Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Travis Retriever]

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

Special Pleading.

[MrBogosity]

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?

No, it's not an ad hominem. It's definitely avoiding the question, but I don't know if a specific fallacy would attach to it.

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.

I think that would be Special Pleading.

[Travis Retriever]

No, it's not an ad hominem. It's definitely avoiding the question, but I don't know if a specific fallacy would attach to it.

I think it's called "Red Herring".
Maybe.

[Travis Retriever]

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.

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.

But isn't "Acupuncture has been around for 2,000 years, therefore it must be right!" the same as "The idea (Acupuncture) originated (or came from) around 2,000 years ago."? The latter of which is really just a reverse genetic fallacy?
Why does it have to involve just culture?  Isn't the time period from which something originated from is also a part of the origin (which you said this fallacy addresses)?
Granted, if you want to argue that this is prevelant enough to start its own subset (e.g. Ad hominem has a subset of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque) then I agree.
If not, then I'll just have to agree to disagree:  My brain is too fried. X_X

EDIT:  Unless they're talking about something in the idea that's irrelavent to its merits as opposed to its origin.
Then you'd be right.  In which case, my bad and disregard the rest of this post.

[Virgil0211]

I think I remember hearing about something called a "noble savage" fallacy, or at least misperception, that might be related to it. It's something about the idea that these more primitive cultures are closer to nature and thus have insights that our "cold, materialistic" culture couldn't possibly understand. Or something like that.

My brain is fried as well. X_X

[Travis Retriever]

I think it's called the "Naturalistic fallacy".
The idea that things that are natural are always better for you.
By that logic, Uranium is better than corn (made via domestic farming and changing of it; not natural) because the former is "naturally" occurring.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Arsenic is natural, who wants to go try that?

[Travis Retriever]

@LTHE: LOL!  

Another one that gets its own name:
Appeal to complication; argument from complication.

When after probing someone about something, they get trapped into a corner and say; "it's more complicated than I can explain" after you've destroyed their points.
e.g.
The asshole Venus project supporter in that thread I made about said project supportors:

"This is something it took 3 books, about 6 movies, and over 50 hours of radio shows for me to grasp myself, for me to just scribble about it in a small journal. Im not sure if that post is coming along honestly, as im busy putting my own time and effort into the project itself and dealing with likeminded people, rather than convincing strangers what my personal life is all about."

Another one in this would be appeal to snootiness: the last part.  stating that you don't have time/effect after getting your ass handed to you (after the fact).

I might be off or something.

[MrBogosity]

Why does it have to involve just culture?  Isn't the time period from which something originated from is also a part of the origin (which you said this fallacy addresses)?

Real genetics is when the offspring inherits qualities from the parent. So the genetic fallacy is claiming that the idea inherits qualities from the source. That goes beyond mere age.

I guess it might be a red herring, but I don't see it qualifying as a full-blown genetic fallacy.

[MrBogosity]

Another one in this would be appeal to snootiness: the last part.  stating that you don't have time/effect after getting your ass handed to you (after the fact).

This brings to mind another one:

Skeptic: Do you have a scientific source for that claim?
Claimant: I'm not going to do your homework for you!

I've considered calling this the Homework Fallacy. Note: this would NOT be a fallacy if the claimant has already given sources (or detailed descriptions on how to find the sources). The fallacy is doing this instead of citing sources.

[Travis Retriever]

This brings to mind another one:

Skeptic: Do you have a scientific source for that claim?
Claimant: I'm not going to do your homework for you!

I've considered calling this the Homework Fallacy. Note: this would NOT be a fallacy if the claimant has already given sources (or detailed descriptions on how to find the sources). The fallacy is doing this instead of citing sources.

Yeah...I've been guilty of this one myself...(sort of).

It reminds me of that Tolstoy.  He would give me the names of a few books that would "show the bible is being taken out of context". I might have been committing a fallacy by not wanting to look at them, but I fail to see how.  If the bible was being taken out of context, he simply could have TOLD me the proper context.  Why did he have to show me a book that was probably either an interpretation of it, or another book when the bible is supposed to be the word of God?...

