Author Topic: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies  (Read 154840 times)

dallen68

  • Bogon filter
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
  • Bogometer: -35
    • MSN Messenger - davidallen124@gmail.com
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - djajr
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #405 on: May 15, 2015, 05:43:25 AM »
Talking about which, we generally accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What then of claims that have been previously proven to be false?

For example: Girl claims boy raped her, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he was not present at the time. What sort of evidence would we need to reconsider girls claim?

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6115
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #406 on: May 15, 2015, 06:40:09 AM »
This seems related to the Leeches fallacy you bring up now and again.

It pretty much is. Another example is on that recent Shives video where one statist said, if you don't like it, you can move, and then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE of the VERY SAME POST defended restrictions on leaving the country!

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6115
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #407 on: June 29, 2015, 02:18:06 PM »
One I'm really getting frustrated with:

Argumentum ad saturum. Someone says something stupid, and when you call them on it claim it was satire (when there was no indication whatsoever that it was), and that you're an idiot for not seeing that. BS way of retracting an argument while simultaneously making an ad hominem attack.

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6002
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #408 on: June 29, 2015, 02:44:44 PM »
One I'm really getting frustrated with:

Argumentum ad saturum. Someone says something stupid, and when you call them on, they it claim it was satire (when there was no indication whatsoever that it was), and that you're an idiot for not seeing that. BS way of retracting an argument while simultaneously making an ad hominem attack.
Yeah, I've seen this before when folks comment on your videos and I call them on it.  I think you've participated in one of those discussions before.  And yeah, it's annoying.  And very pretentious.  Like when I was arguing with a guy on Facebook a few days ago and he later claims, "That last line was a joke." about ten minutes after the fact...riiiight.

Also, boldface in quotes was word you missed.  Added because without it, the post you made is a bit harder to parse.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6002
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #409 on: July 16, 2015, 12:04:58 PM »
I don't know if it has a name but I am calling it the 'Little Guy Fallacy', or 'The Underdog Fallacy'.  Basically you take the side of the 'little guy' because they are the smaller group against the big guy (see Mojang v. Bethesda).  I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that intentionally take advantage of this fallacy ad try to garner some fake emotion from their ignorant fan base.

I was just about to add something like this and was even going to give it the same name.  But I'm glad it's already here. :)  As this seems to be most people's reason for supporting Apple over Microsoft despite the fact that Apple is worse in just about every way these hipster dipshits complain about.

Money grubbing? Um, have they SEEN how much Apple charges for everything?  Hell, they charge more for MS Office than Microsoft does!  I think it was something like 3-5+ times more money for an equivalent machine you built yourself that you can't upgrade.  And one for the "profits = teh ebil" crowd: last I checked, Apple's profits are soaring sky high, especially for their smartphones despite their market share so that iPhone you hipsters love? Yeah.  But you see that doesn't count because potato...

Monopolistic?  Um, have you tried to jailbreak one of their phones?  Hell, not even Microsoft was a monopoly.  You could always get a computer without a single byte of Microsoft software in it.  If they mean IP (which is NOT a free market or capitalist thing, kindly get over it), I hate to break it to them, but the only good guys in that race would be the open source crowd; like Linux, Ubuntu, etc, which at least has the benefit of being free (last I checked).  Unlike MS or Apple.

Apple's products are secure? In the same way that a safe without a door and six closed sides is secure.  What's your point?  How does them making it so I have to get a third party app just so I can get the music out of my fucking iPod because if I try to do it via an explorer window it jumbles everything up in random folders with gibberish names, despite the fact that you can see the files and delete the music files themselves right from iTunes or even an explorer window.  How does this make that fucker secure?  Good lord!  And yes, they do get viruses, malware, etc and always have.  The people who make that crap just don't have as much incentive to make it for Apple products because they aren't as widespread or commonplace as Windows one.

Hell, I was even considering calling this the "hipster fallacy" because of that!
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 12:11:25 PM by Travis Retriever »
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6115
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #410 on: July 16, 2015, 01:10:21 PM »
Hell, I was even considering calling this the "hipster fallacy" because of that!

Hmm, Hipster Fallacy. I like that! It could also apply to things like, pro-organic nuts complaining about evil profits when organic seed makers and growers profit just as much if not more.

dallen68

  • Bogon filter
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
  • Bogometer: -35
    • MSN Messenger - davidallen124@gmail.com
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - djajr
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #411 on: July 20, 2015, 02:39:26 AM »
I was just about to add something like this and was even going to give it the same name.  But I'm glad it's already here. :)  As this seems to be most people's reason for supporting Apple over Microsoft despite the fact that Apple is worse in just about every way these hipster dipshits complain about.

You know, these people were supporting Apple against PC, before Microsoft was really a thing. When I was in High School, OS/2 (an IBM thing that operated PC's back in the day) had just came out, and everybody was gaga over Newton, despite the fact that IBM's worked more consistently and was about 1/4 of the cost (based on similar hardware of course).

