Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Travis Retriever]

Yeah, but it happens so often--especially from creationists on my YouTube channel--that I think it's ubiquitous enough to have its own name.

Well just because a logical fallacy is subset of another doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its own name.
For example:  An Ad hominem is technically a subset of Red Herring because the former relies on the statement of something irrelavent to distract from the debate/topic at hand.

And yes, I see this one crop up so much, even from fairly smart people (e.g. LadyAttis), that I'd say it deserves it's own name.
I just wanted to point out that it is a subset.

[MrBogosity]

I thought it being a subset was inherent in the name.

[Travis Retriever]

I thought it being a subset was inherent in the name.

Yes, but of a strawman argument subset, not of ad hominem though.

[MrBogosity]

Yes, but of a strawman argument subset, not of ad hominem though.

Maybe it's both.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Need a name for this one: Demanding evidence that cannot be procured.

When I showed a vid showing a lot of people who got burned by Canadian healthcare, I was hit with the usual "but he only interviewed a few people in Quebec" argument and "He's biased, I want one from a completely fair and free of prejudice source."

I replied that such a source does not exist and the fact that nobody on the other side of the debate has done that is a tad hypocritical.

[MrBogosity]

What about, "Think of the children"? It's a form of Argument from Adverse Consequences, but it seems so emotional and so common to me it deserves a name of its own. What do you think?

[MrBogosity]

How about this one:

Argumentum ad cutandpaste

This is beyond quote-mining; this is when someone cuts and pastes someone else's response (regardless of whether that someone else is on their side) without understanding the argument they're pasting in.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Misdirection

Commiting a fallacy in the same post that you accuse the other guy of it in order to deflect blame.

[Virgil0211]

Misdirection

Commiting a fallacy in the same post that you accuse the other guy of it in order to deflect blame.

That's more of a rhetorical technique than a logical fallacy, I think.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Someone called this one the piety fallacy.  Focusing on intentions and disregarding actions and consequences.

"Healthcare seeks to give everyone the care they need so it's good."

or...

"People who oppose healthcare must have ulterior motives"

It's a hollow argument for one simple reason: intentions don't mean jack.  You can do bad things with good intentions and you can do great things with selfish intentions.  Actions and consequences are what really matter.

[Travis Retriever]

Someone called this one the piety fallacy.  Focusing on intentions and disregarding actions and consequences.

"Healthcare seeks to give everyone the care they need so it's good."

or...

"People who oppose healthcare must have ulterior motives"

It's a hollow argument for one simple reason: intentions don't mean jack.  You can do bad things with good intentions and you can do great things with selfish intentions.  Actions and consequences are what really matter.

Sounds good to me!
In fact, I think there was even an article at mises that talked about this very idea.

[MrBogosity]

Someone called this one the piety fallacy.  Focusing on intentions and disregarding actions and consequences.

I like it! Added.

[Virgil0211]

Someone called this one the piety fallacy.  Focusing on intentions and disregarding actions and consequences.

You mean Deontological ethics? =P

Might be better to call it the "Kantian fallacy".

[Travis Retriever]

You mean Deontological ethics? =P

Might be better to call it the "Kantian fallacy".

But Piety falllacious makes more sense to the average Joe.
And to me.

[Gumba Masta]

Is that like a "The end justifies the means" thing or is that the opposite of that? I can't tell.