My statement was not post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"During the Columbine incident, it was two boys who played Doom alot did all the killing."

You accused me of this fallacy on that other rigged argument I was having.

This is clearly not Post hoc ergo propter hoc and I'll prove it.

Playing video games was mostly what these kids did and according to that article illogical masturbator presented, it says that those others reasons the boys killed people were myths. It's obvious that they got their god complexes from being skilled at doom at that tends to happen to people when they merely post on forums while believing to have won these "debates." In short Tatarize, you're a smart kid, but you've got a lot more to work on when it comes to reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy."

----

Basically the fallacy is due to the fact that correlation and causation are not tied. You simply stated that the two events were related because the kids played Doom and events followed. For example, if you push a button and then the power goes out on your house, one might be tempted to assume that the button caused the power outage. Whereas it could be completely unrelated, the button does nothing and the power happened to go out or it could be the master breaker in your breakerbox and directly cut the power to the house. The reason it's a fallacy is that you cannot logically conclude the causation from the events in question.

If somebody is stabbed and then dies, it is not always the case that the stabbing resulted in their death. For example, the stabbing may have been at attempt at an emergency tracheotomy too late to save the person before they choked to death. That's why it is a fallacy, not because it *CAN'T* be true, but because it doesn't need to be true. A logically sound argument with true premises must result in a true conclusion. A fallacy means that this is not always the case and thus the conclusion does not need to be accepted.

I assume much of your misunderstanding comes from the idea that fallacy means false. Fallacy means a logical flaw which causes the argument to fail. For example, if I were to use the _fallacy of composition_ I could assemble what seems to be a logical argument but actually is flawed:

"Every molecule in this Barbie doll is plastic, therefore the Barbie doll is plastic."

Regardless that that argument seems bullet-proof and the conclusion and premises are both true the argument is not valid. It uses the fallacy of composition.

"Every molecule in this Barbie doll is invisible to the naked eye, therefore the Barbie doll is invisible to the naked eye."

Or if you prefer:

"Every molecule in this Barbie doll extracted from an oil well, therefore this Barbie doll is extracted from an oil well." (plastics are oil based)

------

The point of a fallacy is that you can't actually make the logical connection from point A to point B. Even if the boys in question were "skilled at Doom" this would not make any connection between skill at a video game and killing.

Arguing that you are correct about this, tenuous at best, conclusion it doesn't mean the argument is not fallacious. Even if you were correct and these boys got God-complexes from being skilled at Doom and further did murder people because of Doom... this doesn't mean your statement was not a fallacy. You could be right and still commit a fallacy.

------

Further, I've seen nothing to suggest that the Columbine boys had a God complex. It seems pretty clear that they were bullied repeatedly and snapped and wanted to make the world pay.

I know a large number of people who were exceedingly good at Doom. In fact, with Zdoom and Zdaemon you can play Doom and Doom 2 online ported into the Quake engine. I know this because I am skilled Doom and haven't even contemplated going on a killing spree. Doom was very popular game, and nothing about getting killed by the same Cyberdemon half a dozen times gives people a God complex.

People kill without playing video games. People play video games without killing. You can't make a logical connection by simply saying that: "During the Columbine incident, it was two boys who played Doom alot did all the killing."

You are suggesting that because Doom happened before Columbine incident, the Columbine incident was caused by Doom. That's a fallacy. It does not, in any way, show that video games encourages violence.

http://www.debate.com...