The Bogosity Forum

General Bogosity => General Discussion => Topic started by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 04:12:10 PM

Title: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 04:12:10 PM
Every now and then, I run into arguments that seem like definitive fallacies, but I can't find them listed anywhere and I think they should be formalized. Have you ever run into anything like that? If so, post it in this thread, and we'll discuss whether it really is a fallacy, if so, has it been named, and if not, what should we call it?

Here's one I keep running into: Argument from time/appeal to past/appeal to modernity: This is evaluating something based solely on when the idea is introduced.

It could be an appeal to past: "Acupuncture is over 2,000 years old! It wouldn't have been around all that time if it didn't work!"

Or an appeal to modernity: "What, you want the government of our founders? That's so 18th Century! Get with the times! Socialism is more modern--you don't want to go backwards, do you?"

I can't see any way this isn't fallacious. So, what do you think? What should it be called?

And what other unnamed fallacies have you run into?



Okay, here are the fallacies we have so far:

Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 04:28:28 PM
Well I can't think of any arguments like that at the moment, however, I think LadyAttis on YouTube when he ran into an argument like that from the Venus Project people: "Our idea is new! Therefore it is better!"
He called it the "Reverse Genetic Fallacy".
That, because an idea is formed under certain circumstances, it is therefore better, or true.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 04:57:11 PM
The genetic fallacy has to do with the origins of an idea, not the time period. It's like someone saying Volkswagens are bad because they were invented by the Nazis. A "reverse genetic fallacy" would therefore be something being good because of its good origins.

I'm talking about an evaluation based solely on age, nothing more.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 05:20:52 PM
Wait...That's right nevermind, because they're referring to the period during which it was APPLIED, not the period it was thought up...
Right? O.o
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 06:09:22 PM
Either, actually, as opposed to the reasons why it was thought up or applied, or what it occurred in conjunction with.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 07:00:46 PM
What?
Either?
But isn't the time an idea was thought up a part of its origin, thus, making their appeals a subset of genetic fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 07:38:47 PM
There's a difference between time and age. What I'm talking about is specifically the age of the idea, not in what specific culture it originated.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: FSBlueApocalypse on September 24, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
I think both of those examples you used would be considered arguments from authority, using the longevity or modernity of it as the authority.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 07:51:48 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 07:38:47 PM
There's a difference between time and age. What I'm talking about is specifically the age of the idea, not in what specific culture it originated.
I'm not talking about the culture either.

QuoteThe genetic fallacy has to do with the origins of an idea, not the time period.
Which are not mutually exclusive.  The time period (and conversely the idea's age) are a part of its origin.
ex.  This idea originated ages ago, therefore it is wrong.
ex.  This idea is newer, therefore it is right.

@FSBlueApocalypse: 
QuoteArgument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
-- Wikipedia.
Granted, one could argue that the time is a "source" but don't think that's what it means...

Granted, it might even be possible that it fits into both fallacies.
From what I recall, the logical fallacies aren't mutually exclusive.
For example, Ad hominem is a kind of genetic fallacy (if memory serves) and it's also a kind of red herring because the person's personal traits are irrelavent to the points he/she makes.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:02:37 PM
I didn't see this one listed on the fallacy files but it's one I run into a lot.

The nirvana fallacy
Discrediting something by comparing it to a completely unrealistic ideal.

"Enron was a crooked operation and that's why capitalism is bad"

In this case, the unrealistic ideal is a world where nobody ever lies or deceives.  Obviously, it's a flawed argument because if we go by the logic of "anything not perfect is useless," we'd never get anything done.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 08:10:18 PM
Quote from: FSBlueApocalypse on September 24, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
I think both of those examples you used would be considered arguments from authority, using the longevity or modernity of it as the authority.

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.

Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 24, 2009, 07:51:48 PM
Which are not mutually exclusive.  The time period (and conversely the idea's age) are a part of its origin.
ex.  This idea originated ages ago, therefore it is wrong.
ex.  This idea is newer, therefore it is right.

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.
a "source" but don't think that's what it means...
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:02:37 PM
I didn't see this one listed on the fallacy files but it's one I run into a lot.

The nirvana fallacy
Discrediting something by comparing it to a completely unrealistic ideal.

"Enron was a crooked operation and that's why capitalism is bad"

In this case, the unrealistic ideal is a world where nobody ever lies or deceives.  Obviously, it's a flawed argument because if we go by the logic of "anything not perfect is useless," we'd never get anything done.

This is a good one. I hear all the time that I have to prove that a libertarian culture would be perfect (they don't state it that way, but that's what they demand) when their own system is far from perfect!

I like the name, too: Nirvana Fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 08:16:15 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:02:37 PM
Obviously, it's a flawed argument because if we go by the logic of "anything not perfect is useless," we'd never get anything done.
Oh god! >_<
I run into this one constantly...
Does anyone remember my argument with that right wing person in the WWII thread?
Yeah...

Although I don't think your example fits the definition (It probably does; though it didn't jump out at me).
The example you gave was more of a contradiction.
Enron is a Corporation, making it, by definition, a state protected entity insomuch that it becomes a legal entity unto itself (LadyAttis and ConfederalSocialist go more in detail about this).  So technically it wasn't even a capitalist example, so much as a corporatist example, which most, if not all, of the Libertarians I know of are against.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 08:23:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:32:53 PM
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.

The simplest example is "If you take the last cookie, you're a jerk.  If I take the last cookie, it's because I was hungry"

A good recent example was someone talking about how evil companies create monopolies to gouge people and that's why government needs to regulate the important markets like healthcare and such.

To which I of course ask "Wait...you are against monopolies...so why is it okay when government does it?"

Of course, they never answer that question.  Color me surprised!


In a debate about healthcare, I once posed the question "If your mother was dying and you couldn't afford her hospital bills, would you be okay with someone robbing people at gun point on her behalf?  Well that's ultimately what you're doing if you support government healthcare."

Most just called that extremist but one individual surprised me by saying "I'd be on the front lines with my shot gun if that were the case."  He got REALLY hostile with me when I called him a hypocrite for that, justifying it by saying it's for the sake of his mother here.

The hypocrisy isn't in his intentions, it's the fact that while he says it's okay for him to rob people to save a loved one's life, he's undoubtedly not willing to let anyone else have that excuse.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 08:38:23 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:32:53 PM
I think this one already has a name but I haven't heard it.
Special Pleading.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 09:02:49 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 24, 2009, 08:23:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:32:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 09:06:08 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 09:02:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 08:10:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on September 24, 2009, 10:51:19 PM
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
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 10:57:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 11:06:21 PM
Arsenic is natural, who wants to go try that?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 24, 2009, 11:21:32 PM
@LTHE: LOL!  :D

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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 25, 2009, 07:08:08 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 24, 2009, 09:55:45 PMWhy 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 25, 2009, 07:10:26 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 24, 2009, 11:21:32 PMAnother 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 25, 2009, 12:36:51 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 25, 2009, 07:10:26 AM
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?...
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 25, 2009, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 25, 2009, 07:10:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 30, 2009, 03:58:55 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 30, 2009, 08:33:40 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 30, 2009, 03:58:55 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.
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 30, 2009, 08:54:31 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 30, 2009, 08:33:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 30, 2009, 08:55:47 PM
I don't know.
That's what he just said.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 04, 2009, 09:14:47 AM
Here's one I'm dealing with now.

In a discussion, I made a joke that everyone who uses the word "lulz" is wrong.  I did go on to address the points as normal but now people won't shut up about my horrible ad hominem attack and ignore all the rest.

So what's the fallacy here?  Taking something seriously that was obviously in jest and using that as an argument?  Is it just quote mining?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 04, 2009, 09:18:00 AM
I guess that would be a quote-mine, yeah. He ignored the meat of your comment and misrepresented the part he did quote.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on October 04, 2009, 09:44:33 AM
Could also be considered part argumentum ad fallacium as well. (Am I spelling that right?)

Just fire back that the fact that they refuse to address your actual points says alot about the strength of their own.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 04, 2009, 04:45:57 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 09, 2009, 07:59:20 AM
How about this one:

I just called out the anti-vaxxers for their Bogosity on my Facebook page. I was accused of denying their free speech.

We see this with the religious, too: they can make whatever claims they want, but when we debunk them or merely state our opinion we're accused of violating their freedom of religion.

In my opinion, this is a very disgusting fallacy that deserves a very disgusting name. Any ideas?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on October 09, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Oh, God.
I'm a subscriber of various internet trolls (ultraforge, Morrakiu/AryanTroll, SylvesterFox, etc) and the former has complained of furries doing the same thing.

As for a name for it...I dunno.
"Flaggot Fallacy" because the people using it often flag videos expressing said opinions?
"Fail Speech Fallacy" for failing to recognize what "free speech" means, or that we have it too?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on October 09, 2009, 01:38:20 PM
Anybody have any idea what logical fallacy/fallacies resulted in Obama getting the nobel peace prize?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 09, 2009, 01:47:57 PM
Quote from: Virgil0211 on October 09, 2009, 01:38:20 PM
Anybody have any idea what logical fallacy/fallacies resulted in Obama getting the nobel peace prize?

You mean the fallacy that he's not a warmongering tyrant who continually bombs Pakistan, invaded Somalia, and is telling the exact same lies to get us into Iran that Bush told us to get into Iraq?

I think that's just a delusion.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 09, 2009, 10:33:57 PM
Just watched Ron Paul's take on it.  I love his inconvenient observation that at the time the application for the award was due, Obama had been president for a grand total of 12 days.

Interesting...

First Al Gore then this.  To suggest those two are on the same level as Norman Borlaug?  Outrageous!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 25, 2009, 02:09:14 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.

Hmm...got a good example?  Trying to visualize it.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 25, 2009, 08:48:11 AM
Socialists and liberals love pulling this one. They compare someone voluntarily working for a company for an agreed-upon price to be slavery. They usually use this to justify policies like Minimum Wage.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on October 25, 2009, 02:02:18 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.
It sounds like a poisoning the well fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 25, 2009, 08:09:13 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 25, 2009, 08:48:11 AM
Socialists and liberals love pulling this one. They compare someone voluntarily working for a company for an agreed-upon price to be slavery. They usually use this to justify policies like Minimum Wage.

Oh yeah!  Friend of mine who sounded off on me because I fail to see the problem with sweat shops if the employees all work there at their own free will.  Oh no!  We must speak for those poor ignorant victims for they are completely incapable of making their own decisions!

People call me nasty in debates but I prefer to think of it as giving collectivists the same respect they give their fellow man: None.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 27, 2009, 05:12:04 AM
I just heard appeal to slavery being used by a woman arguing why prostitution should stay illegal. Sheesh...
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 27, 2009, 10:16:20 AM
Here's one that gets on my nerves: Original Sin Fallacy

The assumption that by default, humans are bad and not trustworthy.  Typically used to justify freedom hating regulations.  So named for obvious reasons.

The fallacy: The regulators are humans too!  Why do they get a free pass?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 27, 2009, 10:27:09 AM
Yes, I've actually heard people claim that when someone gets into power, their good instincts kick in and they're far better people than they ever would be in private life. Wouldn't that count as a miracle?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 27, 2009, 10:40:14 AM
Only religion could make someone buy such a corny line.  Makes me ashamed I used to be religious.  ><

Funny, atheists got dead last in polls of "would you vote for a X president?"  Personally, I think an atheist president is exactly what you guys need badly.  Or at the very least, someone like Ron Paul who has the integrity to keep his religious views out of politics.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 27, 2009, 10:41:16 AM
Actually, I've heard plenty of atheist skeptics make that very fallacy! But, of course, they were socialists, so it's kind of religious-esque.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 27, 2009, 10:44:44 AM
Even if you don't believe in gods, if you believe in subjecting yourself to an infallible authority, you're still a zealot and I lump you in the same group.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 27, 2009, 04:25:14 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 28, 2009, 02:55:57 AM
Ooh, I got a lot of people bleating on this one.  I said that peace is natural, war is political.  Seems once again I'm alone on that.  Yeah, more of that "people are inherrently violent and we need governments to reign them in" stuff.  I called that putting the fox in charge of the hen house and brought up the collectivist paradox again "If people can't be trusted, why do politicians get a free pass?"

My personal fave...

QuoteFor about 80% of our history, war was competition. War was the ONLY competition. There was no such thing as 'the market', I'm not quite sure you understand this Hawk. The 'market' as you understand it is an abstract structure, a set of game rules by which everyone agrees to play. If people start ambushing other's supply chains, killing the competition, stealing their wares and such the 'market' falls apart, as you know. Supply and demand, economies of scale and the like still apply, but there was no separation between force and economic competition. At all. This was how things worked up until about the 18th century. What you seem to think is an undeniable truth of life that everybody somehow follows was an idea only discovered in the 19th century. Before that, the natural state of competition was war. There was no limiter on force, no limiter on fraud, other than not getting caught (the difference between then and now is now we actually have institutions dedicated to making those captures). Trade was viewed as a weapon of war, not economics. You traded with other states to attempt to bleed their economy dry so you could beat the crap out of them, not to make a profit.

Of course the constrained market, the economic darwin bubble is more effective than that, you only have to look at what's happened since economics was invented in the late 18th century. But you have to acknowledge that it was an INVENTION. People ARE inherently violent and WILL kill each other, because that is an EXTREMELY powerful strategy on an individual scale. Our lifespan makes (or made, for the majority of history) dog eat dog the most effective way of getting through life. What is not true is that this is a successful strategy for a large group of individuals, so if it so happened that one large group culturally beat each other up less than another large group, in a competition, the nicer group would win, usually. Note that this only applies to being nice within your culture- Judaism is a perfect example of this. Never touch another Jew, but kill off other nations as if they were cattle. And look, they're perhaps the oldest surviving significant cultural group there is. Pretty successful eh?. Thus, people ARE inherently violent, but over time, large groups which are LESS inherently violent will be culturally successful. Note that this does not mean that if you take a genetic human from this group and take him and raise him in another more violent society he will be any less violent, it's cultural not biological evolution and so does not rest within a person as such, but people under that culture take on those attributes.

You have a very skewed view of things, Hawk. If you want to make your rational arguments to convince people how things could be better, how about you learn from the people who DID fail. Don't lie, don't propagandise and don't delude yourself. Because you know what? That's what every genocidal maniac we have ever known has done. I may, er, be a 'facist', but there's technically nothing inherently wrong with that. There IS something inherently wrong with being dangerously monomaniacal. I would suggest again that you actually read some economics. You might find it enlightening.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 28, 2009, 06:19:53 AM
I wonder what they think of the fact that you find analogues to free market transactions throughout nature? Evolution hits on it again and again and again because it works.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 28, 2009, 11:12:07 AM
They basically think I'm crazy when I mention that.

I love how he claims Judaism is "successful" just because they're still around.  Uh yeah...the ones that are killing others, they're dirt poor and miserable last I checked.  -_-

Well, I said that collectivists don't prevent wars, they cause them and that you can trace back every war to them.  Sound outrageous?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on October 31, 2009, 10:06:49 AM
One that annoys the heck out of me:

Appeal to idealism (a form of ad hominem and appeal to ridicule).

When the person dismisses your idea as being "idealistic" without any good reason, or just more platitudes.

e.g. "The free market is as ideal as communism; it won't work!  You're just as unrealistic/idealistic about human nature as the socialists!  I'm a realist; you're not! [insert long tirade about how humans are fallen, scum and evil, blah blah blah]"
This is often coupled with the Original Sin Fallacy.

Whenever people pull out that card, to quote Matt Dillahunty, "Oh my god, I want to shove my foot right up your condescending ass!"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 01, 2009, 01:04:02 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 30, 2009, 03:58:55 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.
I would be careful with this one.
As it looks like people tend to use it to strawman atheism.
For example, the meaning of the word
a- (non/without)
-theism (belief in deities)
Even though many people associate it with the positive disbelief in a god, this version of simply lacking a belief is still valid.

Also, going back to the appeal to time one;
based on the examples, you gave, it looks like they were attacking the idea's age, not so much its origin, so I suppose you were right.
as opposed to the genetic fallacy (argument from origin) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Which is more about connotations..or something (the article linked explains it better).
Even the appeal to time was an argument from origin/genetic fallacy, it sounds like it comes up enough to deserve its own name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 17, 2009, 12:52:58 PM
How about this one:

Ad hominem recursis: Falsely accusing others of using ad hominem attacks, in order to attack them instead of their arguments, thereby committing an ad hominem.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 17, 2009, 01:52:10 PM
It strikes me as a form of strawman.
In the example of that thread on LoR I read, there were insult laden refutations.
They claim it to be a strawman (it wasn't).
So they misrepresented you.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 17, 2009, 03:45:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 17, 2009, 03:57:41 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 17, 2009, 03:45:27 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 17, 2009, 04:11:40 PM
I thought it being a subset was inherent in the name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 17, 2009, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 17, 2009, 04:11:40 PM
I thought it being a subset was inherent in the name.
Yes, but of a strawman argument subset, not of ad hominem though.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 17, 2009, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on November 17, 2009, 04:13:43 PM
Yes, but of a strawman argument subset, not of ad hominem though.

Maybe it's both.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on November 17, 2009, 05:58:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 25, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 07, 2009, 07:02:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 07, 2009, 12:03:11 PM
Misdirection

Commiting a fallacy in the same post that you accuse the other guy of it in order to deflect blame.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 07, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 07, 2009, 12:03:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 19, 2009, 07:41:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 19, 2009, 07:47:57 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 19, 2009, 07:41:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 19, 2009, 09:02:39 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 19, 2009, 07:41:01 PM
Someone called this one the piety fallacy.  Focusing on intentions and disregarding actions and consequences.

I like it! Added.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 19, 2009, 10:28:13 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 19, 2009, 07:41:01 PM
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".
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 19, 2009, 10:33:03 PM
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 19, 2009, 10:28:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 12:54:05 AM
Is that like a "The end justifies the means" thing or is that the opposite of that? I can't tell.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 20, 2009, 01:18:28 AM
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 12:54:05 AM
Is that like a "The end justifies the means" thing or is that the opposite of that? I can't tell.
It's more of a "the intentions justify the results" sort of them.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 20, 2009, 08:14:02 AM
Actually, it's more like, "The intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 08:26:39 AM
So it's more or less the same?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 20, 2009, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 20, 2009, 08:14:02 AM
Actually, it's more like, "The intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."
OK.
Kind of ironic that many leftists will use this, when they would have denounced Bush's "The ends justify the means" policy just a few years ago, eh?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 10:00:47 AM
Would it still apply if you get the desired endresult albeit by somewhat unsanitory methods?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 20, 2009, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 10:00:47 AM
Would it still apply if you get the desired endresult albeit by somewhat unsanitory methods?

Yes, for the same reason that an ad hominem is an ad homiem even if the person being attacked ends up being wrong.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 20, 2009, 10:34:51 AM
How about this one:

Conservational cherry picking.

When person uses one example to try to refute something you say, despite you presenting ones that don't fit that.

Example.  On FlowCell's latest video, I'm arguing for anarchy with this douche.
He throws out Somalia and says, "Ah-Ha!  Anarchy, won't work!"  Despite me giving him examples of Anarchic Iceland and Anarchic Ireland, and ignores the others while constantly harping on Somalia and won't even look at the links I posted explaing the increase in standard of living there (and the fact that Somalia is NOT an anarchy...).
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 10:50:06 AM
Is it related to things such as selective hearing and selective memory?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 20, 2009, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 20, 2009, 10:50:06 AM
Is it related to things such as selective hearing and selective memory?
Yes.
By his logic (to go with the example to make the fallacy more apparent), I could just point to any of the many States that failed (e.g. Soviet Union) (Cherry picking), use that as an example for why ALL forms of States don't work (composition fallacy and confirmation bias), ignoring all relavent facts about the ones that did far better, or asking WHY they did better, and blowing off whatever people that try to correct me.
You know?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: valvatica on December 21, 2009, 12:02:21 AM
It just sounds like Confirmation Bias to be. Accept all evidence that favors your position, and ignore all that doesn't support it. Religion in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 21, 2009, 12:05:53 PM
Quote from: valvatica on December 21, 2009, 12:02:21 AM
It just sounds like Confirmation Bias to be. Accept all evidence that favors your position, and ignore all that doesn't support it. Religion in a nutshell.
Agreed.
There's a reason why Murray N. Rothbard called it "The Cult of the Omnipotent State".
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 21, 2009, 03:50:02 PM
I heard that state is very popular with the ladies. ;)
Seriously though, I did hear from some studies that women generaly tend to favor a big goverment, that and harder sentences for crimes.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 21, 2009, 08:05:30 PM
The Stalin defense

Okay, kinda overly specific but damn if they don't love to hit us with this.  The old chestnut of using Joseph Stalin as an example of atheists behaving badly.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 21, 2009, 08:08:59 PM
Argumentum ad Stalinum. Related to Argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 21, 2009, 11:16:09 PM
Didn't study him much, is he even a legit example of atheism gone too far?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 22, 2009, 12:57:44 AM
Even if he is you can always put him up against all the christians that took it too far.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 22, 2009, 08:57:39 AM
No, because his driving force was communist dogma. Communism worships the state as god, so even calling it atheistic is iffy at best.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 22, 2009, 08:28:56 PM
Twas brought up when I said that being a "fundamental atheist" is like being tall short person.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 22, 2009, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 22, 2009, 08:28:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 22, 2009, 09:09:41 PM
Dogmatic atheists are dogmatic about things other than their atheism, though.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 22, 2009, 09:55:38 PM
Exactly.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: VectorM on December 23, 2009, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 22, 2009, 09:09:41 PM
Dogmatic atheists are dogmatic about things other than their atheism, though.

Like Thunderf00t and his statism?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 24, 2009, 03:44:36 AM
Quote from: VectorM on December 23, 2009, 11:52:37 PMLike Thunderf00t and his statism?
Yes.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 31, 2009, 03:48:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 31, 2009, 04:34:21 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2009, 03:48:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 31, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Kind of an indirect form.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on January 01, 2010, 04:42:31 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2009, 03:48:26 PM
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]
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 02:47:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on January 11, 2010, 03:26:46 PM
Don't ants have a queen?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2010, 03:53:53 PM
The queen is a large sack that lays eggs. It's not like she controls the ants.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on January 11, 2010, 04:50:20 PM
Does'nt she at least guide the ants to what they do with the use of pheromones?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2010, 06:36:31 PM
Only to help find their way back home.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on January 11, 2010, 07:10:32 PM
I thought that's what the ruby slippers where for.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 11, 2010, 07:56:01 PM
Quote from: Gumba Masta on January 11, 2010, 07:10:32 PM
I thought that's what the ruby slippers where for.
Back on topic Gumba.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2010, 08:48:33 PM
Gumba couldn't stay on topic if you super-glued him there.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 09:11:47 PM
Anywho, anyone got a name for nitpicking analogies while dodging the actual point of them?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 11, 2010, 09:33:56 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 09:11:47 PM
Anywho, anyone got a name for nitpicking analogies while dodging the actual point of them?
Hmmm..
It sounds like a red herring to me.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on January 11, 2010, 10:59:34 PM
See, I..uh...help out in my own way...yeah that's the ticket. <_<;;
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: valvatica on January 13, 2010, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 09:11:47 PM
Anywho, anyone got a name for nitpicking analogies while dodging the actual point of them?

My mom does this a lot; I wish I knew the name for it.

Me: "For example, when Little Caesar's hires people to hold signs out in the intersections, it's on par with telling--"

My mom: "YUCK I HATE Little Caesar's"

MISSED THE POINT.

Also, it's probably obvious but nitpicking an analogy to discuss something irrelevant shouldn't be confused with pointing out why an analogy doesn't work to illustrate a specific point.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 14, 2010, 03:17:38 PM
How about this one:

Two people are saying the same thing:  e.g. that the other is wrong, or that one's and not the other's idea/policy/etc is better etc.
The fallacy is blowing both off and not actually examining the facts or arguments based on their own merits.

Does this already have a name?

If not, how does "appeal to same argument" sound?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 14, 2010, 03:33:15 PM
I don't get what you're talking about. How about a real-world example?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 14, 2010, 03:40:03 PM
OK, I'll admit my thought process when wording it wasn't as clear as I would have liked.

Take the example between me, Gumba and the modern liberals he mentions, and the conservatives.

I say, the most evidence is for free markets.
The liberals say that the most evidence is for regulation and their "progressive" policies.
The conservatives say that by having a paternalistic state is the way, and that the evidence is for interventionism.

Gumba, upon seeing all of us saying this, blows all of us off without an examination of the facts, and concludes we're all full of shit.
Basically, it's a golden mean fallacy, only instead of two positions, it can be many, and instead of the middle ground between them, you just blow them all off as wrong.

It's kinda like the flawed thinking by numbers in this video by QualiaSoup:
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5NPpoM5lIQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5NPpoM5lIQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on January 14, 2010, 04:08:22 PM
You did think it possible that I was trying to pull your leg, yes?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 14, 2010, 04:19:19 PM
If you were, then I apologize.
I've heard people making that same argument and mean it.
I guess Poe's Law really does apply to political woes too.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on January 14, 2010, 04:21:38 PM
I know, next time I'll post some links to Dinner Dash porn to make it more obvious. ;)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 04, 2010, 10:20:31 PM
How about this one:
"It has never happened before, therefore, it will never happen."  Appeal to lack of precedent (unless there is an official name?  If you can think of a better name, please give it).

A common use I've seen of this logical fallacy is from, say, 9/11 truthers; "A building has never fallen like this before without controlled demolition!  It must have been controlled demolition."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 05, 2010, 07:00:54 AM
Actually, that would just be Appeal to Precedent; there's no need for the "lack of" part.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: valvatica on February 05, 2010, 07:44:00 PM
This also sounds similar to what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the "black swan" (covered in his book of the same name). Basically, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 05, 2010, 08:04:39 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 05, 2010, 07:00:54 AM
Actually, that would just be Appeal to Precedent; there's no need for the "lack of" part.
OK, thanks.
So is this a pre-existing logical fallacy?
I ask because it wasn't added to the group on your first post.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 05, 2010, 08:05:09 PM
Quote from: valvatica on February 05, 2010, 07:44:00 PM
This also sounds similar to what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the "black swan" (covered in his book of the same name). Basically, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.
That's EXACTLY what it is.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 17, 2010, 08:47:33 PM
Here's one thought up by Shane.

Appeal to majority.
The majority of a population believe X to be true, better or legitimate therefore, it is.
This is similiar to an appeal to popularity, only instead of just being popular, it is more specific:  a majority of people think so, instead of just "many".
The entire concept of democracy is rooted in this fallacy (or fallacy family).

Example:  "Polls show that 75% of Canadians like their UHC, therefore it is better than free market health care."

Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 19, 2010, 04:52:33 PM
I still think we need one for being falsely accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 19, 2010, 06:25:16 PM
You seem to be forgetting to add them if you like them to the list in the beginning.
Unless of course you haven't seen any worth adding in a while.

Appeal to conspiracy?
When they accuse you falsely of being a conspiracy theorist?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 19, 2010, 08:02:04 PM
Which ones do you think I've missed? I don't feel like going through the thread right now.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 19, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
1.  Appeal to "same argument"

2.  Appeal to Precedent

3.  Appeal to majority

4.  Appeal to conspiracy
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 19, 2010, 09:27:44 PM
Okay, but I'd really like to think of better names that appeal to same argument and appeal to conspiracy. I'll go ahead and put the other two in.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 01:44:38 AM
OK, for #1, how about "Argument Association Fallacy"?

For #4, how about "Pseudo Conspiracy Fallacy"?

Are these good?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 07:29:59 AM
How about False Conspiracy? I think that sounds better.

Still not wild about the first one. You don't really get an indication of what it is just by reading its name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 11:16:31 AM
How about this: the Best Game In Town Fallacy.

"Our court system/universal health care/democracy/whatever may not be perfect, but it's the best game in town."

Related to the Holmesian Fallacy, the problem is that, even if you could prove your system is the best (extremely difficult, to say the least), you still cannot use this as an argument against other proposals which may yet be better.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 03:12:17 PM
@Shane:  "False Conspiracy" sounds good to me! :) 

I still liked the "Argument Association Fallacy".  Oh well.  We'll come up with something better sooner or later.

"the Best Game In Town Fallacy"  Also sounds good. :)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 04:47:41 PM
How about the fallacy of tying cost to performance?

This could be either: "This cost $(insane amount) so it must be great!"

Or: "This isn't working, we need to give it $(insane amount) more!"

The former we see with a lot of the woo products, like the "bomb-detecting" dowsing rod which cost $40,000 and was just a DVD theft protection sticker on an antenna.

The latter we see with a lot of policies, like government paying more money to failing schools.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 06:36:00 PM
Sounds like a fallacy to me!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on February 20, 2010, 06:43:23 PM
I tell Julie to be more quiet next time... Oh wait wait, you said FALLACY... Nevermind then.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 07:14:12 PM
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 20, 2010, 06:43:23 PM
I tell Julie to be more quiet next time... Oh wait wait, you said FALLACY... Nevermind then.
And I thought I had a dirty mind. :P
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on February 20, 2010, 07:17:39 PM
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 20, 2010, 06:43:23 PM
I tell Julie to be more quiet next time... Oh wait wait, you said FALLACY... Nevermind then.

At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. At least he's not Real Captain Olimar.

There. I feel better now.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on February 20, 2010, 07:22:54 PM
Oh, but arent I?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 07:31:49 PM
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 20, 2010, 07:17:39 PM
At least he's not Real Captain Olimar. [x 43]
There. I feel better now.
I was wondering when someone was going to say that. :P
Something I found odd is that both Gumba Masta and Real Captain Olimar both post in similar ways, yet the former has -5 on their bogometer while the latter has +40 on his...
Very very odd...
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Virgil0211 on February 20, 2010, 08:04:52 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2010, 07:31:49 PM
I was wondering when someone was going to say that. :P
Something I found odd is that both Gumba Masta and Real Captain Olimar both post in similar ways, yet the former has -5 on their bogometer while the latter has +40 on his...
Very very odd...

Well, RealCaptainOlimar was completely nonsensical, whereas GumbaMasta is just strange. RCO was irritating where GM is just simply not funny. RCO would post random bits of text that may or may not have had anything to do with the topic, start random nonsense topics, and sometimes would even derail the conversation he was in. GM, at his worst, just posts bad puns.

Sorry, GumbaMasta. No hard feelings, of course.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 08:10:24 PM
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 20, 2010, 08:04:52 PM
Well, RealCaptainOlimar was completely nonsensical, whereas GumbaMasta is just strange. RCO was irritating where GM is just simply not funny. RCO would post random bits of text that may or may not have had anything to do with the topic, start random nonsense topics, and sometimes would even derail the conversation he was in. GM, at his worst, just posts bad puns.

Sorry, GumbaMasta. No hard feelings, of course.
...Well, I think GumbaMasta is funny.

Anyways, back on topic, what other fallacies can you think of?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 08:15:29 PM
How about, where they keep going on about "I don't have time to sit here typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you," when they do, in fact, have time to sit there typing post after post saying why they don't have time to sit there typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you.

That needs a REALLY good name, IMO.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 08:15:29 PMHow about, where they keep going on about "I don't have time to sit here typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you," when they do, in fact, have time to sit there typing post after post saying why they don't have time to sit there typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you.

That needs a REALLY good name, IMO.
Oh yeah, I got that bs from LibertyStudent over at the Mises Forum, in addition to constant homework fallacies.

As for a name...hm....
How about, "Time Excuse Fallacy"?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 08:45:57 PM
I said a GOOD name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 20, 2010, 08:46:40 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 08:45:57 PMI said a GOOD name.
Don't make me dump tea into the harbor. :P

How about..."No Time Fallacy"?
or "False Urgency fallacy"?
...No, wait, actually, that gives me an idea for another fallacy.

One where urgency is used in place of merit for an idea or proposition.
"Because we don't have time!  We need this war now!  There's no time for all that intellectual bs!"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 09:33:53 PM
Yes, or the Global Warming BS: "We don't have time to figure out of we're right! We need to act NOW!"

(Um, if you don't know that you're right, how do you know your proposal will have the effect you want?)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: valvatica on February 20, 2010, 10:58:33 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2010, 08:46:40 PM
Don't make me dump tea into the harbor. :P

How about..."No Time Fallacy"?
or "False Urgency fallacy"?
...No, wait, actually, that gives me an idea for another fallacy.

One where urgency is used in place of merit for an idea or proposition.
"Because we don't have time!  We need this war now!  There's no time for all that intellectual bs!"

That reminds me of the partisan "this is NOT the election to eff around!" line that's used in any and every election when independent thinkers are considering voting for third-party candidates. "Nader's gonna 'steal' votes away from our guy! You're gonna screw things up!"

It is a false dichotomy in essence but still part of this "false urgency" concept.
Maybe it should be called the "Here in the Now" fallacy? I'm sure I'll think of better ones soon.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: valvatica on February 20, 2010, 11:03:22 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 08:15:29 PM
How about, where they keep going on about "I don't have time to sit here typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you," when they do, in fact, have time to sit there typing post after post saying why they don't have time to sit there typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you.

That needs a REALLY good name, IMO.

This is related to those commenters saying that that particular comment they're currently typing will be their "last word" on the subject/argument because they have to go do something, yet will continue to make subsequent replies to subsequent comment replies because they can't stand not having the last word.

The "Last Word" fallacy? The "Cherry on Top" fallacy (they have to "finish" the topic / have the absolute last word on the topic / put the finishing touch on it)? A lot of silly names I've been throwing around lately for sure, maybe some of them will bear fruit, it's worth a try  :)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on February 21, 2010, 04:17:52 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 09:33:53 PM
Yes, or the Global Warming BS: "We don't have time to figure out of we're right! We need to act NOW!"

(Um, if you don't know that you're right, how do you know your proposal will have the effect you want?)
Hmm, you don't know where you're going but you want to go there anyway... How about "Moleman Effect"?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 21, 2010, 08:21:12 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 08:15:29 PM
How about, where they keep going on about "I don't have time to sit here typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you," when they do, in fact, have time to sit there typing post after post saying why they don't have time to sit there typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you.

That needs a REALLY good name, IMO.

What about, "Traditional 'First Avoidance' Maneuver" (from The Road to El Dorado)?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: valvatica on February 21, 2010, 02:44:11 PM
This one might lead to others. I've seen it far too many times.

The inevitability for the opponent to explain that "unlike you, I have a life and am not on the computer all day", "well I'd blah blah blah but you obviously spend a lot more time on the computer than I do", "you only know that because you have no life and don't leave your computer", "why don't you leave your computer for once and you wouldn't be so blah blah blah", "instead of bitching about things, why don't you do something for once and make an impact on the world", etc. It's similar to pot calling the kettle black, but on a specific criterion. This can even be between two people who are jocks, or spend so much as one minute more on the computer than the other, or have a proven track record of infrequent updates (whether a video maker or merely a commenter), and so on. The low-blow aspect of this fallacy is that if the person making the accusation of the other having "no life" was truly on higher ground they wouldn't be participating in the discussion in the first place! If you're going to join, you forfeit your right to resort to last-ditch efforts. The accused isn't going to feel compelled to "prove" to you that they indeed have a life and then subsequently run a marathon, squat 500 lbs., whiz through a soup kitchen and help the needy at the speed of light, go ballroom dancing and make his way up the bar skank ladder, and plant trees all along the waterfront in order to fulfill some arbitrary real-life (well, anything that's not being on the computer) quota that you, the opponent, has set. It's a loaded statement, similar to asking "why are you so defensive?" There's no way the accused can answer without fulfilling the trap you've set.

Candidates thus far:
Rickets Fallacy (staying indoors too much as a computer user would)
Captain Planet Fallacy (the accused must be outdoors saving the world before bedtime instead of doing what he's currently doing, even though you as the opponent are also doing what he's currently doing)
Merit Badge Fallacy (the accused has to have done at least as much as you in "real-world-y" stuff or he loses because of the fact he's on the computer)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 11, 2010, 10:17:25 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 30, 2009, 03:58:55 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.
As I've said before, be careful with this one.
Atheism
A - without
Theism - belief in gods.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on March 13, 2010, 07:58:05 PM
This one needs a name.

Using different words, often incorrectly, to sugar coat something.

Using the word sacrifice in place of stealing/extortion to make taxes sound noble being the prime example.

The term sacrifice implies something given up personally and voluntarily so using it to sugar coat taxes is quite dishonest.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 13, 2010, 08:36:27 PM
Isn't that just newspeak?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: BZ987654 on March 18, 2010, 02:31:31 PM
Has anyone said "being Ray Comfort".

That's a logical fallacy 
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AHPMB on March 26, 2010, 12:18:29 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on March 13, 2010, 07:58:05 PM
This one needs a name.

Using different words, often incorrectly, to sugar coat something.

Using the word sacrifice in place of stealing/extortion to make taxes sound noble being the prime example.

The term sacrifice implies something given up personally and voluntarily so using it to sugar coat taxes is quite dishonest.

I think Daniel Dennett had a great term for these: "Deepities"  Where you attempt to use obscurantism and rhetorical flourish to disguise the fact that you're logically incoherent.  The term Greater Good is a fantastic example.  Greater Good all too often means us at the expense of you.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 26, 2010, 01:34:25 PM
Quote from: BZ987654 on March 18, 2010, 02:31:31 PM
Has anyone said "being Ray Comfort".

That's a logical fallacy 

No, that's a deep-rooted psychological disorder.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on June 12, 2010, 01:15:40 AM
I got a new one...

The Decapitation Remedy Fallacy

The argument that because there are people who do X and X is a bad thing, the solution is to give the government the power to do X to a far greater extreme.  I call it this because I equate with curing a headache by decapitating yourself.  Not medically advisable...

Example: EEEEEEVIL business men will buy all the water companies and charge us outlandish prices for them!  The solution: Give the government a violent monopoly on water services which will inevitably flush more and more tax dollars down the drain but hey, at least the EEEEEVIL business men won't gouge us!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 12, 2010, 01:59:45 AM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on June 12, 2010, 01:15:40 AM
I got a new one...

The Decapitation Remedy Fallacy

The argument that because there are people who do X and X is a bad thing, the solution is to give the government the power to do X to a far greater extreme.  I call it this because I equate with curing a headache by decapitating yourself.  Not medically advisable...

Example: EEEEEEVIL business men will buy all the water companies and charge us outlandish prices for them!  The solution: Give the government a violent monopoly on water services which will inevitably flush more and more tax dollars down the drain but hey, at least the EEEEEVIL business men won't gouge us!
I like it!
How about "The Remedy by Decapitation Fallacy"?
It makes it more obvious by the name in my honest opinion.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on October 17, 2010, 08:09:29 PM
Straw man recursus.

When you are falsely accused by your opponent of straw-manning him.

Example:  [yt]laCYmjUDOvk[/yt]
Half the comments left by Nightmare060 when he's corned.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 04:57:38 PM
Here's one I see a lot:

"Eleventy-bajillion people have died within one month after eating bread! Eating bread is fatal!"

Now, of course, there are a lot of fallacies here: correlation/causation, misunderstanding the nature of statistics, etc. But the one I want to focus on comes at the beginning, where a Really Big Number is mentioned.

One example from Neil deGrasse Tyson was when he was called to Jury Duty and sat through a reading by the judge where the defendant was caught with 2000mg of cocaine (which is, of course, 2g).

In a society of 300 million people, you're GOING to find people who are killed by vaccines or whatever. Of course, the number needs to be taken into the proper context--but these people don't do that, choosing instead to spout out the Really Big Number for shock value. That's the fallacy I want to name.

But all the good names seem to be taken. The Fallacy of Large Numbers is when anomalous results are presented as not being normal. It's related, but I'm talking about the tactic of scaring people with the Really Big Number (e.g., 2000mg instead of 2g).

Other examples are where aggregate results of unacceptable things appear acceptable, or a regression to the mean, etc. Again, not what I'm referring to here.

So, unless anyone can find somewhere where this tactic is already named, or can come up with something better, I'd like to tip a hat to 4chan and call it the Over Nine Thousand Fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 28, 2010, 05:05:06 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 04:57:38 PM
So, unless anyone can find somewhere where this tactic is already named, or can come up with something better, I'd like to tip a hat to 4chan and call it the Over Nine Thousand Fallacy.
I love you for that.  ;D

If not, I was thinking of calling it, "appeal to numeric fear" fallacy or something like that.
But the "Over Nine Thousand Fallacy" sounds awesome too.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 30, 2011, 08:27:10 PM
I posted this in Fav Quotes, but it belongs here, too:

"Actions that would be considered reprehensible if done by an absolute dictator, are considered morally legitimate if done by a democratically-elected government." --Downsize DC Foundation, The Democracy Fallacy (http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/the-democracy-fallacy)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 01, 2011, 11:53:10 AM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 08:02:37 PM
I didn't see this one listed on the fallacy files but it's one I run into a lot.

The nirvana fallacy
Discrediting something by comparing it to a completely unrealistic ideal.

Turns out, this one's been named since 1969, so I removed it from our list. It's still a good one, though.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 01, 2011, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 01, 2011, 11:53:10 AM
Turns out, this one's been named since 1969, so I removed it from our list. It's still a good one, though.
Really?  What's the name, if not "Nirvana Fallacy"?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 01, 2011, 03:41:43 PM
No, it's called the "Nirvana Fallacy." That's what it was named!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 01, 2011, 04:34:46 PM
LOL! Damn! Incredible that we actually came up with what was already its actual name!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: VectorM on February 02, 2011, 07:41:45 PM
What else can you call it anyway? Utopia fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 06, 2011, 12:09:06 PM
Been trying to think of a good name for this. "The Tide Paradox" is the best I can come up with, even though it's not technically a paradox.

There used to be a commercial for Tide washing detergent where they'd start off showing a white sock. And you'd be like, "Wow, that sure is a white sock! Look at how white that sock is! No one would deny that that is one white sock there."

But then they'd show you a sock washed with Tide, and you'd be blown away--because that white sock would be so much whiter than the sock you just swore was so white. Which, of course, would impress you so much you'd run out and buy Tide that very minute--okay, maybe not, but it's still impressive.

So, when people talk about how great the Post Office is, or government roads, or anything of that sort, they only say that because they don't have anything to compare it to. If you never saw the sock washed with Tide, you wouldn't ever know how much better socks can look; by the same token, if the only provider of a service is government, you never see how much better it could be with a competitor. Because you never see the second, REALLY white sock.

What do you think? And what about the name? The White Sock Deficiency? The White Sock Fallacy? Any others?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 06, 2011, 12:18:56 PM
False comparison fallacy?
Improper Comparison?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 06, 2011, 01:13:00 PM
It's not really a false comparison; it's more of a non-comparison. That's what led me to the word paradox: it seems to be so without actually being so.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 06, 2011, 02:38:59 PM
How about "Null Comparison" then? Because more often than not is it being compared to a lack of something (e.g. government healthcare to a lack of healthcare, or the null of healthcare)?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 06, 2011, 04:02:44 PM
Works for me.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: VectorM on February 06, 2011, 07:56:02 PM
Tide Paradox sounds way cooler.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 06, 2011, 08:51:56 PM
Quote from: VectorM on February 02, 2011, 07:41:45 PMWhat else can you call it anyway? Utopia fallacy?
I independently thought of:
Utopian Comparison Fallacy,
Unrealistic Comparison Fallacy, and
Special Pleading (I know this one already exists, but it still applies:  the person making the comparison never applies the nirvana-high standard of comparison to the state or whatever he's defending).

Quote from: VectorM on February 06, 2011, 07:56:02 PMTide Paradox sounds way cooler.
OBJECTION!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 06, 2011, 08:58:14 PM
Also, why does the latest version of the list not have "Strawman recursus"?
That is, falsely accusing someone of committing a strawman, thereby committing a strawman fallacy in the process?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 07:08:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on February 18, 2011, 08:56:33 AM
Shouldn't that be segregation?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 09:13:09 AM
Dangit! That's what I get for posting at 7am. The bogons are really active for me that time of the morning...

Fixed.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on February 18, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Were the americas of the USA at that time really more properitate as they say?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 10:21:21 AM
Read the Treaty of Paris. American citizens were specifically granted full ownership of their property. Of course, ever since then, government has been eroding that ownership.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 18, 2011, 11:05:21 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 07:08:06 AM
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.

Dude! You must be physic or something.  I was just thinking about this last night.
I'm thinking
appeal to racism or racist policy  (maybe).

But yeah, I can't think of any way that ISN'T fallacious.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 18, 2011, 11:05:21 AM
Dude! You must be physic or something.  I was just thinking about this last night.
I'm thinking
appeal to racism or racist policy  (maybe).

I'm not even thinking about racism per se. Another example is, "You want to go back to the days of mutual aid societies for health care? Why, we didn't even have MRIs or a lot of modern vaccines then!" As if the mutual aid societies were the reason why those technologies weren't available, or they would suddenly go away if we reinstated them.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 18, 2011, 12:39:55 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 11:07:36 AM
I'm not even thinking about racism per se. Another example is, "You want to go back to the days of mutual aid societies for health care? Why, we didn't even have MRIs or a lot of modern vaccines then!" As if the mutual aid societies were the reason why those technologies weren't available, or they would suddenly go away if we reinstated them.
I'm afraid to ask, but, is that a real example from an actual statist/socialist that you've encountered?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 12:49:12 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 28, 2011, 09:59:16 AM
Anyone have a good name for that Bill Maher fallacy?

Here's another one that continually bugs me: Woo (creationists do this a lot, but (as usual) I've got it from statists, too) makes a claim to person A in a public forum, like the comments in a YouTube video or a forum like this one. Person B comes along and refutes him. Woo responds with "I wasn't talking to you!" Completely misunderstanding the nature of a public forum, of course--and using that as an excuse to evade the rebuttal.

It's especially egregious when person A was talking to a person C to begin with: the woo then would have responded to a post made to someone else, and complaining when person B did it to them!

I think this needs a good name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on March 28, 2011, 10:02:55 AM
I christen you "Boston Cream Saucer Fellatio". I mean fallacy, fAllaCY!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 28, 2011, 10:06:48 AM
Boston Cream Saucer?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Gumba Masta on March 28, 2011, 10:10:16 AM
Well I thought a bit of creativety couldn't hurt now and then.  :shrug:
Basicaly I just typed in the first words that came to my mind after reading your post.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on April 11, 2011, 10:31:37 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 06, 2011, 08:58:14 PM
Also, why does the latest version of the list not have "Strawman recursus"?
That is, falsely accusing someone of committing a strawman, thereby committing a strawman fallacy in the process?

Been thinking about this...I don't like the mixing of English and Latin, but what about Meta-Strawman?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 11, 2011, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 11, 2011, 10:31:37 AM
Been thinking about this...I don't like the mixing of English and Latin, but what about Meta-Strawman?
Sounds good to me!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on April 23, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
Oh thank Toki (Fist of the North Star reference) that we're finally giving a fallacy to a guy like Bill Maher.

Words cannot describe the hatred, contempt, and disdain (except those words obviously) I hold for this man. Sure, he doesn't believe in the G-man, but that doesn't mean jack when he's practically brainless in everything else.

My dad likes Bill Maher's show, so I unfortunately have to hear him every now and then, and when I do, I feel physically ill every time.

His argument on 1950s economics is the same kind of nonsense I hear when people say that the Constitution shouldn't be followed because the people who wrote it were slave owners, and thus, the document itself has no moral ground. It's stupid, and honestly, I see it as grasping at straws to nitpick a reason to bash something. Honestly, I just refer to it as douchebaggery, but that might be considered too harsh for some people.

EDIT: After thinking about it further, if we're going to give it a name, I'd say "Appeal to Negative Circumstance." When rejecting a good idea because when it was implemented, something bad was happening roughly around the same time.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 24, 2011, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: D.Turcotte on April 23, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
Oh thank Toki (Fist of the North Star reference) that we're finally giving a fallacy to a guy like Bill Maher.

Words cannot describe the hatred, contempt, and disdain (except those words obviously) I hold for this man. Sure, he doesn't believe in the G-man, but that doesn't mean jack when he's practically brainless in everything else.

My dad likes Bill Maher's show, so I unfortunately have to hear him every now and then, and when I do, I feel physically ill every time.

His argument on 1950s economics is the same kind of nonsense I hear when people say that the Constitution shouldn't be followed because the people who wrote it were slave owners, and thus, the document itself has no moral ground. It's stupid, and honestly, I see it as grasping at straws to nitpick a reason to bash something. Honestly, I just refer to it as douchebaggery, but that might be considered too harsh for some people.

EDIT: After thinking about it further, if we're going to give it a name, I'd say "Appeal to Negative Circumstance." When rejecting a good idea because when it was implemented, something bad was happening roughly around the same time.

Indeed.  Also, Maher is an anti-vaxxer and (based on the evidence I've seen from C0nc0rdance's video on the subject) a germ theory denalist too.

Sounds like a good name to me!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on April 24, 2011, 08:06:22 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 24, 2011, 07:28:29 PM
Indeed.  Also, Maher is an anti-vaxxer and (based on the evidence I've seen from C0nc0rdance's video on the subject) a germ theory denalist too.

Sounds like a good name to me!

My problem with Bill Maher isn't even that he's necessarily wrong. He's a total asshole about being wrong. It's like we took all the worst parts of Bill O'Riley, and multiplied them to levels far beyond the comprehension of common people. He's just such an arrogant prick that I feel the need to punch a hole through his face. I don't wish death on anybody except for very few people. He's not exactly in THAT category, but he comes close. Hell, just the other night I had to hear this guy, and he was talking about how, "People asked me why I'm going to North Carolina, but I don't like to nod these people off. Some of them there are actually smart people who are surrounded by a bunch of stupid rednecks!" Yeah, because anyone who disagrees with you is either a corporate shill or a herpyderpy redneck who hasn't come to terms with the 21st century. Hell, in the same show, he said some people hate homosexuality, yet he can't understand for the life of them why they like pro wrestling. It seems like he comes up with a reason every time he opens his mouth why I shouldn't like him. His audience isn't much better. They cheer everything he says or someone who is OMGZ SUPER LEFT says. Christopher Hitchens gave them a nice middle finger, and I've come to like him more for it. I liked the man already, but it's like 1000 bonus points in my book.

[yt]HECI4QK_mXA[/yt]
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 24, 2011, 08:17:30 PM
Indeed.  It's like my friend Lord T Hawkeye says, "Calling Fox News biased is like walking into an entire room of prostitutes going up to own and saying while pointing to another one.  You see her?  She's a whore." (paraphrased of course!)  If the people crying "FAUX NEWS IS BIASED!!111" don't think the left also pulls that crap, they're deluding themselves.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on April 24, 2011, 08:23:48 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 24, 2011, 08:17:30 PM
Indeed.  It's like my friend Lord T Hawkeye says, "Calling Fox News biased is like walking into an entire room of prostitutes going up to own and saying while pointing to another one.  You see her?  She's a whore." (paraphrased of course!)  If the people crying "FAUX NEWS IS BIASED!!111" don't think the left also pulls that crap, they're deluding themselves.

I'm a lot harder on the left than I am on the right because I live in a family full of these idiots.

Anyway, I don't know if anything like this has been mentioned, but I see this kind of quote all the god damned time, and I don't know if there is some kind of fallacy in it, but I feel that something about it isn't right.

"Your car is Japanese. Your Vodka is Russian. Your pizza is Italian. Your kebab is Turkish. Your democracy is Greek. Your coffee is Brazilian. Your movies are American. Your Beers are German. Your shirt is Indian. Your oil is Saudi Arabian. Your electronics are Chinese. Your numbers -Arabic, your letters -Latin. And you complain that your neighbor is an immigrant?"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 24, 2011, 08:30:58 PM
Quote from: D.Turcotte on April 24, 2011, 08:23:48 PM
"Your car is Japanese. Your Vodka is Russian. Your pizza is Italian. Your kebab is Turkish. Your democracy is Greek. Your coffee is Brazilian. Your movies are American. Your Beers are German. Your shirt is Indian. Your oil is Saudi Arabian. Your electronics are Chinese. Your numbers -Arabic, your letters -Latin. And you complain that your neighbor is an immigrant?"

Really, I don't see what's wrong with that.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on April 24, 2011, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: D.Turcotte on April 24, 2011, 08:23:48 PM"Your car is Japanese. Your Vodka is Russian. Your pizza is Italian. Your kebab is Turkish. Your democracy is Greek. Your coffee is Brazilian. Your movies are American. Your Beers are German. Your shirt is Indian. Your oil is Saudi Arabian. Your electronics are Chinese. Your numbers -Arabic, your letters -Latin. And you complain that your neighbor is an immigrant?"

Now THAT'S a Fav Quote!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on April 24, 2011, 09:03:11 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 24, 2011, 08:30:58 PM
Really, I don't see what's wrong with that.

My problem isn't the quote itself, but how it's applied. It's usually applied when talking about illegal immigration, at least in every context I've ever seen it. These people usually imply that if you are against illegal immigration, you're against any and all foreigners or immigration in any context.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 24, 2011, 09:04:03 PM
Alright, back on topic.

