that view is your view, and that is your true view - we have no reason to suspect that you are not being honest with this view point. But to suggest that this is "the truth" "this truth" and/or anything else reflecting the idea that this statement is MORE then subjective, is to fly off the rails into the purely illogical. Simply put, you've commented a Formal Fallacy: failure to give an argument. You've offered no proof to show it is true, thus we must assume that your saying that it is true for your view point, in your subjective tastes, and not true in reality. For we have no argument, no evidence, no data to look at. Lou's post shows therefor, a subjective view that is one he wants to keep, and for us to think is his subjective truth on the matter. We have no problem doing that. If, however, you wanted to assume that Lou was putting out a statement about reality, then your objection should be simply to prove it - nothing more or less, as Lou has not proven anything and offered no argument.

Now I must turn my attention to WTIT as they, sadly performed a logical fallacy.

The words in question are here:

bout of insanity.

Ah WTIT, you have committed the Ad Hominem fallacy. Rather then addressing Lou's lack of proof, formal fallacy &/or his argument (that he didn't have) you have attacked him the person. This also adds a second fallacy to the mix: Poisoning of the Well, as your making everything Lou says suspect because, after all - if he is not sane, then we can not trust anything he has said. Further, you also fail YOUR burden of proof, and also do not give any evidence to show that Lou is in fact, insane.

There is also this bit:

we will fight him.

You've now performed equivocation as well, the word fight as posted by Lou had quotes around it, suggesting some other fight that is non-real to some extent, although whatever the intent Lou had in putting quotes is something we can not know, what we do know is that without the quotes, the word fight is no longer the word "fight" that Lou posted, thus is a different meaning of that word, thus is equivocation, and also I would suggest a strawman argument as well. Your only response should have been "Prove it Lou" as that would be the acceptable and logical rebuttal to Lou's statement, if, and only if WTIT thought Lou was posting a statement of fact, rather then a statement of feeling/personal subjective view.

~~~~

Conclusion

~~~~

In Logic, when one has found one or more logical fallacies, then one must be skeptical of the conclusion, it might be true - but though the use of the logical process, we can not be sure that it is true, thus we are in doubt. When there is a debate at hand, should both party's arguments contain logical fallacies, you must be in doubt of both of there conclusions. No one wins, no one loses. This can of course be modified by rules the debaters agree to prior to the debate, but that is a different subject. Nonetheless, what we have here is two groups who have both failed in any sort of logical presentation and I submit they should be skeptical of there own stances, therefor they should agree to disagree and make up and hug. 

And if they do not...

I will send the lobsters.

(that would be an ad baculum fallacy dear reader, but its okay when I do them... because... uhhhh...)