Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[dallen68]

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.

[Travis Retriever]

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?

[dallen68]

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/ instead?

[Travis Retriever]

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/ instead?

I only posted it as a reference to confirm that yes, the appeal to law fallacy is an already named fallacy.

[Travis Retriever]

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.

[MrBogosity]

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...

[Travis Retriever]

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?

[Travis Retriever]

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.

[tnu]

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."

[dallen68]

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"

[tnu]

Couldn't find anything about silencing the opposition lited as a fallacy anywhere else.

[dallen68]

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. 

[MrBogosity]

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.

[Travis Retriever]

"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.

[MrBogosity]

"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.