Logical Fallacies That Grind Your Gears

Akytalusia

New member
Nov 11, 2010
1,374
0
0
"Identical initial conditions can produce dynamic results" i'll never accept this. anyone who says this is disregarding the clear case of us not possessing adequate technology to measure or replicate "identical initial conditions". furthermore any data concerning this phenomenon has had it's accuracy deliberately restricted to enhance sensationalism.
 

M-E-D The Poet

New member
Sep 12, 2011
575
0
0
Loonyyy said:
M-E-D The Poet said:
Vegetarians who refuse to take supplements and start looking very pale and sickly (and get sick)
But still try to pass off that it's not necessary to eat meat .
Not a logical fallacy. And it's a slipery slope you've applied, since said supplements would remove the need for meat. The fact that most vegetarian diets require supplementation does not imply that eating meat is necessary, it implies that most vegetarian diets require supplementation.

And it isn't necessary to eat meat. You've presented a False Dichotomy: The vegetarian who doesn't take supplements as opposed to people who eat meat.

You can take supplements and be a vegetarian and not get sick, and hence, it is not necessary to eat meat (Which is obvious to everyone. Whether it's right or not I'll leave to you, I don't like that subject).
Yes it actually does the vegetarian diet needs supplements because you are not eating meat and are not getting the things that you can only get in the meat.

Therefore the vegetarian who does not take supplements is basically poisoning himself for he is depriving himself of things his body actually needs to survive and is making himself unhealthy.

The vegetarian than proceeds to call it logical that he is poisoning himself and requests you to do the same.

Sub horum: he is in obvious contradiction (or denial) and tries to pass off what he does as logic.
 

geK0

New member
Jun 24, 2011
1,846
0
0
If you can't think of a specific example of something happening, then it must have never happened. I have a bad memory, so it's always hard for me to pick a specific example of something.

me: "You always finish off the food in the fridge and it annoys me"
them: "Oh yeah? name ONE time"
me: *pauses for a little*
them: "yea that's right!"

There's probably a Latin word for this, but I don't feel like googling philosophical terminology right now.
 

Kilyle

New member
Jan 31, 2011
61
0
0
geK0 said:
If you can't think of a specific example of something happening, then it must have never happened.
Man, I would love a name for this one!

It's one thing (though still frustrating) for people to say "You can't think of an instance, so you can't prove your point." It's another for them to say "You can't think of an instance, therefore it proves the opposite point."

That last one has a name... I forget what, but it's about absence of proof not being proof of absence. So perhaps we've found a subset of whatever that fallacy is called?
 

General Twinkletoes

Suppository of Wisdom
Jan 24, 2011
1,426
0
0
Eternal_Lament said:
GeneralTwinkle said:
"Vegetarians who are advocates for abortion choice are hypocrites. How can you justify not eating animals when you let a baby die?"
True argument I heard someone say.

Well, fetus's are cells that don't think, at least early on. Getting an early abortion is completely different to killing a cow.
While I agree that normally this is a logical fallacy, I have known people who are both pro-abortion and vegetarian who wont eat eggs because they believe that counts as killing an animal, even though by the same standards those eggs were nothing more than cells that didn't think. Still, that's not a broad blanket that can cover all vegetarians, so it's still stupid for someone to say.
Those people are just as silly. Not eating eggs because they're taken from chickens in terrible situations, and you don't want to support it is fine, but getting pissed at killing a chicken that isn't even alive is dumb.

Would most eggs even have chickens in them anyway? :/
 

regalphantom

New member
Feb 10, 2011
211
0
0
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

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
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.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
Loonyyy said:
In Search of Username said:
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

New member
May 19, 2011
57
0
0
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

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
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

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
manic_depressive13 said:
-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

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Filiecs said:
MasochisticAvenger said:
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

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
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

New member
May 7, 2009
184
0
0
Daymo said:
Scrustle said:
Watcheroftrends said:
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

New member
May 24, 2011
359
0
0
FalloutJack said:
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.

Matthew94 said:
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

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Filiecs said:
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

New member
May 24, 2011
359
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Filiecs said:
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

Vae Victis, Woe to the Conquered
Oct 31, 2011
1,926
0
0
Alternative said:
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

New member
Oct 12, 2010
90
0
0
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.