Logical Fallacies That Grind Your Gears

[regalphantom]

The logical fallacy I encounter the most that annoys me is the straw man. For clarity, a straw man argument is when instead of attacking an argument put forward by your opponent, you attack a different argument which is easier to defeat. The most recent example is when debating abortion, somebody tried to present my position as... I believe it was the Lockean position on personhood, where individuals don't become people until they gain some ability to make moral positions, and then arguing from there that by supporting abortion I was arguing that it should be ok to kill young living children. I was making no such argument (additionally, he was using the Lockean argument out of context).

Straw men are also commonly linked to false dichotomies (presenting a scenario as binary when it is not). In the above mentioned argument, it took me half an hour to get my opponent to admit that he was not only presenting a straw man, but also creating a false dichotomy, in that the only valid opposing position to his theory was Lockean. Another example that was in the Canadian news in recent months was that one of the Conservative cabinet ministers (Vic Towes from Manitoba) introduced an internet surveillance bill, and argued, in Parliament, and to the national media, that if you opposed the bill, it was because you were a supporter of pedophiles, when in fact that there were many reasons that people could be opposed to the bill, such as the fact that it violated charter rights.

 

[malestrithe]

Either/Or Fallacy. I hate this one, especially in gaming.

"Either you give us everything on the disc, no matter how minor the item, or your're an evil company hates gaming."

I especially hate this when its combined with the slippery slope. "If gamers accept this, were will it end? Will it stop a 2000 dollars worth of extra stuff? Will we come to the point where we have to pay an additional 50 dollars to see the ending? I mean where will it end?"

I hate these two because it overlooks certain aspects. 1. Gamers decide where it ends and 2. There are degrees. Minor stuff like costumes are different than locking out 40 percent of a game's content.

 

[In Search of Username]

People who act like history is somehow on their side, or feel that if their particular political path is followed we will reach the 'end of history' and create a perfect society. Sorry, history doesn't work like that, Rome went from republic to empire to ruin, not the other way round, doesn't sound like the inevitable positive progress of history to me.

This reminds me of one I keep hearing. I'm all for gay equality, but I keep seeing them comparing themselves to the civil rights movement (A fair comparison I guess), and then saying that those who oppose them will end up on the wrong side of history. Since when did an appeal to future authority make sense to anyone? You could say anything about the future and you don't have to worry about accuracy to make your case.

Exactly. I'm all for gay rights, but because it's right, not because it's inevitable. Plus the idea that everything's bound to get better eventually regardless tends to make people lazy about actually doing anything to make it happen.

 

[Damien Black]

I'm very surprised that Correlation Does not Equal Causation hasn't come up yet. It's one of the most persistent fallacies in thought I've come across... just because two events occur conterminously, or in an apparently related way, does not mean that one caused the other. For example, if I saw a boy holding a red balloon immediately preceding every time I got a paycheck, that does not mean that seeing said boy causes me to get a paycheck. This comes up in a great deal of religious debates... "Florida passed Law X right before being hit by Hurricane Y, therefore God Z wants to punish the state for its ways." Similarly, "Those violent criminals played video games, therefore games cause violent criminals, ban games."

Say it with me now: "Correlation does not equal causation!"

 

[Scars Unseen]

My wife likes to compare everything to murder when she disagrees with it. Run a red light(after stopping) in the middle of the night when no one is coming? Well would you kill someone if no one else was there to see it? That sort of thing.

It annoys the piss out of me because it means that if I disagree on a subject(even purely personal choice type of subjects), the only positions in the argument are agree with wife and advocate murder. Pointing out that her argument is silly and flawed results in a fight that lasts a damned week, so my only real option is just not to tell her how i feel on anything, and if she asks, agree with he so she'll shut the fuck up about it and then go do what I was going to do in the first place(and if she catches me out on it, aforementioned week long fight occurs and then the whole situation resets).

She's lucky I love her; her murder analogy sound less unreasonable each time she uses it(joking, of course).

 

[WanderingFool]

-Any and all socialist reforms will inevitably lead to Stalin's Russia.

This one annoys me the most of those.

That and, like other people have already said, the Strawman arguement. In fact, isnt the statement I quoted a Strawman arguement?

 

[elvor0]

I don't know if this counts, or if it has a name, but I really hate when someone acts like you're stating an opinion as fact, simply because you didn't add "in my opinion" and a billion other qualifiers after every sentence.

Well, technically, you are.
Assuming you're not would be a logical fallacy. It would be drawing an unfounded assumption that you were being inaccurate.
In order to have a cohesive logical argument I would highly suggest being as accurate and specific as possible.