So Shane, what do you think of D.Turcotte's idea for a name of Maher's fallacy?
Quote from: D.Turcotte on April 23, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
EDIT: After thinking about it further, if we're going to give it a name, I'd say "Appeal to Negative Circumstance." When rejecting a good idea because when it was implemented, something bad was happening roughly around the same time.
(Emphasis added by me.)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 24, 2011, 09:11:23 PM
Quote from: D.Turcotte on April 24, 2011, 09:03:11 PM
My problem isn't the quote itself, but how it's applied. It's usually applied when talking about illegal immigration, at least in every context I've ever seen it. These people usually imply that if you are against illegal immigration, you're against any and all foreigners or immigration in any context.

The illegal immigrant argument is a circular argument though:
"Why is illegal immigration bad?
Because it's illegal!
What is it illegal?
Because it's bad!"

I personally prefer Harry Browne's solutions and thoughts on this:  http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Immigration.htm

Also, I found these rather convincing too:
[yt]XSHSN9NEv88[/yt]
[yt]8SrnhNhYVjs[/yt]
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on April 24, 2011, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 24, 2011, 09:11:23 PM
The illegal immigrant argument is a circular argument though:
"Why is illegal immigration bad?
Because it's illegal!
What is it illegal?
Because it's bad!"

I personally prefer Harry Browne's solutions and thoughts on this:  http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Immigration.htm

Also, I found these rather convincing too:
[yt]XSHSN9NEv88[/yt]
[yt]8SrnhNhYVjs[/yt]

Hmm...these are really good arguments. I may have to actually rethink my position. I'm glad you've shown me this.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 24, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Glad to hear it. :)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on April 24, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 24, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Glad to hear it. :)

I noticed he's a Star Trek fan. It's funny, because he's a step away from doing a full blown Sulu impression, at least as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on April 25, 2011, 06:51:26 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 24, 2011, 09:04:03 PM
Alright, back on topic.

So Shane, what do you think of D.Turcotte's idea for a name of Maher's fallacy? (Emphasis added by me.)

Personally, I think it's wordy and doesn't really capture the nature of the fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: FSBlueApocalypse on July 02, 2011, 09:54:32 PM
I'm bored so I'll reignite an argument from two years ago. I still think the time argument is another form of argument from authority.

If "Dr. Kent Hovind says its true, so it must be" can be considered an argument from an authority, just saying "This has been around for over 6,000 years so it must be awesome" is as well.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Ibrahim90 on September 10, 2011, 02:57:42 AM
it's what I call the argument from the adequacy of another (a variant of arguing from authority):

Harman Cain: "if 10% is good enough for God....." when referring to his 9-9-9 plan (why not 0-0-0?)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on September 24, 2011, 09:55:53 PM
I kind of mentioned this complaint in another thread, but I figure it is deserving of becoming a logical fallacy.

I call it, "It's just the internet" Fallacy. Pretty simple. It is basically when a person responds to an argument by claiming that since they are arguing on the internet, it is not meant to be taken as seriously. Usually this is meant to be a cop out. I believe we should also add "I'm just trolling" as a part of this fallacy because it generally goes by the same principle.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: kiri2tsubasa on October 05, 2011, 01:42:52 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 05, 2011, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: kiri2tsubasa on October 05, 2011, 01:42:52 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.

Yes, and this seems to be related to the "They laughed at Galileo" argument. As Carl Sagan pointed out, yes, they laughed at Galileo, but more people laughed at Bozo the Clown. It's basically the flip side of argumentum ad populum.

Anyone know if it has a name already? If not, I'm cool with Underdog Fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on October 17, 2011, 12:18:04 PM
As someone pointed out, if the underdog actually WAS always the good guy who'd win in the end in a narrow but heartwarming victory, he wouldn't BE the underdog.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 09, 2012, 03:33:23 PM
This is some kind of corollary of the Nirvana Fallacy or something:

"This works!"

"[example of it not working]"

"Okay, it's not perfect..."

It's like it's ALMOST a Best Game In Town fallacy, except they don't actually state the last part. This is essentially writing off any counter-examples as being freak exceptions.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on January 09, 2012, 10:54:48 PM
I LOVE it when people try and pull that "it's not perfect nonsense."

Imagine you come into your store one day to find half the merchandise gone even though you had a security guard there.  Oh and it turns out he didn't merely let the thieves steal it, he freaking GAVE it to them!

Are you going to, for one second, accept "Well I'm not perfect" as an excuse?  So pitiful...
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on August 30, 2012, 05:08:07 AM
I've got a new one. The Bioshock fallacy. Its where someone brings up what happened in the game Bioshock as evidence of why libertarianism will lead to social disorder.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on August 30, 2012, 06:40:30 AM
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on August 30, 2012, 05:08:07 AM
I've got a new one. The Bioshock fallacy. Its where someone brings up what happened in the game Bioshock as evidence of why libertarianism will lead to social disorder.

For those of us who haven't played Bioshock, can you explain?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on August 30, 2012, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 30, 2012, 06:40:30 AM
For those of us who haven't played Bioshock, can you explain?

Looked it up myself. According to this (http://indie-games-ichiban.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/bioshocks-libertarian-rapture-deep-evolves-into-real-life-seastead-cities-0129477/), the libertarianish city state Rapture turns into a massive shit hole full of violent freaks and cannibals. Apparently the idea being that without an all powerful central government, we're all going to hell. That and it basically shits all over the idea of seasteading.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on August 30, 2012, 12:27:02 PM
Wait a minute, the game devolves into this violent scenario BEFORE gameplay begins? So no one's even CLAIMING it's a simulation showing libertarianism leading to it? What is this supposed to prove other than the bias of the creators?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on August 30, 2012, 12:38:20 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 30, 2012, 12:27:02 PM
Wait a minute, the game devolves into this violent scenario BEFORE gameplay begins? So no one's even CLAIMING it's a simulation showing libertarianism leading to it? What is this supposed to prove other than the bias of the creators?

Not a god damned thing. Apparently these people believe that if libertarianism took place, this would happen no matter what. To be honest though, this isn't really a new argument from statists. It's just a bit of fiction that they want to point to in order to further that stupid argument.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on August 30, 2012, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 30, 2012, 12:27:02 PM
Wait a minute, the game devolves into this violent scenario BEFORE gameplay begins? So no one's even CLAIMING it's a simulation showing libertarianism leading to it? What is this supposed to prove other than the bias of the creators?

Also, they game has a morality system that contradicts itself. There are these roaming creatures called Big Daddies who protect creatures that look like little girls called Little Sisters. If you kill a Big Daddy, you can either harvest the Little Sister to make the game easier or let her go. The thing is that Big Daddies don't attack you unless you attack them first, so either way, you're the one in the wrong.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: VectorM on August 30, 2012, 04:47:38 PM
Well, the game is about Objectivism specifically, not libertarianism. It has a lot of the anti-libertarian clinches, like being able to buy guns and ammo from vending machines, etc.

And I am actually not sure if the game was honestly trying to critique objectivism/libertarianism, because it really does a shit job with it. Basically, the reason why the world went to shit, was because people found these super addictive sea ocean plants that would give you super powers. It's basically like when people say "Well, if Armageddon, how would libertarianism handle that, huh!?!??!?". You have ultra addictive drugs that also give you the power to lift heavy objects, of course that would turn ugly. How the hell is ANY system supposed to handle that properly? What would a democrat do exactly? Regulate them? Ban them? We all know how well that works. It doesn't.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on September 02, 2012, 11:51:49 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 04:12:10 PM
Every now and then, I run into arguments that seem like definitive fallacies, but I can't find them listed anywhere and I think they should be formalized. Have you ever run into anything like that? If so, post it in this thread, and we'll discuss whether it really is a fallacy, if so, has it been named, and if not, what should we call it?

Here's one I keep running into: Argument from time/appeal to past/appeal to modernity: This is evaluating something based solely on when the idea is introduced.

It could be an appeal to past: "Acupuncture is over 2,000 years old! It wouldn't have been around all that time if it didn't work!"

Or an appeal to modernity: "What, you want the government of our founders? That's so 18th Century! Get with the times! Socialism is more modern--you don't want to go backwards, do you?"

I can't see any way this isn't fallacious. So, what do you think? What should it be called?

And what other unnamed fallacies have you run into?



Okay, here's the fallacies we have so far:


  • Appeal from time (argumentum ad tempus)
  • The Homework Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=2778)
  • Appeal to complication (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=2775)
  • Argument from etymology (argumentum ad etymologia) (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=2833)
  • Appeal to slavery (argumentum ad servitus) (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=2942)
  • Original Sin Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=2955)
  • Appeal to idealism (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=3004)
  • Ad hominem recursus (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=3154)
  • Argumentum ad cutandpaste (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=3294)
  • Piety Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=3506)
  • Appeal to precedent (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=4075)
  • Appeal to majority (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=4198)
  • False conspiracy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=4218)
  • The Best Game In Town Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.0;msg=4239)
  • Remedy by Decapitation Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg5508#msg5508)
  • Over Nine Thousand Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg6484#msg6484)
  • The Democracy Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg7414#msg7414) (courtesy Downsize DC Foundation)
  • The Null Comparison Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg7473#msg7473) (aka The Tide Paradox)
  • The Underdog Fallacy (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg10633#msg10633)

What the best way to counter the appeal to modernity fallcy? I get it alot in debates about guns.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on September 02, 2012, 03:07:05 PM
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on September 02, 2012, 11:51:49 AM
What the best way to counter the appeal to modernity fallcy? I get it alot in debates about guns.

Well, you could point out that it's an automatic loss: gun control was around longer than the Second Amendment. That's WHY there was a Second Amendment to begin with!

Statists like to think they have a modern 20th Century idea. The more we point out that their system has been tried for millennia and failed, the more progress we'll make.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on September 02, 2012, 05:00:47 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 02, 2012, 03:07:05 PM
Well, you could point out that it's an automatic loss: gun control was around longer than the Second Amendment. That's WHY there was a Second Amendment to begin with!

Statists like to think they have a modern 20th Century idea. The more we point out that their system has been tried for millennia and failed, the more progress we'll make.

Right on cue, I got the Micheal Moore, "If the Founding Fathers had seen an automatic gun, they would have banned them."

Mentioned that autos are already illegal and Criminals have no problem getting ahold of them. He somehow turned into a rant about how Americans have an unhealthy relationship with guns.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on September 04, 2012, 11:51:54 PM
What is it when people say That Americans are too dumb to legalize drugs?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on January 11, 2013, 01:29:06 PM
Hey Shane I have to ask. Is this a fallacy n its own right with/without a name or is it just a variation on Broken Window? Like my mother argues "without ObamaCare I would never get the treatment I need" or "Without government programs you would have never gotton the treatment you needed." Same with the "government is the only thing keeping business/the rich from doing htis bad thing."

Essentially  raising the question of "How do you know that? What are you comparing it to?"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2013, 02:16:29 PM
Quote from: tnu on January 11, 2013, 01:29:06 PM
Hey Shane I have to ask. Is this a fallacy n its own right with/without a name or is it just a variation on Broken Window? Like my mother argues "without ObamaCare I would never get the treatment I need" or "Without government programs you would have never gotton the treatment you needed." Same with the "government is the only thing keeping business/the rich from doing htis bad thing."

Essentially  raising the question of "How do you know that? What are you comparing it to?"

It's an unfounded assertion. Although it is employed quite a bit; maybe it does deserve a name of its own.

My favorite rebuttal to this: the Smithsonian was working on heavier-than-air flight when the Wright Brothers made their historic flight. Let's say a family emergency kept them in Ohio, and the Smithsonian ended up inventing the airplane. Would you then say that without government we wouldn't have powered flight?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2013, 02:18:34 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 11, 2013, 02:16:29 PMIt's an unfounded assertion. Although it is employed quite a bit; maybe it does deserve a name of its own.

How about, Overlooked Alternative?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on January 11, 2013, 02:56:54 PM
sounds about right.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on January 11, 2013, 03:07:52 PM
I've got another one. Reductio ad religio. Comparing your opponents views or arguments to those of religion in an attempt to discredit them. What do you think? I just noticed when a guy on another baord I frequent accused everybody that was opposed to gun control of being homophobic young earth creationists.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 03, 2013, 05:48:42 PM
I used to think Claus Larsen was the only one dishonest enough to make this argument, but I'm seeing it more and more lately: demanding a peer-reviewed scientific source for something that is completely inappropriate for that. Claus first did it to me when he was defending his beloved Denmark's regulation that gasoline should be at least 92 octane. I pointed out that this is a waste of money for people with cars that only require 86 octane, and he claimed that the higher octane somehow made the engine run better. I schooled him on it, but he said he wouldn't budge unless I could find a peer-reviewed scientific source showing that a car that requires 86 octane runs no better on 92 than 86. I kid you not!

But now I'm seeing it more and more with statists. Case in point, that integralmath video about "Libertooning" whatever. I explained, thoroughly and logically, to ExtrackterYT that it is logically impossible for the exercise of one person's freedoms to interfere with another (and that's absolutely what property rights are for). He responded with, "show me a peer reviewed paper on this of what you're certain before I decide even to comment on it."

Or, same video, when I explained to TDDMS--and cited numerous economics sources for support--that cost is considered to be other things in addition to money (like time and effort), and he demanded a peer-reviewed source showing this.

Thoughts? Ideas what to call it?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 03, 2013, 05:50:15 PM
Another one I've seen a lot, most recently on Jacob Spinney's video Reply to your comment on: Why Libertarianism Is Not Idiotic: the insistence that libertarianism and objectivism are synonymous. I'm thinking of calling it "argumentum ad aynrandium."

Of course, there's an overlap between objectivism and libertarianism, but libertarians don't believe everything objectivists do and objectivists don't believe everything that libertarians do.

It's kind of like invoking Hitler to make your opponents seem worse than they really are.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on February 06, 2013, 01:52:00 PM
IntegralMath's poorly parsed "libertarian" video (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1729.0) made me aware of one I call argumentum ad pactum, or "appeal to contract." It might be the inverse of appeal to slavery (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg2942#msg2942); where appeal to slavery denounces some social or economic theory by comparing it to slavery (wage slavery argument), appeal to contract supports government expansion or regulation by comparing it to a contract ("Love it or Leave it" argument).
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Interstate317 on February 13, 2013, 03:52:16 PM
One fallacy that keeps rearing its ugly head is a fallacy I call "The fixed starting point fallacy" Its a modified version of the correlation causation fallacy.

Here is a real world example

liberal: "For the last 30 labor unions have been destroyed and income inequality has gone up."

At first it just seems like a correlation causation fallacy. But here is the twist.

income inequality started to go up in 1980, but labor union participation had declined since 1953. In fact, the percent of the workforce in a union went from 35% in 1953 to 20% to 1980. The person merely claims that they started at the same time to make it APPEAR that there is a correlation! In this sense the starting point of event A is "fixed" to the starting point of event B to create the illusion they started simultaneously.

a modified correlation causation fallacy indeed.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on February 13, 2013, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Interstate317 on February 13, 2013, 03:52:16 PM
income inequality started to go up in 1980, but labor union participation had declined since 1953. In fact, the percent of the workforce in a union went from 35% in 1953 to 20% to 1980. The person merely claims that they started at the same time to make it APPEAR that there is a correlation! In this sense the starting point of event A is "fixed" to the starting point of event B to create the illusion they started simultaneously.

a modified correlation causation fallacy indeed.[/size]

It's a form of cherry-picking. Global Warming deniers do this: "We've been cooling since 1998!" (Yeah, cos 1998 happens to be the hottest year on record. Why not pick 1997, or 1999?) Or OSHA advocates: worker safety has been improving since government created OSHA. But if you extend the graph farther back, worker safety was improving at the same rate before OSHA was created. OSHA did absolutely nothing to change the situation one way or the other.

Good to see you here, finally!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 09, 2013, 05:24:27 PM
There definitely needs to be one for where the person simply restates the claim while ignoring the counter-arguments. Any ideas?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 09, 2013, 08:43:42 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 09, 2013, 05:24:27 PM
There definitely needs to be one for where the person simply restates the claim while ignoring the counter-arguments. Any ideas?
Brick Wall Fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 10, 2013, 07:55:19 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 09, 2013, 08:43:42 PM
Brick Wall Fallacy?

Teflon Fallacy? 'Cause the counter-arguments just aren't sticking.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Skm1091 on May 10, 2013, 02:38:35 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 10, 2013, 07:55:19 AM
Teflon Fallacy? 'Cause the counter-arguments just aren't sticking.

Head up the Ass Fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on May 10, 2013, 10:32:53 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 11, 2013, 02:16:29 PM
It's an unfounded assertion. Although it is employed quite a bit; maybe it does deserve a name of its own.

My favorite rebuttal to this: the Smithsonian was working on heavier-than-air flight when the Wright Brothers made their historic flight. Let's say a family emergency kept them in Ohio, and the Smithsonian ended up inventing the airplane. Would you then say that without government we wouldn't have powered flight?

Um, actually I believe the Smithsonian was started with a bequest to the United States government to found an institution of learning in Washington, D.C.; so the bogon emitter's answer to your question would be "Yes", and they'd just happen to be right. Not that the "point" isn't valid, but you chose a poor example.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 11, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
I don't understand what that has to do with anything.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on May 11, 2013, 11:29:45 AM
You're argument is "If the Smithsonian institute had invented the airplane without the involvement of the Wright brothers, then the airplane would have been invented regardless of the government." Since the Smithsonian is (sort of) the Government (the exact relationship of the modern Smithsonian is unclear, but a lot of it's financing comes from the public sector), you in fact make the opposite point than the one you are trying to make with you're example.

If you want to use the airplanes, you could have the Wright brothers develop the plane without the government; or, actually better yet have the thing finished by one of the dozen other people that were working on designs at the time.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on May 11, 2013, 11:33:57 AM
Oh, and I like to call the fallacy under discussion the "repeatious verbious " Fallacy. If I keep saying it, it will become true!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 11, 2013, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on May 11, 2013, 11:29:45 AM
You're argument is "If the Smithsonian institute had invented the airplane without the involvement of the Wright brothers, then the airplane would have been invented regardless of the government."

