I thoroughly dislike the "Hitler Ate Sugar" fallacy - the the idea that your argument is flawed/inferior because bad people have embraced it or something similar to it.
Logical Fallacies That Grind Your Gears
- Thread starter Watcheroftrends
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is the three year old was riding his bike on the wrong side of the road and got hit by a car that is an accident caused by her. She was in violation of the law and was the cause of the accident. Being the victim does not invalidate that.Meatspinner said:
If you meant that the person who hit him is guilty of hitting him then yes he is, but he is not the cause therefore the blame does not lie on them.
While almost all of mine have been said, there is a special place in my hate-box for the Appeal to The Masses fallacy. For those who don't know or don't feel like looking it up, it's essentially, "Buy/Join our Product/Service; XX million people can't be wrong!"
Firstly, XX million people CAN be wrong. Second (and more importantly), this is usually the ENTIRE ARGUMENT FOR THE PRODUCT presented in some advertisements. No reasons why I should join, nothing about them having better pricing than the competition, sometimes even no description of the product; just simply, "Join us, because these people have."
Firstly, XX million people CAN be wrong. Second (and more importantly), this is usually the ENTIRE ARGUMENT FOR THE PRODUCT presented in some advertisements. No reasons why I should join, nothing about them having better pricing than the competition, sometimes even no description of the product; just simply, "Join us, because these people have."
As a counterpoint, I find this one is quite funny when someone just blurts it out during a joking argument. This usually happens when my friends and I are playing the Battlestar Galactica boardgame: "Of course you would play that card, that's what a Cylon would do!"lacktheknack said:
Appeal to ignorance : "Evolution - I dont see how it works, it must be wrong!"
If you use this, just get the fuck out.
If you use this, just get the fuck out.
Slipper...Oh wait that's been said.
Ummmm
You like X so you can't...Oh that's been said too.
Well, I'm out, NEXT!
Ummmm
You like X so you can't...Oh that's been said too.
Well, I'm out, NEXT!
Ahahaha. Let's take the classic example of reductio ad absurdum:Res Plus said:
"If God can do anything, could he create a rock so large that even he couldn't lift it?"
This shows that, when taken to the logical extreme, the premise "God can do anything" doesn't stand. If he could do anything, he ought to be able to thwart himself. Therein lies the absurdity. Reductio ad absurdum is a logical device to point out flaws in the proposition by showing how it inevitably leads to contradiction.
The statement that "Animals should not be killed," for example, does not in any way lead to the logical conclusion "Plants should not be killed". That is not reductio ad absurdum. It's stupido ad wank. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology (like the average six year old) could tell you the difference between plants and animals.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never actually taken a course in philosophy.
The Fallacy fallacy - Your argument is incorrect therefore your conclusion is incorrect - not necessarily true, it just means that this particular argument should be dismissed.
Also trigger happy fallacy spotting. For instance, slippery slope arguments aren't automatically fallacious, it depends heavily on the details of the situation.
Also trigger happy fallacy spotting. For instance, slippery slope arguments aren't automatically fallacious, it depends heavily on the details of the situation.
I despise people that have the mindset that they will believe X and will ignore - not even feebly attempt to deny, just effing ignore - all evidence, logic, and reasoning to the otherwise. Especially Christians, in relation to the Bible. Excuse me while I rant.
Wow, I feel a lot better now. Sorry about that.
I happen to be Catholic myself, and I while I believe in God, I accept that my beliefs may be incorrect in some form or another (even though I will stick by my erroneous beliefs for lack of an alternative). However, I am pissed off by hardcore Christians who say "God wrote the Bible, and God is perfect, so it is the truth." Not to mention anti-Christians who parrot that statement and then use it to mock my faith.
Well, no, God did not write the Bible. The authors of the Bible are variously described as prophets and saints, and they wrote it based on what happened to them or what God told them. Prophets and saints are not God, they are people. People make mistakes, and/or interpret things differently. Not to mention that it has had to go through translations and what for simplicity's sake I'll call "clarity rewrites" by the Vatican. Ergo, the Bible may - nay, will - contain some mistakes.
To which, of course, the standard response is, "God wrote the Bible, and God is perfect, so it is the truth."
Well, no, God did not write the Bible. The authors of the Bible are variously described as prophets and saints, and they wrote it based on what happened to them or what God told them. Prophets and saints are not God, they are people. People make mistakes, and/or interpret things differently. Not to mention that it has had to go through translations and what for simplicity's sake I'll call "clarity rewrites" by the Vatican. Ergo, the Bible may - nay, will - contain some mistakes.
To which, of course, the standard response is, "God wrote the Bible, and God is perfect, so it is the truth."
Wow, I feel a lot better now. Sorry about that.
I love logic and mathematics and so pretty much any logical fallacy often physically hurts me. I haven't done any philosophy so logic pertaining to morality or belief is something I tend to avoid but I'm thinking of getting into it.
What irks me most is not so much a logical fallacy though, it's people's unwillingness to change their beliefs. I'll call it the Ego Fallacy because people will feel they need to make their bed with the opinion they've chosen or seem cowardly in their convictions. This not only causes most internet debates to devolve rapidly into ad hominem and fallacious arguments, but it divides people based on the simplest things. Not to mention when someone is faced with an obvious choice which is based on fact rather than opinion they avoid and ignore the logical arguments against their opinions. On the other hand, when a person's opinion is supported by a small logical point they use that point as fact against everyone they can even though it's still only opinion.
Basically, in my opinion (are you happy, Filliecs?
), Pride is the greatest of all evils.
What irks me most is not so much a logical fallacy though, it's people's unwillingness to change their beliefs. I'll call it the Ego Fallacy because people will feel they need to make their bed with the opinion they've chosen or seem cowardly in their convictions. This not only causes most internet debates to devolve rapidly into ad hominem and fallacious arguments, but it divides people based on the simplest things. Not to mention when someone is faced with an obvious choice which is based on fact rather than opinion they avoid and ignore the logical arguments against their opinions. On the other hand, when a person's opinion is supported by a small logical point they use that point as fact against everyone they can even though it's still only opinion.
Basically, in my opinion (are you happy, Filliecs?
), Pride is the greatest of all evils.If an argument is incorrect it is extremely likely that the conclusion drawn is incorrect.wizzy555 said:
It's extremely hard to draw a correct conclusion with the wrong variables. Stumbling on a correct conclusion just because of dumb luck should still be dismissed just due to the idiocy factor.
So if I said "it is wrong to rape children" and am a creationist...then what are you saying here?Lexodus said: