Most irritating logical fallacy

[TheLaofKazi]

False Dichotomy, Saying there are only two possibilities when there are many: "If evolution isn't true then creationism has to be."

This one.

Like holy fucking shit, I'm tired of people using Pascal's Wager [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager] in some stupid religious argument.

And most of all, it's the belief that everything is black and white and that there are only two possibilities, which bothers me more then anything. It simplifies everything and obscures the actual reality of the issues, and in many cases puts people on two sides against each other, which results in violence at times.

 

[CK76]

"You think X, then you think Y"

"Um, no, your understanding of X is flawed, so you're projecting that ignorance on me with the assumption of Y. Y is ridiculous."

 

[zehydra]

ad hominum (I believe it's hominum, not hominem, but I very well may be wrong).

For instance: ignoring a person's argument because they publicly affiliate with a particular political party. Your point is invalid because you're a republican/democrat, or liberal/conservative. These attacks on ideologies probably make up 80% of all political debate on the internet, particularly youtube comments.

 

[Blueruler182]

"Only a sith believes in absolutes."

 

[martin's a madman]

Godwin's Law

I once said that I thought that the olympics were pointless.

It ended with some guy liking me to Hitler.

Well to be completely accurate, Godwin's Law isn't itself a logical fallacy - it's the rule of internet behavior that states, if carried out for long enough, all arguments eventually reach the point where comparisons to Hitler are made. It is constantly being proven accurate as you've noticed.

The Olympics are pointless though.

The olympics are pointless? Who are you? Hitler?

 

[Cavemoss]

(BTW IM NEW JUST MADE ACCOUNT)
O come now i havent seen anyone address these Three:
1. Shift of burden (when u are making a bulshit claim YOU NEED EVIDENCE NOT THEM. DONT just say "you cant prove its wrong. e.g. YOU cant prove god isnt real....)

2. Straw man (making the other person look like they hold a position when they dont. soz cant really think of a example ummmm >.<)

3. (cant think of "offical name but) Incredulity (hope i spelt that right). Basically "O that cant be true becauses its just riducalas) e.g Creationists who have NO understanding of science will say of evolution is just ridiculous. Another example would be "man getting to the moon is just ridiculous"

yeah as you can tell from the examples im atheist >.<
Btw sorry if anyone else addressed them.

 

[Thaius]

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc is one of my all-time annoyances, for the same reason as the example. Way too many people are quick to point out an Xbox near a violent crime and blame it for the world's problems. Which is stupid.

Another one that I admit I don't know the Latin term for is the idea that lack of proof means proof of the opposite. It's an argument that I all-too-often hear used against religious people, when someone will say, for instance, that God cannot exist because there is no proof of his existence. Apparently a lack of proof means it is factually wrong, which would also suggest that we may as well stop scientific experimentation right now since everything we don't have proof for must simply be false!

 

[Slaanax]

I hate this statement I don't know what it falls under. Mostly in the sphere of politics, if the President blank would have been in charge this never would have happened. Well too bad he isn't and you have to deal with the current circumstances!

 

[Anarchemitis]

"Penguins are black and white. Old TV shows are black and white. Therefore Penguins are some old TV shows."

 

[CRoone]

The Argumentatum ad Baculum, also known as the Appeal to Force.
"I am right because if you say otherwise, I'll hit you with this stick."

This one actually made me so mad that I'm centering a story around it, and plan to publish it as a book later on. Or maybe a webcomic...

 

[Deacon Cole]

I spend most of my time on an atheist forum. The one I dislike is when theists try to reverse the burden of proof. "Can you prove god does not exist," they say.

I forget who said it, but the best response to that I have found is "What is asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence."