Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[MrBogosity]

#10 - Definition?

They're all in the link. Government did something minor that eventually grew into the Internet, therefore we wouldn't have the Internet without government.

#3 - Is that supposed to Nit-Picking?

No, nut-picking: picking a nut (like Alex Jones) and making him representative of all libertarians.

[Travis Retriever]

Several more from The Freeman:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/effectively-irrational

I won't put them in the OP, but they are:

1. Argument ad KochBrotherium
2. The Unicorn
3. Nut-Picking
4. Must Be Scared/Have No Answer (They pulled this crap on me all the time on the JREF forum)
5. The Tin Man (covered above)
6. Availability Cascade
7. Man on the Moon
8. The Gap
9. The Two-Step
10. Panglossian Fallacy
11. Your Side
12. The We/Society Fallacy
13. Deus ex Machina/Market Failure
14. The Organic Fallacy
15. Nobel Fallacy
16. No Parks for You
17. The Self-Exile Fallacy
18. Somalia
19. Social Contract
20. Start Somewhere
21. Social Darwinism
22. Argumentum Ad Googlum
23. We’ve Got to Do Something!
24. Empirical Fallacy
25. No True Libertarian
26. Fascist Ignorance
27. Just One Life
28. Consensus
29. Logo-phallo-euro-centric
30. Who Will Build the Roads?

I would like to add one to this list.

The Cowardly Lion (might as well go all the way) fallacy--works like the Tin Man fallacy, only when right wing warmongers call us cowards for not wanting to bomb the terrorists, the commies, the Nazis, the children, etc, ec, and call us isolationists and cowardly sympathizers/etc/etc for not supporting their imperialism.

[MrBogosity]

I would like to add one to this list.

The Cowardly Lion (might as well go all the way) fallacy--works like the Tin Man fallacy, only when right wing warmongers call us cowards for not wanting to bomb the terrorists, the commies, the nazis, the the children, etc, ec, and call us isolationists and cowardly sympathizers/etc/etc for not supporting their imperialism.

Like it!

EDIT: Actually, it occurs to me it's so much more than this:

"I don't vote." "Why? Don't you have the guts to get involved? You're just apathetic."

"Drug legalization would solve so many of our problems." "But we can't surrender in the War on Drugs!"

"ALL defendants, even mass murderers, should have their day in court and enjoy all the benefits of due process." "Oh, don't be such a pantywaist!"

[Travis Retriever]

Like it!

EDIT: Actually, it occurs to me it's so much more than this:

"I don't vote." "Why? Don't you have the guts to get involved? You're just apathetic."

"Drug legalization would solve so many of our problems." "But we can't surrender in the War on Drugs!"

"ALL defendants, even mass murderers, should have their day in court and enjoy all the benefits of due process." "Oh, don't be such a pantywaist!"

Glad to hear it! And yes, those are welcome additions too.

[MrBogosity]

From something D said in another thread, the fact that Obamatons are STILL blaming everything on Bush. So, do you think we should have the Bush's Fault Fallacy, where someone places the blame on a predecessor or earlier system well beyond the point where it should have had any influence?

[AnCap Dave]

From something D said in another thread, the fact that Obamatons are STILL blaming everything on Bush. So, do you think we should have the Bush's Fault Fallacy, where someone places the blame on a predecessor or earlier system well beyond the point where it should have had any influence?

I'm calling it The BB (BUT BUSH) Fallacy.

[Travis Retriever]

Okay, this has GOT to be a fallacy of some kind.

You talk about economics. You talk about how prosperous the 1950s were and why, and how it was a time of genuine prosperity, not a bubble like the '20s or the '80s. You talk about the small government and monetary policies that gave us this benefit. And then you run into someone like this guy (start the video around 3:20):

[yt]eqOZ-i3ISX4&start=200[/yt]

Yeah, as if the only way you can implement those policies is to reintroduce segregration!

(We won't get into the "What freedoms has Obama taken away?" part, because that's a list that could go on a long, long time...)

Anyway, the point is that employing that same economic policy does not in any way mean approval of or wishing to reinstate racial or sexist attitudes and policies of the time. IMO, there needs to be a named fallacy for associating irrelevant aspects just because they happened to coincide, for the purpose of discrediting the argument when, of course, absolutely nothing has been done to refute it.

Christ, that would be like a creationist saying we can't trust evolution/the evidence for it because that would mean going back to the victorian era with children slavering in mines and getting their hands blown off, etc.  I don't even think creationists are that dishonest.

[Dallas Wildman]

Christ, that would be like a creationist saying we can't trust evolution/the evidence for it because that would mean going back to the victorian era with children slavering in mines and getting their hands blown off, etc.  I don't even think creationists are that dishonest.

I think they already have that one covered: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

[Travis Retriever]

No, nut-picking: picking a nut (like Alex Jones) and making him representative of all libertarians.

My favorite example would be Thunderf00t picking that anti-vaxxer as representative of all "libertarians/Ron Paul supporters" in his anti-libertarian videos.

[tnu]

No, nut-picking: picking a nut (like Alex Jones) and making him representative of all libertarians.

Oh sure but when WE try to pull that shit (say citing Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the DPRK or the Crusades for a religious example.) We're suddenly being unreasonable and making false comparisons

[Travis Retriever]

Oh sure but when WE try to pull that shit (say citing Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the DPRK or the Crusades for a religious example.) We're suddenly being unreasonable and making false comparisons

QFT

[dallen68]

Dallen's alternate broken window fallacy:

If the negative act of an agent or force did not increase the purchasing power of a second agent or force, then the primary force can not have any credit for any purchases initiated by the secondary agent.

EX:

(Skipping to end of story)

Baker: "I was quite capable of buying a window before you broke it, so actually, you caused nothing other than a broken window"

[Travis Retriever]

Inspired by the posts in fail (and fav) quotes recently, I thought of another one that, in retrospect, I'm surprised hasn't been suggested yet--not even on that earlier big list.

The argument/appeal to law.
Saying something is wrong because it is illegal; or saying something is legal, ergo it is right.
For example,
Statist:  "illegal immigration is wrong/immoral!"
Me:  "Why?"
Statist: "Because it's illegal, duh!"

The fallacy:  The state is NOT the ultimate arbiter of morality.  Otherwise you'd be arguing the state can do no wrong.  And I truly hope no one is going to argue that the holocaust, slavery, Stalin's purges--to name but a scant few--were moral just because they were legal.  And as has been discussed before, it's also a circular argument.  To continue the above example where I left off:

Me:  "So why is it illegal?"
Statist:  "Because it's wrong!"
Me: "So why is it wrong?"
Statist: "Because it's illegal!"
etc.

And for the other half of the fallacy (for those who consider my other examples unreasonable)--the it's right because it's legal argument, well.  I'd say this pic does me good:


You get the idea.  Really, I can't think of any why this isn't fallacious.

[dallen68]

Actually, I believe appeal to law is a named fallacy.

For your specific example, the statist could claim illegal immigration is wrong because it involves the forceful trespassing into foreign territory. (Then you could get into how the gov't does that all the time)

[Travis Retriever]

Actually, I believe appeal to law is a named fallacy.

Ah, it is: http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-law-fallacy/
My mistake.  I'll still leave the post up, just 'cuz.

For your specific example, the statist could claim illegal immigration is wrong because it involves the forceful trespassing into foreign territory. (Then you could get into how the gov't does that all the time)

And ignoring the fact that their counter argument assumes government owns all the land (how else could it be trespass then?)