Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[MrBogosity]

Every now and then, I run into arguments that seem like definitive fallacies, but I can't find them listed anywhere and I think they should be formalized. Have you ever run into anything like that? If so, post it in this thread, and we'll discuss whether it really is a fallacy, if so, has it been named, and if not, what should we call it?

Here's one I keep running into: Argument from time/appeal to past/appeal to modernity: This is evaluating something based solely on when the idea is introduced.

It could be an appeal to past: "Acupuncture is over 2,000 years old! It wouldn't have been around all that time if it didn't work!"

Or an appeal to modernity: "What, you want the government of our founders? That's so 18th Century! Get with the times! Socialism is more modern--you don't want to go backwards, do you?"

I can't see any way this isn't fallacious. So, what do you think? What should it be called?

And what other unnamed fallacies have you run into?

Okay, here are the fallacies we have so far:

• Appeal from time (argumentum ad tempus)
• The Homework Fallacy
• Appeal to complication
• Argument from etymology (argumentum ad etymologia)
• Appeal to slavery (argumentum ad servitus)
• Original Sin Fallacy
• Appeal to idealism
• Ad hominem recursis
• Argumentum ad cutandpaste
• Piety Fallacy
• Appeal to precedent
• Appeal to majority
• False conspiracy
• The Best Game In Town Fallacy
• Remedy by Decapitation Fallacy
• Over Nine Thousand Fallacy
• The Democracy Fallacy (courtesy Downsize DC Foundation)
• The Null Comparison Fallacy (aka The Tide Paradox)
• The Underdog Fallacy
• Iterum Dico (I Say Again) Fallacy
• Love Canal Fallacy
• Pulling a Lindy
• The Tin Man Fallacy (courtesy Battlestar Catallactica.com)
• The Cowardly Lion Fallacy (rounding out the trio, Scarecrow being the Strawman Fallacy)
• The Necromancer Fallacy
• The Fallacy of Grey (courtesy Elizier Yudkowsky)
• The Opinion Card
• The Open-Minded Fallacy
• Turn Back the Clock Fallacy
• The Not a Spade Fallacy
• The Microcosm Fallacy
• The Hofstadter-Moebius Loop

[Travis Retriever]

Well I can't think of any arguments like that at the moment, however, I think LadyAttis on YouTube when he ran into an argument like that from the Venus Project people: "Our idea is new! Therefore it is better!"
He called it the "Reverse Genetic Fallacy".
That, because an idea is formed under certain circumstances, it is therefore better, or true.

[MrBogosity]

The genetic fallacy has to do with the origins of an idea, not the time period. It's like someone saying Volkswagens are bad because they were invented by the Nazis. A "reverse genetic fallacy" would therefore be something being good because of its good origins.

I'm talking about an evaluation based solely on age, nothing more.

[Travis Retriever]

Wait...That's right nevermind, because they're referring to the period during which it was APPLIED, not the period it was thought up...
Right? O.o

[MrBogosity]

Either, actually, as opposed to the reasons why it was thought up or applied, or what it occurred in conjunction with.

[Travis Retriever]

What?
Either?
But isn't the time an idea was thought up a part of its origin, thus, making their appeals a subset of genetic fallacy?

[MrBogosity]

There's a difference between time and age. What I'm talking about is specifically the age of the idea, not in what specific culture it originated.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

I think both of those examples you used would be considered arguments from authority, using the longevity or modernity of it as the authority.

[Travis Retriever]

There's a difference between time and age. What I'm talking about is specifically the age of the idea, not in what specific culture it originated.

I'm not talking about the culture either.

The genetic fallacy has to do with the origins of an idea, not the time period.

Which are not mutually exclusive.  The time period (and conversely the idea's age) are a part of its origin.
ex.  This idea originated ages ago, therefore it is wrong.
ex.  This idea is newer, therefore it is right.

@FSBlueApocalypse: 

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

-- Wikipedia.
Granted, one could argue that the time is a "source" but don't think that's what it means...