No, it isn't. Reread it. The argument is that if the Smithsonian had invented the plane instead of the Wright Brothers, then statists would be claiming we needed government to invent the plane because the free market couldn't do it.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 11, 2013, 11:36:45 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on May 11, 2013, 11:33:57 AM
Oh, and I like to call the fallacy under discussion the "repeatious verbious " Fallacy. If I keep saying it, it will become true!

If we're going Latin, then "iterum dico" (I say again) would be a better name IMO. I'm not even sure "repeatious verbious" is proper Latin.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 11, 2013, 11:42:12 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 11, 2013, 11:36:45 AM
If we're going Latin, then "iterum dico" (I say again)
Sounds like a winner to me!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on May 11, 2013, 11:45:04 AM
I was making a word up. I assure you "repeatious verbious" is not proper latin; only English in latin form. I assure you, that the person using the tactic won't know the difference.

Sorry about misunderstanding you're argument.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on May 18, 2013, 02:06:51 PM
How about the you should be ashamed fallacy?

Where when you say something that another person doesn't like and they respond, "You can't believe that!"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: evensgrey on May 20, 2013, 11:16:24 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 20, 2009, 08:14:02 AM
Actually, it's more like, "The intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."

I noticed this while looking for something else in the thread, and it occured to me that in the case of Government, the actual claim is more like:

"The claimed intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."

After all, how often is it that the claimed intentions are not completely implausible?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 28, 2013, 06:14:26 PM
Not one we came up with, but give it up for argumentum ad Monsantium (http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/)!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 28, 2013, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 28, 2013, 06:14:26 PM
Not one we came up with, but give it up for argumentum ad Monsantium (http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/)!

About fucking time someone made that an official fallacy! :D
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on May 28, 2013, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 09, 2013, 05:24:27 PM
There definitely needs to be one for where the person simply restates the claim while ignoring the counter-arguments. Any ideas?

I'm pretty sure this already exists. It's called argumentum ad nauseam.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 28, 2013, 10:41:29 PM
Quote from: tnu on May 28, 2013, 09:56:39 PM
I'm pretty sure this already exists. It's called argumentum ad nauseam.

According to TVtropes, that's "Repeating a statement until nobody cares to respond anymore, then claiming you're right since nobody contradicts you." Not really what I was talking about, although it could lead to that.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on May 29, 2013, 12:58:46 AM
Argumentum ad Nauseam is droning on about something until everyone is tired of hearing you talk, and then declaring yourself the winner when no one wants to talk to you anymore.

I believe there is a term for what Shane is talking about, but for the life of me, I can't remember it. Argumentum Verbosium comes kinda close.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on June 20, 2013, 02:52:01 AM
I just thought of another one. Why it occurred to me now  :shrug:

Anyway, it's the "opposite to appeal to authority" argument. In this argument, the person hears you state the position of a known expert in the field in question, and then dismisses it because it's made by that expert.

For example, because Microsoft says it's browser is safe MEANS Microsoft's browser is not safe.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on June 20, 2013, 07:57:14 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on June 20, 2013, 02:52:01 AM
For example, because Microsoft says it's browser is safe MEANS Microsoft's browser is not safe.

Yeah, conspiracy-mongers do this all the time. The government says something, so it must NOT be true. Sure, government lies, but not all the time, and it's hardly the ONLY entity that lies.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on June 30, 2013, 03:03:20 AM
Another one: Demanding "peer-reviewed" sources in a general public discussion.

While not necessarily a FALICY, it's an unfair demand. Since I am not currently enrolled in an educational institution, and I am not employed in any field where keeping up with the latest whatever is crucial, I do not have access to peer reviewed "anything". The most I have is "general public" websites and publications. Get over it.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 30, 2013, 03:12:05 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on June 30, 2013, 03:03:20 AM
Another one: Demanding "peer-reviewed" sources in a general public discussion.

While not necessarily a FALICY, it's an unfair demand. Since I am not currently enrolled in an educational institution, and I am not employed in any field where keeping up with the latest whatever is crucial, I do not have access to peer reviewed "anything". The most I have is "general public" websites and publications. Get over it.

Google Scholar Search that shit, brah! http://scholar.google.com/
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on June 30, 2013, 03:40:11 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on June 30, 2013, 03:12:05 AM
Google Scholar Search that shit, brah! http://scholar.google.com/

I was well aware of that. It lets you access the summary of a paper, and has a link to the paper. If you click the link, you either have to enter your institution's credentials, or "pay" to read the paper.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on June 30, 2013, 08:20:06 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on June 30, 2013, 03:40:11 AM
I was well aware of that. It lets you access the summary of a paper, and has a link to the paper. If you click the link, you either have to enter your institution's credentials, or "pay" to read the paper.

I've generally been able to click around a bit and find a free PDF of the paper, but generally not if it's a recent publication.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on July 05, 2013, 04:50:10 AM
I random-ly thought of another one: argumentum you-us mis-pronounced something. This is when the entire argument against "something" is based on an individual mispronounces a word. For example: Due to "creator induced malformations" I can not say "S" "SH" "CH", with out all three sounding exactly identical.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on July 19, 2013, 04:08:22 PM
Love Canal fallacy: Claiming that we need A to prevent B from causing C, when in fact A is the cause of C.

Obvious example is when people blame the Love Canal disaster on the free market (when we all know it was caused by govt), thus we need govt to regulate the free market to prevent pollution.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on July 19, 2013, 07:44:30 PM
I don't know if it has a name, but I'm calling this one "argument from masculinity."

I'm seeing too many people claiming that Zimmerman is guilty because "he's a pussy."

Folks, calling someone a pussy doesn't make someone guilty of a crime. If you can't see beyond this, you're just stupid.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 08, 2013, 03:50:23 PM
Does this fallacy have a name?  Basically, when you refute someone and attach an insult to the end of it, they say, "ha! Because you insulted me you lose!"

Example of this in action:  https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=arBLUCO8_gM&threaded=1  RealmanPwns's comments with Shane here.  And yes, this is NOT the only time I've seen this happen either.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: nilecroc on September 08, 2013, 10:52:33 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 08, 2013, 03:50:23 PM
Does this fallacy have a name?  Basically, when you refute someone and attach an insult to the end of it, they say, "ha! Because you insulted me you lose!"

Example of this in action:  https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=arBLUCO8_gM&threaded=1  RealmanPwns's comments with Shane here.  And yes, this is NOT the only time I've seen this happen either.
I don't think insulting is a fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 09, 2013, 06:57:42 AM
Quote from: nilecroc on September 08, 2013, 10:52:33 PM
I don't think insulting is a fallacy.
It isn't.  And I'm not saying it is.  I'm saying when someone's insulted, and turn around saying the person insulting them loses the argument.  It's the person saying *that* not the person insulting, that is making the fallacy by turning any insult/name thrown at them into an unwarranted automatic "I WIN!" card.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on September 09, 2013, 07:41:57 AM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 09, 2013, 06:57:42 AM
It isn't.  And I'm not saying it is.  I'm saying when someone's insulted, and turn around saying the person insulting them loses the argument.  It's the person saying *that* not the person insulting, that is making the fallacy by turning any insult/name thrown at them into an unwarranted automatic "I WIN!" card.

Sounds like a reverse ad hominem. Maybe The Nega Hominem?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 23, 2013, 06:52:36 PM
I don't remember if anyone else brought this one up, but another one we see from creationists and statists alike: asking a question, not out of genuine inquiry, but with smug arrogance implying that there can be no possible answer, as if the question itself would expose the person as a complete idiot; e.g., "Why are there still monkeys?" or "Who will build the roads?"

Anyway, unless anyone has a better name, I was thinking of calling this "Pulling a Lindy" after Michael Lind (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/).
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on October 23, 2013, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 23, 2013, 06:52:36 PM
I don't remember if anyone else brought this one up, but another one we see from creationists and statists alike: asking a question, not out of genuine inquiry, but with smug arrogance implying that there can be no possible answer, as if the question itself would expose the person as a complete idiot; e.g., "Why are there still monkeys?" or "Who will build the roads?"

Anyway, unless anyone has a better name, I was thinking of calling this "Pulling a Lindy" after Michael Lind (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/).
Sounds like loaded question?  I could be wrong though.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 23, 2013, 08:08:16 PM
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on October 23, 2013, 06:56:09 PM
Sounds like loaded question?  I could be wrong though.

No, a loaded question is like, "Have you stopped beating your wife"? It's "loaded" with an unfounded assumption in such a way that one cannot give a "proper" answer to the question without acknowledging the truth of the assumption.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on October 27, 2013, 12:13:06 PM
Isn't this just God of the Gaps/State of the Gaps fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 25, 2013, 01:48:26 PM
Well, since no one else is going to list/state this elephant in the room of a fallacy that we've all heard no less than a Googolplex (Google it) of times each day.

Let
X = a government service
and
Y = worst case scenario of removing not just the government service, but all forms of that service whatsoever.
For example, if X is government healthcare, Y is the poor, if not everyone dying of disease in the streets from disease; you get the idea.

libertarian: "I don't think we should have X./X is ineffective or immoral because it involves theft."
statist: "YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE Y!"

Yes, it's technically a strawman, but like with Ad Hominem Tu Quoque being just another form of Ad Hominem, this one comes up so damn often it fucking NEEDS its own name.
I've heard this one called Tin Man Fallacy.  For assuming the libertarian or anyone calling X into question doesn't have a heart.

Or as Stefan Molyneux put the fallacy (in his book The Manual of Human Ownership), the propaganda behind it goes as follows:

1. The government provides service X.
2. If the government does not provide service X, service X will never be provided.
3. Therefore, anyone arguing against the government providing service X is arguing against the necessity or value of service X.
--page 21
which leads to:
4.  Anyone arguing against the necessity or value of service X is therefore evil and should not be trusted/taken seriously, tar and feather him/etc/etc;
Yeah; We've all heard this song and dance before.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 25, 2013, 02:10:29 PM
Since I don't have anywhere else to put this--
If it wasn't obvious, this is surhotchaperchlorome.  I decided after manually updating AIM to change my username (on that and on this site) to something a bit more...pronounceable and something easier to refer to me as.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 25, 2013, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: T dog on November 25, 2013, 01:48:26 PM
Well, since no one else is going to list/state this elephant in the room of a fallacy that we've all heard no less than a Googolplex (Google it)

I see what you did there.

For the lazy, a googol is 10^10^2 and a googolplex is 10^10^10^2.

Quote1. The government provides service X.
2. If the government does not provide service X, service X will never be provided.
3. Therefore, anyone arguing against the government providing service X is arguing against the necessity or value of service X.
--page 21

It's just Cult of the Omnipotent State again.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 25, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 25, 2013, 03:37:48 PM
I see what you did there.

For the lazy, a googol is 10^10^2 and a googolplex is 10^10^10^2.
Glad someone got that. ^_^

Quote from: MrBogosity on November 25, 2013, 03:37:48 PM
It's just Cult of the Omnipotent State again.
Not that that makes it any less fallacious.
http://battlestarcatallactica.com/2013/10/31/new-logical-fallacy-proposal-the-tin-man-argument/
Lays it out.  And yes, you're right, but I addressed that (more or less) in my post.  It occurs so often, It fucking *needs* it's own name.  No two ways around it.
And yes, "Tin Man Fallacy" sounds like a good name for it.  I even did a search on this forum for it and didn't find it.  It's time to give it that name!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 25, 2013, 04:36:30 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.
Related to this fallacy in quotes above, how about Appeal to Rape?  Same as above only using rape instead of slavery.
An example would be of feminists saying that pornography is demeaning and anyone supporting it might as well be in favor of objectification and rape of women as sex objects.
And in both cases shitting on the graves and heads of those were really were slaves and raped.  Used primarily by feminists.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on November 25, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Quote from: T dog on November 25, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
http://battlestarcatallactica.com/2013/10/31/new-logical-fallacy-proposal-the-tin-man-argument/
Lays it out.  And yes, you're right, but I addressed that (more or less) in my post.  It occurs so often, It fucking *needs* it's own name.  No two ways around it.
And yes, "Tin Man Fallacy" sounds like a good name for it.  I even did a search on this forum for it and didn't find it.  It's time to give it that name!

Gets my vote!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on November 27, 2013, 07:27:11 PM
Quote from: T dog on November 25, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
Glad someone got that. ^_^
Not that that makes it any less fallacious.
http://battlestarcatallactica.com/2013/10/31/new-logical-fallacy-proposal-the-tin-man-argument/
Lays it out.  And yes, you're right, but I addressed that (more or less) in my post.  It occurs so often, It fucking *needs* it's own name.  No two ways around it.
And yes, "Tin Man Fallacy" sounds like a good name for it.  I even did a search on this forum for it and didn't find it.  It's time to give it that name!

Fredric Bastiat actually covwers this one in his book "The Law"

Quote"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 27, 2013, 07:32:28 PM
Quote from: tnu on November 27, 2013, 07:27:11 PM
Fredric Bastiat actually covers this one in his book "The Law"
And yes, I remember that now.  Yeah, Bastiat was--nay is--awesome.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on November 30, 2013, 12:30:57 PM
"I don't (drink, smoke, gamble, play fish, eat carrots whatever it happens to be) why should you?"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 03:42:54 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 05, 2013, 07:02:44 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 03:42:54 PM
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?
1) I'm sure BlameTheFirst will be glad to see that, as much as he's had to deal with that one.
30)  Natch.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 05, 2013, 07:52:17 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 03:42:54 PM
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?

#10 - Definition?
#3 - Is that supposed to Nit-Picking?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: dallen68 on December 05, 2013, 07:52:17 PM
#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.

Quote#3 - Is that supposed to Nit-Picking?

No, nut-picking: picking a nut (like Alex Jones) and making him representative of all libertarians.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 06, 2013, 09:24:37 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 03:42:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 06, 2013, 10:07:52 PM
Quote from: T dog on December 06, 2013, 09:24:37 PM
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!"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 06, 2013, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 06, 2013, 10:07:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 08, 2013, 04:03:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on December 08, 2013, 05:00:56 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 08, 2013, 04:03:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 08, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 07:08:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Dallas Wildman on December 08, 2013, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: T dog on December 08, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
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 (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 13, 2013, 06:35:57 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on December 25, 2013, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 05, 2013, 07:57:25 PMNo, 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

Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 26, 2013, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: tnu on December 25, 2013, 03:00:25 PM
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
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 26, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
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"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 28, 2013, 10:17:58 AM
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:
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6066/6126485187_442440c3ca_b.jpg)

You get the idea.  Really, I can't think of any why this isn't fallacious.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 10:47:30 AM
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)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 28, 2013, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 10:47:30 AM
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.

Quote from: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 10:47:30 AM
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?)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: T dog on December 28, 2013, 10:52:02 AM
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.
And ignoring the fact that their counter argument assumes government owns all the land (how else could it be trespass then?)

Well, yeah. In the statist' point of view, the government does own all the land, so the only thing you'll end up with arguing that line is a headache. What you own is permission from the gov't to use a certain parcel of the gov'ts land, in their view.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 28, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 11:10:42 AM
Well, yeah. In the statist' point of view, the government does own all the land, so the only thing you'll end up with arguing that line is a headache. What you own is permission from the gov't to use a certain parcel of the gov'ts land, in their view.
Yeah.  Which is what always baffles me when people talk about how the USA is the "opposite of communism/epitome of capitalism!" or whatever.  Guys, the 1st Plank of the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of all private property.  If government *does* own all the land like they seem to believe and think is good, how are they not communists themselves?  And how is our society 'capitalist' for that matter?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
JFYI: I did a little poking on the site you mentioned, and some of his explanations are not very good. Not wrong, exactly, but might mislead. May I suggest http://fallacyfiles.org/ (http://fallacyfiles.org/) instead?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 28, 2013, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: dallen68 on December 28, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
JFYI: I did a little poking on the site you mentioned, and some of his explanations are not very good. Not wrong, exactly, but might mislead. May I suggest http://fallacyfiles.org/ (http://fallacyfiles.org/) instead?
I only posted it as a reference to confirm that yes, the appeal to law fallacy is an already named fallacy. :P
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 30, 2013, 06:58:04 PM
One I meant to add much sooner:

The necromancer fallacy--a very specific but annoying--version of the Appeal to Time Fallacy posted at the start of this thread.
When someone responds to a topic with valid points and they are blown off with bitching of him being a thread/conversation 'necro-er'.  Guys, the validity of a point or argument does not depend on when the post being responded to was made!  Hell, we're still responding to points that were made at least 100 years ago (e.g. if you don't want govco to fund something you must hate the beneficiaries of that funding--as noted by Bastiat to name just ONE example), I mean come on!

Note that this isn't a fallacy if the information being responded with isn't relevant.  For example, World of Warcraft regularly changes.  If I make a post about a spell that doesn't exist and someone bitches about me 'necro-ing' a thread, it's not a fallacy.  It's only a fallacy when used to deflect otherwise valid points.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on December 30, 2013, 07:06:26 PM
Quote from: T dog on December 30, 2013, 06:58:04 PM
One I meant to add much sooner:

The necromancer fallacy--a very specific but annoying--version of the Appeal to Time Fallacy posted at the start of this thread.
When someone responds to a topic with valid points and they blown off with terms and bitching of him being a thread/conversation 'necro-er'.  Guys, the validity of a point or argument does not rest on when the post being responded to was made!  Hell, we're still responding to points that were made at least 100 years ago (e.g. if you don't want govco to fund something you must hate the beneficiaries of that funding--as noted by Bastiat to name just ONE example), I mean come on!