Be that as it may, opinions are usually prefixed with words such as "I feel, think, believe etc" and something that is an opinion is usually obviously so, by the way that it is stated, there's different language for stating facts and opinions. Having to add "in my opinion" is just pointless exposition to account for people unable to to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact, I /know/ it's your opinion because you're the one saying it. Especially when you're talking about something subjectively, where there can be no "fact" per say, and all things put forward are merely opinions on the piece.


On topic, "Any real fan would love everything by X". No. FUCK OFF. Being a fan does not equal blindly throwing money at everything that X brings out, being a fan means being able to praise and critique the work you love, because it shows understanding rather than just blind devotion.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I don't know If this has a name, but I'll try to explain it. Basically when someone heavily implies something in an argument, and I mean heavily. Then when you say that something they say they never actually said it. I know this might sound like a strawman, but hear me out. If someone says "I'll never be in the same room as a gay man" then I say "you must not like gays then" then the say "OMG I do not hate gays stop putting false words in my mouth". That just grinds my gears.

Also, the "shoving it down my throat" fallacy, it's one mostly used by people who, with their hate for the person's feature amplifies that feature. For example, a straight man says gays are shoving their gayness down their throat after a gay man says their gay, whilst showing off they are obviously straight. If someone had come up to him and said I'm straight then it would be fine, but if they say they're gay they're shoving it down their throats. Another example of this is pony avatars, if a person has a pot avatar it's their obsession gone too far, but someone who has say a mass effect avatar is a normal, non obsessed guy who isn't trying to shove it down your throat.

 

[CplDustov]

-snip-

Yeah that's a stupid one. If you wanted you could even compare CoD with LoL as well. It might not be a particularly useful comparison but it can be made.

I agree strawman is one of the worse ones but the fallacies that really piss me off are appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, slippery slope, non-sequitor and ad hominem. That probably covers most of the fallacies out there, but you don't really need any kind of education in critical thinking to understand them. They're pretty inexcusable and often just a big dick move.

Ad hominem arguments aren't always fallacious, they can be justified in cases where a person's character is important, saying all ad hominems are fallacious is really my biggest phlosophical/logical pet peeve

For fallacies though it would be false dichotomy (with us or against us), screw you and your binary views, I'm going to chose my much more reasonable middle ground that you can't seem to comprhend. Also etymological fallacies annoy me in a more general useage.

If you are saying, "Well, you are the CEO of Marlboro. Anything you say in favour of cigarettes must be taken with a certain degree of skepticism as you have an interest in making your company look good" then that's not a fallacy, true, but I'm not sure it counts as Ad Hominem anyway whose form is more like "Well, you are the CEO of Marlboro. Anything you say in favour of cigarettes is (automatically) wrong"

OT: I hate most of them there's a great site http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Not all the explanations are crystal clear but it's a great introduction to the subject.

 

[Filiecs]

In conversation, one must be prepared to take in a few grains of salt and not jump to conclusions too harshly.

When someone is talking about there beliefs the logical assumption would be that they are telling the truth as lying would impede upon the cohesiveness of the conversation.

In casual talk, yes, I would take what someone says with a few grains of salt. Even if it is not the most logical assumption, it is the most reasonable thing to do. Even I accidently say something that I don't entirely believe once in a while.

In debates or deep discussions, I would expect you to take the time to be as accurate and descriptive as possible in order to avoid confusion. Unless they correct their mistake, assuming they were inaccurate would be an appeal to probability.

So in your world you cannot argue over anything subjective?

You cannot be objective over things like games most of the time.

I never said that at all. I simply suggested that adding "I think" or "In my opinion" to ideas that were subjective would be a good idea as it would help to eliminate confusion about what was being debated. You can still argue over subjective things, however, they fall under arguments of reason more than arguments of logic.
For games, you can argue both. You can have a discussion about the technical quality of a game and that would be a logical discussion in which the goal would likely be to pinpoint the games technical flaws and the games technical achievements.

You could also argue about the subjective quality of a game. For one person, a game where you get to play as the CEO of a child-labor factory would be terrible due to the subject matter. To another person, it could be enjoyable because they saw it as a parody. In this case the technical quality of the game has little to no effect on the argument.
I would, however, suggest identifying your opinion during this type of argument because when two people try to state their opposing opinions as fact it often times leads to anger, and anger is never good for an argument.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Heh-

You may notice that there aren't very many deep discussions to be found in off-topic or gaming here, where I normally lurk. In any of those discussions that CAN be deep, I rarely encounter proper deepness. There was, of course, the discussion that referenced by old Rationalism finals regarding omnipotence, but seldom do I see anything around that depth here.

 

[Filiecs]

-Heh-

You may notice that there aren't very many deep discussions to be found in off-topic or gaming here, where I normally lurk. In any of those discussions that CAN be deep, I rarely encounter proper deepness. There was, of course, the discussion that referenced by old Rationalism finals regarding omnipotence, but seldom do I see anything around that depth here.