[Travis Retriever]

This brings to mind another one:

Skeptic: Do you have a scientific source for that claim?
Claimant: I'm not going to do your homework for you!

I've considered calling this the Homework Fallacy. Note: this would NOT be a fallacy if the claimant has already given sources (or detailed descriptions on how to find the sources). The fallacy is doing this instead of citing sources.

Yeah, I got this one from LibertyStudent from the Mises.org forum.
I asserted that Middle Eastern (Islamic) countries are most socialist than Western Countries.
I showed him evidence from the Economic Freedom Index showing the middle eastern countries to be below par with the western counterparts.
He just blew it off saying, "I don't know what their standards are, but property rights are the big thing, not just how much of your income the state lets you keep." basically sidestepping my source; not even looking at it...
He tells me to research Islamic banking, while not addressing how that's relavent, how its different, or even addressing my fucking sources.
After which, I show him that those nations happen to be third world countries (a HUGE sign of a repressive government)
Again, he blew it off, and just said it was because of the USA's foreign policy (which I do agree with, but come on, that's hardly the same as them being more capitalistic...)

So we change it to Sharia Law (very barbaric from what I understand).
I show him the wikipedia entry on it.  He blows it if saying that I should read the Quran.
I ask for what quotes or verses he's talking about, complete with context so there is no quote mining.
He just strings me along saying that I need to read the full Quran.  That if I just saw a few verses that doesn't count (nevermind if those verses happen to be the basis for law in those countries: e.g. if you deconvert from Islam, they sentence you to death...)

Finally, when I don't see him post again, I claim victory, and he comes back using the: "I've already given you sources, I don't have time to waste on you." Yet this fucktard already wasted quite a bit of time replying.
What condescending prick.

[MrBogosity]

Here's another one that should probably be added: argument from etymology. I run into this now and again; it's when someone tries to refute someone's argument by using the origin of a word, rather than the common definition.

Kent Hovind probably has the most (in)famous use when he claimed "universe" came from "uni," meaning "single," and "verse," meaning "spoken sentence," so we live in a "single spoken sentence," "God said."

Of course, "verse" does not mean "spoken sentence," it means "turn," and universe literally means, "all turned into one." But here's the thing: even if what he said were correct, it would still be completely irrelevant.

The word "influenza" comes from "influence," because people used to believe that illness was caused by the influence of the stars. "Disaster" as well means "bad star." But people don't believe in astrology, nor is astrology true, just because people still use the words.

We can say "sunrise" and "sunset" without being geocentrists. We can say "Thank God" without being theists. The origin of a word or phrase doesn't necessarily match its current usage, and no one should be held responsible for its origin when using it in a modern context.

[Travis Retriever]

Here's another one that should probably be added: argument from etymology. I run into this now and again; it's when someone tries to refute someone's argument by using the origin of a word, rather than the common definition.

Kent Hovind probably has the most (in)famous use when he claimed "universe" came from "uni," meaning "single," and "verse," meaning "spoken sentence," so we live in a "single spoken sentence," "God said."

Of course, "verse" does not mean "spoken sentence," it means "turn," and universe literally means, "all turned into one." But here's the thing: even if what he said were correct, it would still be completely irrelevant.

The word "influenza" comes from "influence," because people used to believe that illness was caused by the influence of the stars. "Disaster" as well means "bad star." But people don't believe in astrology, nor is astrology true, just because people still use the words.

We can say "sunrise" and "sunset" without being geocentrists. We can say "Thank God" without being theists. The origin of a word or phrase doesn't necessarily match its current usage, and no one should be held responsible for its origin when using it in a modern context.

Another example of this is when that one dude I mentioned tried to discredit Libertarianism by saying that the word originally was used to describe Anarchy until recently.

[MrBogosity]

Another example of this is when that one dude I mentioned tried to discredit Libertarianism by saying that the word originally was used to describe Anarchy until recently.

When was it ever used that way?