Granted, it might even be possible that it fits into both fallacies.
From what I recall, the logical fallacies aren't mutually exclusive.
For example, Ad hominem is a kind of genetic fallacy (if memory serves) and it's also a kind of red herring because the person's personal traits are irrelavent to the points he/she makes.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I didn't see this one listed on the fallacy files but it's one I run into a lot.

The nirvana fallacy
Discrediting something by comparing it to a completely unrealistic ideal.

"Enron was a crooked operation and that's why capitalism is bad"

In this case, the unrealistic ideal is a world where nobody ever lies or deceives.  Obviously, it's a flawed argument because if we go by the logic of "anything not perfect is useless," we'd never get anything done.

[MrBogosity]

I think both of those examples you used would be considered arguments from authority, using the longevity or modernity of it as the authority.

I don't know if time can be considered an authority. At the very least, it's prevalent enough to be considered its own subset, IMO.

Which are not mutually exclusive.  The time period (and conversely the idea's age) are a part of its origin.
ex.  This idea originated ages ago, therefore it is wrong.
ex.  This idea is newer, therefore it is right.

Let me use the acupuncture example again:

"Acupuncture was invented by the Chinese, who also invented (long list of damn near everything). So it must be right!" --Genetic fallacy
"Acupuncture has been around for 2,000 years, therefore it must be right!" -- This fallacy

I think it's an important distinction. The genetic fallacy would use something about the properties of the culture or the time for support; this one just uses time.
 a "source" but don't think that's what it means...

[MrBogosity]

I didn't see this one listed on the fallacy files but it's one I run into a lot.

The nirvana fallacy
Discrediting something by comparing it to a completely unrealistic ideal.

"Enron was a crooked operation and that's why capitalism is bad"

In this case, the unrealistic ideal is a world where nobody ever lies or deceives.  Obviously, it's a flawed argument because if we go by the logic of "anything not perfect is useless," we'd never get anything done.

This is a good one. I hear all the time that I have to prove that a libertarian culture would be perfect (they don't state it that way, but that's what they demand) when their own system is far from perfect!

I like the name, too: Nirvana Fallacy.

[Travis Retriever]

Obviously, it's a flawed argument because if we go by the logic of "anything not perfect is useless," we'd never get anything done.

Oh god! >_<
I run into this one constantly...
Does anyone remember my argument with that right wing person in the WWII thread?
Yeah...

Although I don't think your example fits the definition (It probably does; though it didn't jump out at me).
The example you gave was more of a contradiction.
Enron is a Corporation, making it, by definition, a state protected entity insomuch that it becomes a legal entity unto itself (LadyAttis and ConfederalSocialist go more in detail about this).  So technically it wasn't even a capitalist example, so much as a corporatist example, which most, if not all, of the Libertarians I know of are against.

[Travis Retriever]

Well I'm not sure if this one qualifies, but...
Something I got a a lot from Moderate Christians *coughTolstoycough*:
They'll make an assertion (e.g:  God doesn't hate gays; the atheists are taking the quote out of context).
I'll ask what the proper context is, and he just says: "You're just an ignorant atheist; you haven't done your research!" while repeating his point ad nausem.

I think it might already have a name (Ad hominem/red herring)?
What do you think?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I think this one already has a name but I haven't heard it.

Making exceptions to the rules, often even one's own rules, for no logical reason.

The simplest example is "If you take the last cookie, you're a jerk.  If I take the last cookie, it's because I was hungry"

A good recent example was someone talking about how evil companies create monopolies to gouge people and that's why government needs to regulate the important markets like healthcare and such.

To which I of course ask "Wait...you are against monopolies...so why is it okay when government does it?"

Of course, they never answer that question.  Color me surprised!


In a debate about healthcare, I once posed the question "If your mother was dying and you couldn't afford her hospital bills, would you be okay with someone robbing people at gun point on her behalf?  Well that's ultimately what you're doing if you support government healthcare."

Most just called that extremist but one individual surprised me by saying "I'd be on the front lines with my shot gun if that were the case."  He got REALLY hostile with me when I called him a hypocrite for that, justifying it by saying it's for the sake of his mother here.

The hypocrisy isn't in his intentions, it's the fact that while he says it's okay for him to rob people to save a loved one's life, he's undoubtedly not willing to let anyone else have that excuse.