Also, one of the ad/disad/vantages of Apple is it's all or nothing - once you buy the box, that's what you have, if you want to add something that's not in the box, you have to get a new box. If you don't want something that's in the box, you might break the box if you take it out.

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6002
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #412 on: August 27, 2015, 04:32:45 PM »
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.
To this day I'm blown away by the "Libertarian Socialists" who STILL claim we "stole the word 'libertarian'" from them.  Because some French guy was the first to use it politically in a letter.  1) Note how they say "use it politically." doesn't that mean they "stole it" from the folks who used it a-politically?  Special pleading much?  Also, possibly moving the goalposts, as the first folks to ever use this argument against me never included that piece, but just said they were the first to coin the term, period.  2) Really? In a foreign language?  By that logic, "gift" really means "poison" because that's what it translate to in German.  Gimme a fucking break!  And sorry, commies, but my authoritative source of the online etymology dictionary trumps your letter with a guy saying it.  Fucking deal with it.  Note how the word, "communist" or "socialist" appears NOWHERE in it!
« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 06:36:00 PM by Travis Retriever »
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6002
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #413 on: August 28, 2015, 05:41:06 PM »
This one drives me nuts too.  Posting a MASSIVE wall of text and then berating me for misunderstanding their point when in truth, they were being so vague and ambiguous that their point could have been anything.
Oy.  I find folks involved in academia (the social sciences and crap like philosophy and religion as taught by the state) tend to be NOTORIOUS for this!
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Altimadark

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 186
  • Bogometer: -18
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Altimadark
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #414 on: September 23, 2015, 12:44:19 AM »
I'm fairly certain this isn't already on the list, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This fallacy comes up when someone "supports" their claim by declaring people are stupid, when in fact this declaration hurts their claim when looked at critically because it creates a paradox. The clearest example is when someone asserts that people are too stupid to take care of themselves, yet somehow still smart enough to elect good, competent leaders to care for them.

I've also seen this come up when people try to refute the so-called "libertarian paradise" by claiming that some evil schemer (often themselves) could easily ruin everything, involving things like obviously bad business deals (Get lots/all customers by selling rotten food for cheap!) or regulation gone awry (My traffic signal randomly flashes blue and causes accidents because potato!). Putting the claimant in the consumer/victim's position creates a paradox; if they can't find a way around the problem, it makes them look stupid; if they can, it derails their own argument.

I'd like to call this the Demos-Sapience Paradox, (because I like making things that sound cool, smart, and/or complicated), but a better name might be...

The Common Sense Paradox

What do you think?
Failing to clean up my own mistakes since the early 80s.

dallen68

  • Bogon filter
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
  • Bogometer: -35
    • MSN Messenger - davidallen124@gmail.com
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - djajr
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #415 on: September 23, 2015, 03:11:38 AM »
I'm fairly certain this isn't already on the list, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This fallacy comes up when someone "supports" their claim by declaring people are stupid, when in fact this declaration hurts their claim when looked at critically because... (whatever excuse they want to use) <snip>
What do you think?

I agree with everything NOT snipped. :D

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6002
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #416 on: November 27, 2015, 06:52:22 PM »
http://shanedk.deviantart.com/journal/How-to-Argue-for-Immigration-Restrictions-555001819
In light of #1 from the above, I'm reminded of a bit from Harry Browne's book, "Why Government Doesn't Work" The idea that your specific version of the laws/force/etc will be implemented and that it will turn out as you picture it in your head.

This is a fallacy because:  last I checked, you're not omnipotent or omniscient!  Nor do you have any control over the politicians enacting said polices! *cough* Trump *cough*

Until someone comes up with a better name, I shall call it, "The Dictator Fallacy"
« Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 01:51:16 PM by Travis Retriever »
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

libertarian__revolution

  • Podcast Co-Hosts
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • Bogometer: -8
  • Grasshopper in Fighting Bogostiy
    • View Profile
    • Instagram
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #417 on: December 06, 2015, 06:36:06 PM »
I think that you (Shane) should also add something like a "Common Sense Fallacy" related to those who say I just want common sense gun control without going into any detail
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6002
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #418 on: December 07, 2015, 09:37:24 PM »
I think that you (Shane) should also add something like a "Common Sense Fallacy" related to those who say I just want common sense gun control without going into any detail
IIRC, "appeal to common sense" already is a fallacy, and rightly so.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 05:30:25 PM by Travis Retriever »
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6115
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
« Reply #419 on: May 09, 2016, 07:19:53 PM »
Working on the next set of quickies, and I've come up with one I'm trying to find a good name for:

"You're wrong because you won't hold my hand and explain everything from scratch instead of linking to source material."

I think we've all encountered this. They won't accept links to sources. They won't accept links to YouTube videos you've made explaining it. They won't accept links to previous discussions. They DEMAND that you start over from scratch and explain everything all over again, and if you don't then you lose the argument for some bizarre reason.

Any ideas?