Note that this isn't a fallacy if the information being responded with isn't releavent.  For example, World of Warcraft regularly changes.  If I make a post about a spell that doesn't exist and someone bitches about me necro-ing a thread, it's not a fallacy.  It's only a fallacy when used to deflect otherwise valid points.

In other words, making a valid response to an old point that still applies, and being dismissed solely on the age of the thread. Yep, seen that one a lot! Some kind of bizarre Doctrine of Laches going on there...
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 30, 2013, 07:19:25 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 28, 2011, 09:59:16 AM
Here's another one that continually bugs me: Woo (creationists do this a lot, but (as usual) I've got it from statists, too) makes a claim to person A in a public forum, like the comments in a YouTube video or a forum like this one. Person B comes along and refutes him. Woo responds with "I wasn't talking to you!" Completely misunderstanding the nature of a public forum, of course--and using that as an excuse to evade the rebuttal.

It's especially egregious when person A was talking to a person C to begin with: the woo then would have responded to a post made to someone else, and complaining when person B did it to them!

I think this needs a good name.
The public forum fallacy?  Or the butt-out fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 30, 2013, 07:23:55 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 08, 2013, 04:03:12 PM
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'd either go with BB (But Bush!) or Bush's Fault Fallacy.  Either way, can't see how using it ISN'T fallacious.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on December 31, 2013, 09:04:21 PM
I would be surprised if this isn't a fallacy but it doesn't seem to quite fit under ad hominem or ad lepidem basicaly being told to shut up. like this.

"shut up"

or with a qualifier.

"Shot up and pay your taxes."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 09:16:32 PM
Quote from: tnu on December 31, 2013, 09:04:21 PM
I would be surprised if this isn't a fallacy but it doesn't seem to quite fit under ad hominem or ad lepidem basicaly being told to shut up. like this.

"shut up"

or with a qualifier.

"Shot up and pay your taxes."

That's called silencing the opposition. Other examples would include having some protesters make a bunch of noise, so the person can't be heard. Or sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on December 31, 2013, 09:38:23 PM
Couldn't find anything about silencing the opposition lited as a fallacy anywhere else.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 09:44:21 PM
It's possible that it's not technically a fallacy because you're not making an argument? You're just denying the opposition the opportunity to make theirs.

Edit: Given the tactics popularity, I'm surprised I wasn't able to find anything about it anywhere.  :shrug:
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 01, 2014, 10:13:19 AM
There seem to be two different tactics we're talking about here:

One is the creationist/FTB tactic of deleting comments or blocking those who disagree with you. This I would call "Silencing the Opposition," since it prevents the person from expressing an opposing viewpoint, at least in that conversation. (That person may then turn around and engage in another fallacy which deserves a name, specifically of accusing the person of violating their First Amendment rights. Sorry, that only applies to government, and someone with a forum/YouTube channel/whatever is perfectly within their rights to do so. That is independent from any judgments about the morality of their behavior or the intellectual dishonesty of the tactic.)

The other, as tnu said, is just telling someone to shut up. Which I don't think is always fallacious; remember Penn Jillette's screed against people banning GMOs or whatever, saying, "Unless you and yours are starving, you need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!" In fact, I don't really know how that could be employed as a fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 03, 2014, 06:09:47 PM
"It's amazing how so many people say "Don't be so black and white, it's shades of gray" do it to put their ideas on equal footing with yours, as if there aren't shades of gray so light they may as well be white, and so dark they may as well be black. They mock your supposed two-tone view and replace it with a monotone view.

Eliezer Yudkowsky calls this the Fallacy of Grey."

From Shane's Google+ feed.
Sounds like a more specific version of the "Golden Mean Fallacy" but one that's so ubiquitous as to require its own name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 04, 2014, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: T dog on January 03, 2014, 06:09:47 PM
"It's amazing how so many people say "Don't be so black and white, it's shades of gray" do it to put their ideas on equal footing with yours, as if there aren't shades of gray so light they may as well be white, and so dark they may as well be black. They mock your supposed two-tone view and replace it with a monotone view.

Eliezer Yudkowsky calls this the Fallacy of Grey."

From Shane's Google+ feed.
Sounds like a more specific version of the "Golden Mean Fallacy" but one that's so ubiquitous as to require its own name.

OK; I'll add it, with a link to his original article.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
This definitely needs to be one: the Opinion Card.

Here's tons of evidence showing evolution to be true. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we were created 6000 years ago is just as valid!"

Here's tons of evidence showing Minimum Wage to be harmful to low-income workers. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we need a guaranteed living wage is just as valid!"

Or any time someone holds on to a completely terrible viewpoint with, "It's just my opinion."

I remember in elementary school being taught the difference between fact and opinion. Seems like they don't teach that anymore. And what's funny is, I specifically remember having no difficulty telling the two apart while wondering why all my classmates had trouble. Is it really THAT difficult?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 05, 2014, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
This definitely needs to be one: the Opinion Card.

Here's tons of evidence showing evolution to be true. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we were created 6000 years ago is just as valid!"

Here's tons of evidence showing Minimum Wage to be harmful to low-income workers. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we need a guaranteed living wage is just as valid!"

Or any time someone holds on to a completely terrible viewpoint with, "It's just my opinion."

I remember in elementary school being taught the difference between fact and opinion. Seems like they don't teach that anymore. And what's funny is, I specifically remember having no difficulty telling the two apart while wondering why all my classmates had trouble. Is it really THAT difficult?
YES! Thank you so much for adding this! And, as statist fallacies wiki has pointed out:
http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/AgreeToDisagree

And yeah, I was home schooled during that time but I remember being taught it depends on how it was phrased--"I feel/think" vs "It is/does" being opinion/fact respectively.  Not sure if that's true though.
And of course using Google: "define opinion/fact" in two searches gives each.  One is indisputable in the case, the other a viewpoint or judgement formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.  I'll leave it up to the reader to guess which one is which. :P
It's like we always say, dictionary.com or even just Google is but mere keystrokes away.  There is no excuse for not knowing your terms.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 11:06:15 AM
Quote from: T dog on January 05, 2014, 10:30:04 AM
And yeah, I was home schooled during that time but I remember being taught it depends on how it was phrased--"I feel/think" vs "It is/does" being opinion/fact respectively.  Not sure if that's true though.

Not really. "I feel gravity exists" doesn't suddenly make gravity an opinion. Gravity exists; that is a fact. I think gravity is too strong and I'd like to live on a planet with slightly lower gravity; that is opinion.

I blame the courts for a lot of this. They put someone who's an expert in the field to deliver his "opinion." Ken Miller gave his "opinion" on evolution in the Dover trial. Sorry, no. He gave FACTS. Independently verified facts. Nothing about his testimony was opinion.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 05, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 11:06:15 AM
Not really. "I feel gravity exists" doesn't suddenly make gravity an opinion. Gravity exists; that is a fact. I think gravity is too strong and I'd like to live on a planet with slightly lower gravity; that is opinion.

I blame the courts for a lot of this. They put someone who's an expert in the field to deliver his "opinion." Ken Miller gave his "opinion" on evolution in the Dover trial. Sorry, no. He gave FACTS. Independently verified facts. Nothing about his testimony was opinion.
Well as I was originally going to post--that was just what I was taught and even then it didn't sit with me well. :P  Hence me looking up and posting the definitions via Google in my above post. :P  And yeah, it was that reasoning in your post that made me suspicious of how it was presented in the material we had available to us.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on January 05, 2014, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
This definitely needs to be one: the Opinion Card.

Here's tons of evidence showing evolution to be true. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we were created 6000 years ago is just as valid!"

Here's tons of evidence showing Minimum Wage to be harmful to low-income workers. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we need a guaranteed living wage is just as valid!"

Or any time someone holds on to a completely terrible viewpoint with, "It's just my opinion."

I remember in elementary school being taught the difference between fact and opinion. Seems like they don't teach that anymore. And what's funny is, I specifically remember having no difficulty telling the two apart while wondering why all my classmates had trouble. Is it really THAT difficult?

And hopefully, the opinion is based on facts. Come to think of it, when I was in elementary school - or maybe it was middle school - we were taught the difference between facts, a VALID opinion (one where you evaluate facts and come to a conclusion) and an INVALID opinion (one where you pull bogons out of the ether).
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 04:57:15 PM
Quote from: dallen68 on January 05, 2014, 12:19:18 PM
And hopefully, the opinion is based on facts. Come to think of it, when I was in elementary school - or maybe it was middle school - we were taught the difference between facts, a VALID opinion (one where you evaluate facts and come to a conclusion) and an INVALID opinion (one where you pull bogons out of the ether).

That's the thing though: opinions can't be valid or invalid. "I like pie" is an opinion; there's no sense of validity one way or the other about it. If you have to ask whether it's invalid or untrue or whatever, you're not dealing with an opinion.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 06, 2014, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
This definitely needs to be one: the Opinion Card.

Here's tons of evidence showing evolution to be true. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we were created 6000 years ago is just as valid!"

Here's tons of evidence showing Minimum Wage to be harmful to low-income workers. "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion that we need a guaranteed living wage is just as valid!"

Or any time someone holds on to a completely terrible viewpoint with, "It's just my opinion."

I remember in elementary school being taught the difference between fact and opinion. Seems like they don't teach that anymore. And what's funny is, I specifically remember having no difficulty telling the two apart while wondering why all my classmates had trouble. Is it really THAT difficult?
Related to this are deflections like after being called out on bullshit they'll say something like:  "Hey! I'm just asking questions!" or "it's just the internet lulz. Don't take it seriously."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 06, 2014, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: T dog on January 06, 2014, 12:07:13 PM
Related to this are deflections like after being called out on bullshit they'll say something like:  "Hey! I'm just asking questions!" or "it's just the internet lulz. Don't take it seriously."

That's basically Pulling a Lindy. They're asking questions without being receptive to the answers.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 07, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 06, 2014, 12:35:17 PM
That's basically Pulling a Lindy. They're asking questions without being receptive to the answers.
Eh, not really.  When they ask a bullshit question where they don't think there is an answer to is when they pull the a Lindy; as your own description of it said. 
Let's say they ask a loaded question (e.g. "Have libertarians stopped supporting slavery?") or pull a Lindy. It's when they evade and dodge being called out on either using the "BUT I"M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"/"It's just the internet lulz.  Don't take it seriously." that I'm talking about.
Basically, an attempt to hide behind a lame excuse/cover their ass.  Like when someone pulls a Lindy, is called out on their bullshit and say, "Well, that's just your/my opinion."
Hence why I said it was related to the opinion card.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 07, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
Quote from: T dog on January 07, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
Let's say they ask a loaded question (e.g. "Have libertarians stopped supporting slavery?") or pull a Lindy. It's when they evade and dodge being called out on either using the "BUT I"M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"/"It's just the internet lulz.  Don't take it seriously." that I'm talking about.

But just like when they pull a Lindy, they're doing it so they don't have to deal with the fact that the question has actually been answered.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 07, 2014, 02:08:50 PM
True.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on January 07, 2014, 03:30:09 PM
Or when they pretend the question hasn't been answered because they don't "like" the answer.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 07:12:08 AM
I was talking on Facebook with tnu and we agreed this one should be a fallacy:

You're talking to someone about something paranormal or whatever, and they tell you to be open-minded. When you give them your refutation, they respond dismissively with, "Oh, there you go again!" or even hostility: "Why do you have to keep attacking my beliefs?" So, the skeptic has to be open-minded that they might be right, but THEY don't have to be open-minded that they might be WRONG.

I'll do some research; this is so common it HAS to be a listed fallacy somewhere. If not, I guess we'll add it as the Open-Minded Fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on January 08, 2014, 07:44:26 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 07:12:08 AM
I was talking on Facebook with tnu and we agreed this one should be a fallacy:

You're talking to someone about something paranormal or whatever, and they tell you to be open-minded. When you give them your refutation, they respond dismissively with, "Oh, there you go again!" or even hostility: "Why do you have to keep attacking my beliefs?" So, the skeptic has to be open-minded that they might be right, but THEY don't have to be open-minded that they might be WRONG.

I'll do some research; this is so common it HAS to be a listed fallacy somewhere. If not, I guess we'll add it as the Open-Minded Fallacy.

Back in 2009, QualiaSoup did a great video on this. He didn't give the fallacy a name, but he did a great job refuting that bullshit.

[yt]T69TOuqaqXI[/yt]
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 08, 2014, 08:29:34 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 07:12:08 AM
I was talking on Facebook with tnu and we agreed this one should be a fallacy:

You're talking to someone about something paranormal or whatever, and they tell you to be open-minded. When you give them your refutation, they respond dismissively with, "Oh, there you go again!" or even hostility: "Why do you have to keep attacking my beliefs?" So, the skeptic has to be open-minded that they might be right, but THEY don't have to be open-minded that they might be WRONG.

I'll do some research; this is so common it HAS to be a listed fallacy somewhere. If not, I guess we'll add it as the Open-Minded Fallacy.
Sounds like a winner to me!  You should be open minded, but not so open minded that your brain falls out.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 10:13:46 AM
Thinking about it, I think the Open-Minded Fallacy is related to the Fallacy of Grey: they're trying to put all possibilities on an even footing when they just aren't.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on January 08, 2014, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 10:13:46 AM
Thinking about it, I think the Open-Minded Fallacy is related to the Fallacy of Grey: they're trying to put all possibilities on an even footing when they just aren't.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Open_mind (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Open_mind)

Para. A is the most useful in this context.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on January 08, 2014, 09:28:44 PM
Man Behind the Curtain Fallacy

I'm just doing this to add to the Wizard of Oz aesthetic (so really, for no good reason at all). Creating a "Man Behind the Curtain" is when one attributes X to the person they're arguing against in order to discredit them, when they have no proof of it, or especially when it's not true. They're acting as though they're unveiling your true self, like they're Toto sniffing out the real Wizard of Oz.

Bonus bogons if they treat a denial as an affirmation, as though you were telling them not to pay attention to their Man Behind the Curtain.

Examples:

The government tried regulating the economy, and things only got worse. The last thing we need is more government regulation.
You're just a dumb teenager; you don't know anything about the real world.

For every horrible thing the War on Drugs has caused, the the country's addiction rate is no lower than when it started. The War on Drugs needs to end.
You're just a brain-dead pothead.
Actually, the only drug I've ever taken is caffeine, from coffee and the like.
Yeah, not counting all that weed you've been smoking.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 08, 2014, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Altimadark on January 08, 2014, 09:28:44 PM
Man Behind the Curtain Fallacy

I'm just doing this to add to the Wizard of Oz aesthetic (so really, for no good reason at all). Creating a "Man Behind the Curtain" is when one attributes X to the person they're arguing against in order to discredit them, when they have no proof of it, or especially when it's not true. They're acting as though they're unveiling your true self, like they're Toto sniffing out the real Wizard of Oz.

Bonus bogons if they treat a denial as an affirmation, as though you were telling them not to pay attention to their Man Behind the Curtain.

Examples:

The government tried regulating the economy, and things only got worse. The last thing we need is more government regulation.
You're just a dumb teenager; you don't know anything about the real world.

For every horrible thing the War on Drugs has caused, the the country's addiction rate is no lower than when it started. The War on Drugs needs to end.
You're just a brain-dead pothead.
Actually, the only drug I've ever taken is caffeine, from coffee and the like.
Yeah, not counting all that weed you've been smoking.

Thoughts?
Sounds like ad hominem imho.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 09, 2014, 06:16:59 AM
Quote from: Altimadark on January 08, 2014, 09:28:44 PM
Man Behind the Curtain Fallacy

I'm just doing this to add to the Wizard of Oz aesthetic (so really, for no good reason at all). Creating a "Man Behind the Curtain" is when one attributes X to the person they're arguing against in order to discredit them, when they have no proof of it, or especially when it's not true. They're acting as though they're unveiling your true self, like they're Toto sniffing out the real Wizard of Oz.

Bonus bogons if they treat a denial as an affirmation, as though you were telling them not to pay attention to their Man Behind the Curtain.

Examples:

The government tried regulating the economy, and things only got worse. The last thing we need is more government regulation.
You're just a dumb teenager; you don't know anything about the real world.

For every horrible thing the War on Drugs has caused, the the country's addiction rate is no lower than when it started. The War on Drugs needs to end.
You're just a brain-dead pothead.
Actually, the only drug I've ever taken is caffeine, from coffee and the like.
Yeah, not counting all that weed you've been smoking.

Thoughts?

That's just a straight-up ad hominem.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on January 09, 2014, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 09, 2014, 06:16:59 AM
That's just a straight-up ad hominem.

Ah, nuts.

I guess it's like the guy said, some days you're the cat, and some days you're the cheese.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Wroclaw on January 12, 2014, 08:28:30 PM
I'm not sure if this is included in the fallacy list yet, but what about an appeal to compromise? For example:

"Creationists think the Earth is around 6000 years old, while scientists think the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. 
Both groups argue passionately that they are correct, so the age of the Earth must be in the millions of years."
     OR
"Some of us want to fund NASA's billion dollar space expedition, and some of us don't.  If we all contribute NASA would have enough.
The best option is to have us all contribute toward sending NASA a fraction of the amount they would need."

In spite of the arguments and evidence either side would bring forward, there is an attempt to make both groups happy by appealing to the middle ground between two extremes as a better answer, which in many cases makes no sense.  Although yes/no questions may be oversimplified, there is no room for compromise between a YES and a NO.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on January 12, 2014, 08:39:35 PM
Quote from: Wroclaw on January 12, 2014, 08:28:30 PM
I'm not sure if this is included in the fallacy list yet, but what about an appeal to compromise? For example:

"Creationists think the Earth is around 6000 years old, while scientists think the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. 
Both groups argue passionately that they are correct, so the age of the Earth must be in the millions of years."
     OR
"Some of us want to fund NASA's billion dollar space expedition, and some of us don't.  If we all contribute NASA would have enough.
The best option is to have us all contribute toward sending NASA a fraction of the amount they would need."