You could be right. It's just that I tend to not like assuming that someone is inaccurate because if I did I would feel like I am implying that I somehow know them and their ideas better than they know themselves. I also treat most discussions I get into as if they were deep discussions, for myself at least. I find that it often times helps to avoid anger and, by being extremely thorough, I usually end up learning something myself.

 

[King of Asgaard]

The Slippery Slope argument. Mostly when it's used to argue against gay marriage.

How the hell is allowing gay people to marry going to lead to beastiality or men marrying cars?

Here's your proof!
100% factual.

 

[auron200004]

As someone who regularly watches the Atheist Experience, I've learned a lot about fallacies. Not in college yet, though, so I can't say that I've had a formal education regarding them.

Anyways, I hate: appeal to authority (X says it's true, so I must be right), appeal to numbers (over X amount of people believe this, so therefore we must be on to something), appeal to tradition (because we've been doing X for this long, that's why we should keep doing it!). Those three are probably the ones I hate the most. Especially the tradition one.

See also: argument from ignorance (I can't explain it, therefore it must be X), and strawman.
EDIT: Forgot slippery slope!

Also, while not a fallacy, I will straight up shut down the conversation the second anybody treats me with disrespect. Then they say that "they won" or that I "chickened out" because all I did was stop the conversation because I felt neither of us have nothing to gain. This often comes after somebody starts getting particularly insulting or vulgar or if they just laugh at everything I say because they don't want to even bother listening.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Hmm-

Well, that is one way to look at it. Personally, I don't tend to be very angry online. Collectively, the world's supply of human stupidity will have me raging from dawn until dusk, but merely internet conversation stupidity is far less potent. Granted, the words of annoying people ARE going to hurt my brain, but whatever anger I get over that is only a small fraction of the rage I can feel for other things. For openers, I am loud, very loud. And I rant. If I have not shouted verbally on this end of things in response to an issue, it's not actually making much impact. Still, I can understand your position. You seem inclined to give more benefits of the doubt, whereas I am cynical, sarcastic, and take many refuges in audacity.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Also the Bandwagon Fallacy. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it automatically good.

That is technically referred to as "argument ad populum." As in, a popularity argument.

The one that gets me most though -likely because I seem to be the only person who is bugged by it- are canonical arguments dealing with fictional works. The logical fallacy being that you are arguing about something that may or may not have happened, when it is clear that it did not happen. I.E. it exists in a fictional world, thus none of it ever actually happened, and argumentation of occurrences of things that never occurred practically defines the term "logical fallacy."

Sometimes smart people make the mistake of using the word "canon" to describe fictional events, but what really gets me are the rabid fanboys of things like Star Trek and Star Wars that argue over very minor fictional points and throw the word "canon" around as if they actually knew what it meant.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

When people claim that things are (too) different so they can't be compared. For example, the Modern Warfare and Battlefield games. You most certainly CAN compare them. Whether or not you agree with the way they are compared is another matter.

You more than likely have seen this but I think you'll appreciate it anyway (even if you don't like Moviebob)


if you really just hate Moviebob, this video is about New Super Mario Bros Wii, Modern Warfare 2 and, their similarities. This is a bit dated by the way as it was released either in early 2010/late 2009.

---

I dislike the 'everything was better in (insert past year here)' mentality a lot of us have. I do concede that there are a lot of aspects of the past that I would love to see in the here and now (gas for under $2, coke blak, cartridge-based games of yesteryear being widely available) but its kind of short sighted to say that EVERYTHING was better in decade x, y or, z. It would be great to go back to the 1990s for the gas but not so much for the prevalence of Rob Liefeld style comic art and, race/gender based hate fueled by fear of that new AIDs thing you may have heard of. The 80's would be great because of even BETTER gas prices and, the freaking NES...but it also had the video game crash of 83 and even though you know The Soviets won't attack, nobody else does and it would be a downer to read about people killing themselves out of fear of a soviet attack. The past was fine in its way but I'd much rather just stay here and, move onward.

 

[Dan Steele]

The man who listens to you state facts with backed up proven evidence and they reply with "Well that's your opinion." ITS NOT MY OPINION ITS A PROVEN FACT YOU DAFT FUCKING IDIOT! I have literaly punched holes in walls because of this stupidity.

 

[Sight Unseen]

False dichotomies and strawmen really get to me...

 

[Xaio30]

Argument from ignorance
When people fill in the blanks themselves about any given question.
"If we haven't proved A, then A must be false."
as well as
"If we haven't disproved A, then A must be true.".


Appeal to the people
In which people believe that just because a lot of other people think something, it must be true or inherently good.
"Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea."
as well as
"But mom! Everybody's doing it!"