Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Gumba Masta]

Even if he is you can always put him up against all the christians that took it too far.

[MrBogosity]

No, because his driving force was communist dogma. Communism worships the state as god, so even calling it atheistic is iffy at best.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Twas brought up when I said that being a "fundamental atheist" is like being tall short person.

[Travis Retriever]

Twas brought up when I said that being a "fundamental atheist" is like being tall short person.

Agreed.  To be sure, there ARE such a thing as "dogmatic" atheists (which is what people seem to mean when they say that), however, that doesn't make atheism a dogma, let alone a religion.

[MrBogosity]

Dogmatic atheists are dogmatic about things other than their atheism, though.

[Travis Retriever]

Exactly.

[VectorM]

Dogmatic atheists are dogmatic about things other than their atheism, though.

Like Thunderf00t and his statism?

[Travis Retriever]

Like Thunderf00t and his statism?

Yes.

[MrBogosity]

I don't know if this is a fallacy or just a dishonest debating tactic, but it's been used against me several times, and I just saw another one from a YouTube user accusing me of getting information from a (so he says) disreputable source. Here's how this fallacy/tactic works:

1. Look at the source someone gives.

2. Find a person or group of questionable repute who cited the same source.

3. Use that to make the person look equally questionable.

Ad hominem? Poisoning the Well? Both? Something different?

[Travis Retriever]

I don't know if this is a fallacy or just a dishonest debating tactic, but it's been used against me several times, and I just saw another one from a YouTube user accusing me of getting information from a (so he says) disreputable source. Here's how this fallacy/tactic works:

1. Look at the source someone gives.

2. Find a person or group of questionable repute who cited the same source.

3. Use that to make the person look equally questionable.

Ad hominem? Poisoning the Well? Both? Something different?

Sounds like Guilt by Association to me.

[MrBogosity]

Kind of an indirect form.

[Virgil0211]

I don't know if this is a fallacy or just a dishonest debating tactic, but it's been used against me several times, and I just saw another one from a YouTube user accusing me of getting information from a (so he says) disreputable source. Here's how this fallacy/tactic works:

1. Look at the source someone gives.

2. Find a person or group of questionable repute who cited the same source.

3. Use that to make the person look equally questionable.

Ad hominem? Poisoning the Well? Both? Something different?

It seems a bit like a combination of poisoning the well, guilty by association, and those things being used to power an ad hominem attack, but primarily guilt by association.

It's amazing how long this thread's gotten. Has anybody made the comparison between stupidity and the borg yet? It seems like no matter what you do, dogmatism and idiocy just keeps adapting.

Vid only partially related.

[yt]kUWyAtqdwzc&feature=related[/yt]

[Lord T Hawkeye]

This one drives me nuts too.

When you make an analogy or comparison, they say "that's not the same as this therefore the entire analogy is invalid"

In this case, I said "Anyone who thinks order can't come about without a central authority has never seen an ant colony" and it was met with "people aren't ants."  -_-

As I always say, nitpicking an analogy doesn't make you look smart.  It makes you look like you don't know what an analogy is.

[Gumba Masta]

Don't ants have a queen?

[MrBogosity]

The queen is a large sack that lays eggs. It's not like she controls the ants.