In spite of the arguments and evidence either side would bring forward, there is an attempt to make both groups happy by appealing to the middle ground between two extremes as a better answer, which in many cases makes no sense.  Although yes/no questions may be oversimplified, there is no room for compromise between a YES and a NO.

That would be the fallacy of the false middle.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 12, 2014, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: dallen68 on January 12, 2014, 08:39:35 PM
That would be the fallacy of the false middle.
Yup.  AKA, the golden mean fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Wroclaw on January 12, 2014, 08:57:12 PM
Never mind - I just found where it was mentioned on the Wikipedia logical fallacy list (which is actually pretty expansive).  A lot of logical fallacies are also fallacies in the inverse form - for example, the appeal to wealth and the appeal to poverty.  Is there a fallacy that says that there can be no compromise on a serious issue?

EDIT - yes, the false dilemma.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on January 13, 2014, 12:23:13 AM
Quote from: Wroclaw on January 12, 2014, 08:57:12 PM
EDIT - yes, the false dilemma.

Actually, the false dilemma, or dichotomy, is when you're given a choice of A and B or Yes and NO, etc, when in reality there are a range of possible answers. This is the opposite situation than you were describing.

I've actually begun to notice that a lot about fallacies: very often, the opposite of a fallacy is a fallacy. In this case the opposite of a false dilemma is the false middle, where one says there's only two possible answers, when there are many; while the other says there's many possible answers, when there are two. I suspect the trick is to recognize the difference.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Wroclaw on January 13, 2014, 08:30:30 PM
I thought that was what I said in my last post; sorry if there was any confusion with my wording, but I was describing the false dilemma in the last sentence (ex. limiting options to A and B, whether or not option C would have been a compromise).   I already said that fallacies come in opposite pairs and that the opposite of the golden mean fallacy is the false dilemma.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 13, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
Okay, this might be off topic, but I'd like to add a fallacy that near as I can tell, isn't a fallacy; or at least doesn't need its own name.

The Slippery Slope:
"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1) Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2) Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. "-- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

For example, some in the comments of Shane's videos argue that "government growth causes more government growth" is a slippery slope fallacy, despite it continually happening, and there being a mechanism for it.  Hell, one of their OWN examples on college tuition is actually damn near on its way should the college loan bullshit from govco continue.  Hell, the bit with the military IS WHAT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENED!  Same with the one on banning pornography and them increasing the laws and shit there, like charging teens with felonies of taking nude pictures *OF THEMSELVES* and posting them.  Are you fucking kidding me?  Government grows, OP.  Accept it and move on.
Some could argue "but it's only the case if there is no evidence for the second part happening!"  Then call it what it is:  Bald assertions/assertions absent evidence; or, a non-sequitor.  Simple, no?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on January 13, 2014, 09:29:07 PM
Quote from: T dog on January 13, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
Okay, this might be off topic, but I'd like to add a fallacy that near as I can tell, isn't a fallacy; or at least doesn't need its own name.

The Slippery Slope:
"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1) Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2) Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. "-- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html


The way I understand it, the fallacy is in the argumentation itself, regardless of the facts. I mean if, for example, someone uses a slippery slope argument and happens to turn out to be correct, the argument itself is still a slippery slope, and needs to be rephrased. Same with any other fallacy, but I think it depends on whether it's a logical or informal fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on January 15, 2014, 07:57:50 PM
One thing I keep running into over and over again. I guess we could call it the Mind-Reader Fallacy, or the Omnipotence Fallacy, except I think it should have a better name (those two kind of read to me as the opposite).

Anyway, you've caught someone in a lie, and they say, "You can't know I was lying! You can't read minds!" Or they try and backpedal and say, "You don't know what I REALLY meant! You can't read minds!" Despite the fact that there are a number of ways of deducing this without having to use psychic powers.

In short, it's a way of weaseling out of problems with your argument by asserting that the other person can't know those problems are there without having an impossible ability of some kind. The creationist "You weren't there when the universe was created so you can't know!" canard comes to mind.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on January 15, 2014, 08:32:12 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 15, 2014, 07:57:50 PM
One thing I keep running into over and over again. I guess we could call it the Mind-Reader Fallacy, or the Omnipotence Fallacy, except I think it should have a better name (those two kind of read to me as the opposite).

Anyway, you've caught someone in a lie, and they say, "You can't know I was lying! You can't read minds!" Or they try and backpedal and say, "You don't know what I REALLY meant! You can't read minds!" Despite the fact that there are a number of ways of deducing this without having to use psychic powers.

In short, it's a way of weaseling out of problems with your argument by asserting that the other person can't know those problems are there without having an impossible ability of some kind. The creationist "You weren't there when the universe was created so you can't know!" canard comes to mind.

Because I don't have the sense to know when to quit, I propose to call this the "Man Behind the Curtain" fallacy. As in, they don't want you to pay attention to it, even if it happens to be correct.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Libertarianist on March 01, 2014, 02:53:31 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 24, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.

To distinguish this from Godwin's law I would formalize this fallacy to mean "Equating voluntary servitude to slavery solely on the basis of compensation."
Example, "The wages walmart pays are barely enough to survive on, it's just like slavery!"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Libertarianist on March 01, 2014, 03:13:14 PM
Maybe this has already been posted, but I run into this quite frequently.
Maybe "Guilt be defense" or "The guilt of the public defender fallacy"
It occurs when someone accuses you of committing some action merely based on your defense of that action.
Examples:
"I don't think heroine should be illegal."
"That's probably because you shoot up all the time."

"Prostitution shouldn't be illegal."
"Why? So you can keep paying women to sleep with you?"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 01, 2014, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: Libertarianist on March 01, 2014, 03:13:14 PM
Maybe this has already been posted, but I run into this quite frequently.
Maybe "Guilt be defense" or "The guilt of the public defender fallacy"
It occurs when someone accuses you of committing some action merely based on your defense of that action.
Examples:
"I don't think heroine should be illegal."
"That's probably because you shoot up all the time."

"Prostitution shouldn't be illegal."
"Why? So you can keep paying women to sleep with you?"
Sounds like a variation of ad hominem fallacy.  Personally I think it's one that happens so often, it might as well have its own name.  Though whether it's added to the list at the start of the thread will be Shane's decision (since he made the post starting the thread).
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 01, 2014, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 01, 2014, 03:16:51 PM
Sounds like a variation of ad hominem fallacy.  Personally I think it's one that happens so often, it might as well have its own name.  Though whether it's added to the list at the start of the thread will be Shane's decision (since he made the post starting the thread).

I think we discussed that at one point but couldn't come up with a good name.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 01, 2014, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 01, 2014, 05:47:01 PM
I think we discussed that at one point but couldn't come up with a good name.
Closet guilt fallacy? *shrugs*
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 10:23:17 AM
Okay, this is one that NEEDS to be pointed out:

When someone has a view that is not what the mainstream thinks and thinks it right by virtue of his view being in the minority.
You know, the people who say, "Well, they laughed at Galileo!" While forgetting even more people laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Until I see a better name, I'm calling this The Hipster Fallacy, as it seems to be the main justification for many things hipsters say/believe/do.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 30, 2014, 10:36:23 AM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 10:23:17 AM
Okay, this is one that NEEDS to be pointed out:

When someone has a view that is not what the mainstream thinks and thinks it right by virtue of his view being in the minority.
You know, the people who say, "Well, they laughed at Galileo!" While forgetting even more people laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Until I see a better name, I'm calling this The Hipster Fallacy, as it seems to be the main justification for many things hipsters say/believe/do.

That's already called the "Galileo Fallacy" or the "Galileo Gambit."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 10:45:46 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 30, 2014, 10:36:23 AM
That's already called the "Galileo Fallacy" or the "Galileo Gambit."
Rats! Oh well...can I still call it the Hipster Fallacy?  I like that name. ^.^
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on March 30, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 10:45:46 AM
Rats! Oh well...can I still call it the Hipster Fallacy?  I like that name. ^.^

Wouldn't something called "the Hipster Fallacy" be kinda the opposite? I mean wouldn't that be someone who thinks their logic is right because it happens to be in style at the moment?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: dallen68 on March 30, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
Wouldn't something called "the Hipster Fallacy" be kinda the opposite? I mean wouldn't that be someone who thinks their logic is right because it happens to be in style at the moment?
The logic/idea was that hipsters think unpopular = right/better/cooler.  Hence the name Hipster fallacy for being in the minority viewpoint.
"This was way better before it went mainstream..."/"I liked this BEFORE it was cool...."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 30, 2014, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 02:31:42 PM
The logic/idea was that hipsters think unpopular = right/better/cooler.  Hence the name Hipster fallacy for being in the minority viewpoint.
"This was way better before it went mainstream..."/"I liked this BEFORE it was cool...."

That would seem more of an Argument from Antiquity.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 07:13:33 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 30, 2014, 03:56:44 PM
That would seem more of an Argument from Antiquity.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18916_5-reasons-why-anticonformity-worse-than-conformity.html
"I'm going to illustrate this with a series of comics. You might be wondering why all the comics are about goths, and the answer is because they're easy to draw. I'm certainly not saying that goths are the worst anticonformists. That would be hipsters."
Not really, as they like to cling to things that aren't in the mainstream with no other reason other than they aren't mainstream, as I said.  Though, yeah, I suppose I could have picked better examples to illustrate that.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on March 30, 2014, 07:23:25 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 30, 2014, 07:13:33 PM
http://www.cracked.com/article_18916_5-reasons-why-anticonformity-worse-than-conformity.html
"I'm going to illustrate this with a series of comics. You might be wondering why all the comics are about goths, and the answer is because they're easy to draw. I'm certainly not saying that goths are the worst anticonformists. That would be hipsters."
Not really, as they like to cling to things that aren't in the mainstream with no other reason other than they aren't mainstream, as I said.  Though, yeah, I suppose I could have picked better examples to illustrate that.

Am I the only one who likes things because I like things? Why do we always have to be trying to fit in, or trying to stand out, whatever?

Also, If Rick Moranis put his shrinking machine in Michael J Fox's car, and visited Noah, would he be able to get the animals on the boat?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on March 31, 2014, 06:41:16 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on March 30, 2014, 07:23:25 PM
Am I the only one who likes things because I like things? Why do we always have to be trying to fit in, or trying to stand out, whatever?

I know. If you do things specifically to stand out or be a "nonconformist," then you're letting society dictate your likes and your actions just as much as the mindless conformists are.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on April 07, 2014, 08:10:28 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 18, 2011, 07:08:06 AM
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.

allmakescombined on my YouTube channel:

QuoteIf only you could go back in time to stateless Ireland and compare it to the life you live now.  I wonder if you really think the quality of life is even comparable.  I think it wouldn't take two days before the tears would start pouring and you'd be begging for your running water, clean food, and science-based medicine back. lol

Yes, we REALLY need a good name for this fallacy! Turn Back the Clock Fallacy? Good Old Days Fallacy? BAD Old Days Fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 07, 2014, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 07, 2014, 08:10:28 AM
allmakescombined on my YouTube channel:

Yes, we REALLY need a good name for this fallacy! Turn Back the Clock Fallacy? Good Old Days Fallacy? BAD Old Days Fallacy?
*shrugs* Fucked if I know.  You're the gatekeeper and arbiter of what a good name for these fallacies is, so....

Well, if I have to give my half pence, I'd say bad old days fallacy.  *shrugs* Whatever, just get it listed already. :P
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on April 07, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on April 07, 2014, 10:56:35 AM
*shrugs* Fucked if I know.  You're the gatekeeper and arbiter of what a good name for these fallacies is, so....

Well, if I have to give my half pence, I'd say bad old days fallacy.  *shrugs* Whatever, just get it listed already. :P

Good Old Days would be too confusing, I think, since it would seem to target the fallacious reasoning of people who tend to say "Back in my day..." and describe things completely differently than the way they were.

Bad Old Days doesn't seem to me to be instantly descriptive.

I'll go with Turn Back the Clock, unless anyone has anything better.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on April 07, 2014, 11:39:42 AM
Since it covers several posts over too many pages, I'll describe the Turn Back the Clock Fallacy here:

This is a form of Guilt By Association, as well as Poisoning the Well, where an argument in favor of something that was done in the past is wrongly denigrated by a false comparison to what else was going on at the time.

This bit from Bill Maher is a prime example:

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

Since there is absolutely nothing about the economic policy that led to the prosperity of the 1950s that has anything to do with segregation or other forms of racism, this is a Turn Back the Clock Fallacy. Implementing this economic policy would NOT require reinstituting segregation. The fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well and associate it with irrelevant factors that happened to correspond.

A similar example is when someone points out that the economic conditions of the poor and the working class increased during the so-called "Gilded Age" at a much higher rate than at any other point in history, before or since. Then, the response given from the other side is, "So you want to go back to the working conditions that existed then?" The point is how much the economy grew under such a policy, and how much better off the poor became. Instituting the policy does NOT mean rolling back everything that's happened since then, so this is a Turn Back the Clock Fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 19, 2014, 07:25:30 PM
What about, the Last Word Gambit?

You know, when you're dealing with someone who's so completely deluded and dishonest it's impossible to have a discussion with him, and you say so. He then responds with a screed against your character, to which you respond to defend yourself.

He then bleats, "I thought you were leaving!" and makes a big deal about the fact that you're sticking around after you said the discussion was over.

Just because there's no way the discussion can be fruitful DOES NOT give the woo carte blanche to say whatever he wants without fear of it being refuted. Nor does it mean the subject of the attack has no legitimacy in defending himself against it. The woo is NOT entitled to the last word.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 20, 2014, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 19, 2014, 07:25:30 PM
Just because there's no way the discussion can be fruitful DOES NOT give the woo carte blanche to say whatever he wants without fear of it being refuted. Nor does it mean the subject of the attack has no legitimacy in defending himself against it. The woo is NOT entitled to the last word.
So how do you deal with the opposite problem of a woo that just won't stop trying to get the last word in (besides just blocking them, thereby giving their martyr complex a boner)? Cases in point for me:  http://travis-retriever.deviantart.com/journal/Etymology-of-Libertarian-428567763 and http://travis-retriever.deviantart.com/journal/Lost-23-pounds-side-effects-and-future-goals-437451121 As I tend to have issues with that instead....stupid anxiety issues.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 20, 2014, 10:37:27 AM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on May 20, 2014, 09:32:02 AM
So how do you deal with the opposite problem of a woo that just won't stop trying to get the last word in (besides just blocking them, thereby giving their martyr complex a boner)? Cases in point for me:  http://travis-retriever.deviantart.com/journal/Etymology-of-Libertarian-428567763 and http://travis-retriever.deviantart.com/journal/Lost-23-pounds-side-effects-and-future-goals-437451121 As I tend to have issues with that instead....stupid anxiety issues.

Sometimes you just have to let them go. If they say anything egregious you need to respond to, respond to it, otherwise, the way I see it you only get to be led in a circle twice before continuing becomes your fault.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 20, 2014, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 20, 2014, 10:37:27 AM
Sometimes you just have to let them go. If they say anything egregious you need to respond to, respond to it, otherwise, the way I see it you only get to be led in a circle twice before continuing becomes your fault.
Thanks Shane. :)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on May 22, 2014, 08:07:54 PM
OK I have one

"The Crying Game" or "The Cry Baby Fallacy"


Basically somebody trying to discredit your argument by accusing you of whining or crying. Sometmes it'sa direct accusation "stop whining!" "stop crying!" or "you're a crybaby" or "all you've done is complain" other times it takes the form of amocking "waaaahhhhhh" or them talking like or treating you like a baby. If this isn't a Fallacy already itnees to beo ne.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 09, 2014, 02:54:20 PM
Nostalgic/Nostalgia fallacy.  AKA The Good 'Ol Days Fallacy.

When someone (esp a traditionalist) looks at a trend going on today and acts like people are more stupid/entitled/evil/whatever than they were before.
Case in point:  https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg25683#msg25683
And of course, any old timer going, "Well in MY day, we...[respected our elders, worked hard,...yada yada yada]."
Another example that Hawkeye is no doubt familiar with would be the nostalgic fanboys wankers of WoW who swoon for the days of vanilla WoW.
I'm sorry, but I've seen this one so many times, it simply DEMANDS a spot in these thread, even if it never sees the light of day of the front page's list.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on June 09, 2014, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on June 09, 2014, 02:54:20 PM
Nostalgic/Nostalgia fallacy.  AKA The Good 'Ol Days Fallacy.

When someone (esp a traditionalist) looks at a trend going on today and acts like people are more stupid/entitled/evil/whatever than they were before.
Case in point:  https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg25683#msg25683
And of course, any old timer going, "Well in MY day, we...[respected our elders, worked hard,...yada yada yada]."
Another example that Hawkeye is no doubt familiar with would be the nostalgic fanboys wankers of WoW who swoon for the days of vanilla WoW.
I'm sorry, but I've seen this one so many times, it simply DEMANDS a spot in these thread, even if it never sees the light of day of the front page's list.

To me, the whole concept of referring to ANY time with a first-person 3D MMORPG as "the good old days" is just taking leave of reality.

Hey, in MY day, Wolfenstein was 2D, no mouse, and black-and green, and WE LIKED IT JUST FINE THAT WAY!!!

(No really, we did! I wonder if I can find a copy online? I miss those...)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: AnCap Dave on June 09, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 09, 2014, 03:19:37 PM
To me, the whole concept of referring to ANY time with a first-person 3D MMORPG as "the good old days" is just taking leave of reality.

Hey, in MY day, Wolfenstein was 2D, no mouse, and black-and green, and WE LIKED IT JUST FINE THAT WAY!!!

(No really, we did! I wonder if I can find a copy online? I miss those...)

(http://i50.tinypic.com/256egcg.jpg)

Mah homie!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on June 09, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 09, 2014, 03:19:37 PM
To me, the whole concept of referring to ANY time with a first-person 3D MMORPG as "the good old days" is just taking leave of reality.

Hey, in MY day, Wolfenstein was 2D, no mouse, and black-and green, and WE LIKED IT JUST FINE THAT WAY!!!

(No really, we did! I wonder if I can find a copy online? I miss those...)

Remember text adventures?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: BogosityForumUser on June 09, 2014, 10:26:12 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 09, 2014, 03:19:37 PM
To me, the whole concept of referring to ANY time with a first-person 3D MMORPG as "the good old days" is just taking leave of reality.

Hey, in MY day, Wolfenstein was 2D, no mouse, and black-and green, and WE LIKED IT JUST FINE THAT WAY!!!

(No really, we did! I wonder if I can find a copy online? I miss those...)

Just download a copy of dosbox (either from dosbox.com or your package manager) and a copy from your most trusted abandonware site.  Sadly, Muse went out of business and there is mixed information as to what happened at the asset auction.  Therefore, who owns the rights is somewhat questionable, which makes the legality of acquiring a copy even more dubious.  Yet another reason to support shorter copyright terms in our modern technological age.

As for text adventures, there are many of them online now (for FREE!) and many more still get made.  Sadly, more than a few have been lost and will remain so someone gets their dusty 5" out.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on June 10, 2014, 08:04:22 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on June 09, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
Remember text adventures?

Yep!

"Apple eaten...core dumped." (I wonder how many people get that joke?)

All the times I was in the dark, afraid I'd be eaten by a grue...

And all that time I spent trying to get THAT DAMN BABEL FISH!!!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
Quote from: BogosityForumUser on June 09, 2014, 10:26:12 PM
Just download a copy of dosbox (either from dosbox.com or your package manager) and a copy from your most trusted abandonware site.  Sadly, Muse went out of business and there is mixed information as to what happened at the asset auction.  Therefore, who owns the rights is somewhat questionable, which makes the legality of acquiring a copy even more dubious.  Yet another reason to support shorter copyright terms in our modern technological age.

As for text adventures, there are many of them online now (for FREE!) and many more still get made.  Sadly, more than a few have been lost and will remain so someone gets their dusty 5" out.

There was a DOS version? I only played it on the Apple ][.

Even if we don't limit the age of copyright, there still should be an exception made for abandonware.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Ibrahim90 on June 10, 2014, 07:55:52 PM
Quote from: BogosityForumUser on June 09, 2014, 10:26:12 PM
Just download a copy of dosbox (either from dosbox.com or your package manager) and a copy from your most trusted abandonware site.  Sadly, Muse went out of business and there is mixed information as to what happened at the asset auction.  Therefore, who owns the rights is somewhat questionable, which makes the legality of acquiring a copy even more dubious.  Yet another reason to support shorter copyright terms in our modern technological age.

As for text adventures, there are many of them online now (for FREE!) and many more still get made.  Sadly, more than a few have been lost and will remain so someone gets their dusty 5" out.

yeah, ran into that problem myself. was able to get a hold of an abandonware that I was looking for, and mentioned it online at a website. Not knowing the legal status (since it included mentioning how I go it), I was flagged for breach of copyright (understandable for a forum that makes little in the way of profits, and has to put up with SEGA all day). When I appealed to them explaining this was abandonware, we both discovered the real problem (what you just said namely).

eventually (to their credit), the admins decided to let this pass--though it left all leery of future sharing of abandonware. No one wants to get into trouble with GovCo
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on June 25, 2014, 11:14:01 PM
Is there a name for when a statist says libertarianism is feudalism?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: ArtemisVale on June 25, 2014, 11:33:28 PM
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on June 25, 2014, 11:14:01 PM
Is there a name for when a statist says libertarianism is feudalism?

Completely fucking retarded ignorant?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: R.E.H.W.R. on June 26, 2014, 12:47:33 AM
Quote from: AnCapBrony on June 25, 2014, 11:33:28 PM
Completely fucking retarded ignorant?
But serfdom is voluntary.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on June 26, 2014, 11:54:44 AM
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on June 26, 2014, 12:47:33 AM
But serfdom is voluntary.

Yea, just like the "social contract." Because you can leave any time you want, don't ya know?

Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on June 25, 2014, 11:14:01 PM
Is there a name for when a statist says libertarianism is feudalism?

I think it's pretty close to Shane's argumentum ad servitus (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg2942#msg2942), aka "appeal to slavery."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on June 26, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
Quote from: Altimadark on June 26, 2014, 11:54:44 AM
Yea, just like the "social contract." Because you can leave any time you want, don't ya know?

Which was the point of my video: if the statist policy is legitimate because people can leave, despite customs, passport restrictions, expat taxes, etc., then libertarianism must be MORE legitimate because we wouldn't impose ANY of these things!

And not only did he NOT respond to this point, he claims that I didn't MAKE any points, and instead was just "whining about customs and taxes."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2014, 09:26:44 AM
Watching Stef's latest video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeqaRyrdcCY) I kept thinking about this "don't label me" crap, which has ALWAYS bugged me.

Labels exist for a reason. We communicate using language, and every noun and adjective is a label on a person, place, thing, idea, or construct. The "don't label me!" gambit seems to be a way of avoiding the consequences of one's own actions or positions. Like when we point out that someone's idea of eliminating personal property is socialist, and they go, "Don't label me!" As if the mere act of using an adjective somehow invalidates our criticisms of his position, almost like he's accusing us of a strawman fallacy.

Here's the thing: a label either fits or it doesn't. If we use a label and it doesn't fit you, EXPLAIN WHY! Don't use its mere status as a label as a way of dismissing our response. If you can't, if you resort to "Don't label me, bro!" then we'll assume the label fits and you're being defensive because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions or position.

What do you think? What should we call this one?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 10, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 10, 2014, 09:26:44 AM
Watching Stef's latest video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeqaRyrdcCY) I kept thinking about this "don't label me" crap, which has ALWAYS bugged me.

Labels exist for a reason. We communicate using language, and every noun and adjective is a label on a person, place, thing, idea, or construct. The "don't label me!" gambit seems to be a way of avoiding the consequences of one's own actions or positions. Like when we point out that someone's idea of eliminating personal property is socialist, and they go, "Don't label me!" As if the mere act of using an adjective somehow invalidates our criticisms of his position, almost like he's accusing us of a strawman fallacy.

Here's the thing: a label either fits or it doesn't. If we use a label and it doesn't fit you, EXPLAIN WHY! Don't use its mere status as a label as a way of dismissing our response. If you can't, if you resort to "Don't label me, bro!" then we'll assume the label fits and you're being defensive because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions or position.

What do you think? What should we call this one?
Or the people who say they don't like labels because "it divides us!"

As for a name....um... I feel like it should be a pop culture reference (like the Pulling a Lindy one) but I can't think of any good ones.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on July 14, 2014, 06:03:36 AM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on July 10, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
Or the people who say they don't like labels because "it divides us!"

As for a name....um... I feel like it should be a pop culture reference (like the Pulling a Lindy one) but I can't think of any good ones.

The "Not a Spade Fallacy?"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 14, 2014, 10:16:37 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on July 14, 2014, 06:03:36 AM
The "Not a Spade Fallacy?"
I like it! :)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on July 14, 2014, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: dallen68 on July 14, 2014, 06:03:36 AM
The "Not a Spade Fallacy?"
Quote from: Travis Retriever on July 14, 2014, 10:16:37 AM
I like it! :)

Done!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 20, 2014, 10:12:48 PM
This one needs to be here.  Inspired by the thread on Climate Change with me and Jason Fennec here:  https://plus.google.com/107601466108345042986/posts/bNAavAzHBBF

Argument from uncertainty.  Something shouldn't be tried/is a bad idea because some unspecified, bad thing might happen at some point in the future that me or no one else knows about yet.

In his case, saying we can't do the marine cloud whitening program because it would effect the entire world with bad stuff that he doesn't even know will happen yet.
Similar to statists who cry that "but we don't know what will happen if we repeal that policy!" or whatever.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on July 21, 2014, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on July 20, 2014, 10:12:48 PM
Argument from uncertainty.  Something shouldn't be tried/is a bad idea because some unspecified, bad thing might happen at some point in the future that me or no one else knows about yet.

Actually, that's Argument from Adverse Consequences.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 21, 2014, 11:13:08 AM
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 21, 2014, 07:39:36 AM
Actually, that's Argument from Adverse Consequences.
Oh yeah. I almost forgot.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on July 22, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
Another one that occurred to me watching a recent Stefbot video, and I'm calling it the No-Blame Game.

The Blame Game, of course, is when people start blaming each other (Democrats blaming Republicans while Republicans blame Democrats, for example) for the problem instead of just getting to work fixing it.

The No-Blame Game is a fallacy when someone tries to point out the consequences (even unintended) of a policy or action, like the blowback that occurs in the form of terrorism from our interventionist foreign policy. Instead of refuting the connection, the opponents say something like, "So you're blaming America for the 9/11 attacks?" and they use the word "blame" as if you're doing something immature and invalid. It's often done in the name of not playing the Blame Game, even though that's not what's going on.

So unless anyone can come up with a better name for it, I'm gonna go with the No-Blame Game.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: tnu on August 05, 2014, 02:33:26 AM
I'm pretty sure this one exists but in essence it's the reverse bandwagon (Nobody's ever done this/done it this way before therefor why should this group or person?) like "No society has ever not practiced slavery" or "No franchise has ever had a single continuity across media" therefor it shouldn't be done.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on August 05, 2014, 08:46:49 AM
Quote from: tnu on August 05, 2014, 02:33:26 AM
I'm pretty sure this one exists but in essence it's the reverse bandwagon (Nobody's ever done this/done it this way before therefor why should this group or person?) like "No society has ever not practiced slavery" or "No franchise has ever had a single continuity across media" therefor it shouldn't be done.

That's Appeal to Precedent.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 15, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
The Microcosm Fallacy:

[yt]fRlcWVrMyAw[/yt]
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: SideProjectJim on October 26, 2014, 11:41:46 AM
There's the fallacy that if you vote for candidate A that means you're really voting for candidate B which means that Candidate C will end up losing.

I suggest we name this the "That's my cookie!" fallacy because, as Jeffery Bathe of the Illinois Libertarian party puts it...

QuoteWhat they are saying is that if I have a cookie, and I give it to person A, I'm really giving it to person B.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on October 26, 2014, 11:44:15 AM
Quote from: SideProjectJim on October 26, 2014, 11:41:46 AM
There's the fallacy that if you vote for candidate A that means you're really voting for candidate B which means that Candidate C will end up losing.

I suggest we name this the "That's my cookie!" fallacy because, as Jeffery Bathe of the Illinois Libertarian party puts it...
Basically the 'spoiler' effect that many republicans (and democrats) keep bitching about, right?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: SideProjectJim on October 26, 2014, 02:16:12 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on October 26, 2014, 11:44:15 AM
Basically the 'spoiler' effect that many republicans (and democrats) keep bitching about, right?
Drat, there is a name.  I like "That's my cookie!" though.  Yep, that's the one.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on October 26, 2014, 03:01:05 PM
Quote from: SideProjectJim on October 26, 2014, 11:41:46 AM
There's the fallacy that if you vote for candidate A that means you're really voting for candidate B which means that Candidate C will end up losing.

I suggest we name this the "That's my cookie!" fallacy because, as Jeffery Bathe of the Illinois Libertarian party puts it...

QuoteWhat they are saying is that if I have a cookie, and I give it to person A, I'm really giving it to person B.

And that you're stealing a cookie from person C.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 20, 2015, 03:16:02 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 07:12:08 AM
I was talking on Facebook with tnu and we agreed this one should be a fallacy:

You're talking to someone about something paranormal or whatever, and they tell you to be open-minded. When you give them your refutation, they respond dismissively with, "Oh, there you go again!" or even hostility: "Why do you have to keep attacking my beliefs?" So, the skeptic has to be open-minded that they might be right, but THEY don't have to be open-minded that they might be WRONG.

I'll do some research; this is so common it HAS to be a listed fallacy somewhere. If not, I guess we'll add it as the Open-Minded Fallacy.
QFT.  it's something a lot of furs would do well to learn. >.<* It always works one way, never both ways.

And related to that:

Quote from: MrBogosity on January 09, 2012, 03:33:23 PM
This is some kind of corollary of the Nirvana Fallacy or something:

"This works!"

"[example of it not working]"

"Okay, it's not perfect..."

It's like it's ALMOST a Best Game In Town fallacy, except they don't actually state the last part. This is essentially writing off any counter-examples as being freak exceptions.
Okay, this one NEEDS a name.   I talk to two furs I know about how I don't think the furry fandom is the best thing for my social development and maturity and they both whip out the "well nothing is perfect" card.  Despite that pretense being NOWHERE in my original post (the one where I talk about libertarian friendly communities).  At the very least, it's a bullshit strawman.  I'm considering naming it the Simple Plan Fallacy, because it reminds me of this song:  [yt]RUi54JTgL5s[/yt] (warning: super angsty)
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 20, 2015, 03:44:12 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 27, 2009, 10:27:09 AM
Yes, I've actually heard people claim that when someone gets into power, their good instincts kick in and they're far better people than they ever would be in private life. Wouldn't that count as a miracle?
Oy.  And people wonder why we call statism a religion.  Or statism "The Cult of the Omnipotent State."
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 30, 2015, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 08, 2014, 07:12:08 AM
I was talking on Facebook with tnu and we agreed this one should be a fallacy:

You're talking to someone about something paranormal or whatever, and they tell you to be open-minded. When you give them your refutation, they respond dismissively with, "Oh, there you go again!" or even hostility: "Why do you have to keep attacking my beliefs?" So, the skeptic has to be open-minded that they might be right, but THEY don't have to be open-minded that they might be WRONG.

I'll do some research; this is so common it HAS to be a listed fallacy somewhere. If not, I guess we'll add it as the Open-Minded Fallacy.

Indeed.  As I said on twitter and facebook:

I also love how it's being "closed minded" when I don't just unconditionally accept what someone says as fact, yet they're not being a closed minded dick when they're not open to the possibility that they might be wrong.
‪#‎DoYouEvenBasicFuckingLogic‬ ‪#‎Hypocrites‬ ‪#‎DoubleStandards‬ ‪#‎DoYouEvenBayesian‬
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 28, 2015, 12:17:29 PM
The oppression/victim card.  Cry that you're being oppressed when someone calls you out on your bullshit in an attempt to win sympathy and silence the dissenter.  SJWs/feminists are notorious for this, as are many Muslims, Christians (esp. Young Earth Creationists), and hell, most types of woo in general.

A fallacy because:  it's a red herring even if it is true, and even then, it rarely if ever is.  I find just about every time this card is pulled out, it's also projection as well, via Sargon's Law.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 13, 2015, 04:53:06 PM
I remember the Hofstadter-Moebius Loop from 2010: Odyssey Two, but I never thought of it in this way:

http://lance-wandering.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-hofstadter-moebius-loop.html

The political ramifications are obvious. It's dangerous to be armed, unless you're the police. If you do drugs you go to jail, but a celebrity goes into rehab and a politician goes on the campaign trail. Related to Special Pleading and the Democracy Fallacy.

An example of a more complex Hofstadter-Moebius Loop, from The Incredible Bread Machine: "You're gouging on your prices if you charge more than the rest / but it's unfair competittion if you think you can charge less / A second point that we would make, to help avoid confusion / Don't try to charge the same amount--that would be collusion!"

It could also be used as a way around not having a defense for your bogosity: take a homeopathic "remedy"; if you get better, it worked. If you stay the same, it arrested the problem. If you get worse, you didn't use enough. Same with economic stimulus.

Psychologically speaking, the Hofstadter-Moebius Loop is a form of schizophrenia, resulting in holding conflicting beliefs or dealing with conflicting orders and trying to keep it all through cognitive dissonance.

I hereby nominate it as a formal fallacy.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 14, 2015, 01:07:02 AM
I second this!  ;D
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on May 14, 2015, 06:56:21 PM
This seems related to the Leeches fallacy you bring up now and again.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 15, 2015, 06:40:09 AM
Quote from: Altimadark on May 14, 2015, 06:56:21 PM
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!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 29, 2015, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity 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, 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 16, 2015, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: kiri2tsubasa on October 05, 2011, 01:42:52 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!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on July 16, 2015, 01:10:21 PM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on July 16, 2015, 12:04:58 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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on July 20, 2015, 02:39:26 AM
Quote from: Travis Retriever on July 16, 2015, 12:04:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 27, 2015, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 30, 2009, 03:58:55 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!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 28, 2015, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on October 04, 2009, 04:45:57 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!
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark 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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: dallen68 on September 23, 2015, 03:11:38 AM
Quote from: Altimadark 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... (whatever excuse they want to use) <snip>
What do you think?

I agree with everything NOT snipped. :D
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever 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"
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: bp_28 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
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 07, 2015, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: libertarian__revolution 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
IIRC, "appeal to common sense" already is a fallacy, and rightly so.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity 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?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 09, 2016, 07:22:02 PM
Quote from: MrBogosity 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?
The whiny entitled infant fallacy?  The "have it your way" fallacy?  The repeat for you fallacy?...Yes, I know I suck at this, at least I'm trying. >.>;;
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Altimadark on May 13, 2016, 11:38:17 AM
If they won't accept links, how about the Incomplete Chain Fallacy?
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 22, 2016, 04:55:52 PM
Can't think of a name, but I can't think of any way this isn't fallacious, and an extremely dishonest and overall a dick move:

Whenever someone tries to redefine words to mean what they want it to mean.  Feminists are notorious with this with their misuse of the words, "Rape," "Racist," "Sexist," "Privilege," "Misogyny," to name but a few.
Title: Re: Unnamed(?) logical fallacies
Post by: MrBogosity on May 22, 2016, 06:49:30 PM
If it's an alternate meaning of the word that isn't applicable at the time, it's an Equivocation Fallacy. If it's not a proper usage of the word at all, it's a Redefinition Fallacy.