Logical Fallacies That Grind Your Gears

[Watcheroftrends]

I'll start:

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.

Another example would be MOBA's like League of Legends and Dota. A person can make up a list of significant features that might make one more appealing than the other.

The dumbest thing about this argument is that, when you make a comparison, the differences are the most important part. You don't compare identical things - it would be pointless. It always comes down to the things that set something apart, whether it's the features of a video game, cell phone, car, etc.

 

[Alternative]

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?

 

[FalloutJack]

The argument that refused to make sense, and then kept on building on a premise with no foundation. Had to deal with one of those lately. I think the greatest sin is that after a while, it's obvious they're NOT making a point that was EVER valid, but they keep on talking like they're relevant.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The slippery slope argument for me too. Arguments you might recognise:

-If you afford animal's rights, you would have to give rights to plants!
-Accepting homosexuality will lead to accepting paedophilia and bestiality!
-Any and all socialist reforms will inevitably lead to Stalin's Russia.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

"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.

Also stupid strawman and slippery slope things, but I think everyone hates those.

 

[Filiecs]

The one I've seen most often:
Appeal to Probability

Logic is like math, it is calculations based on what is true and what is not true. NOT what is the most likely.
Whenever I see someone shoving statistics into a logical debate and treating the probable conclusion as fact, I sigh, before debunking their entire argument.

Also, derogatory language doesn't affect me per say but it always puzzles me why someone would sabotage their own argument with petty insults. Are negative emotions really that hard to control for some people?

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

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.

Also, when you don't agree to someone's bashing, and they turn around and accuse you of being a fanboy.

 

[Filiecs]

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The Just World Fallacy, the refusal to accept that Bad Things could happen to you or yours, so anyone who has Bad Things happen to them must be to blame somehow.

 

[DementedSheep]

As already said by others, the slippery slope argument. It?s worthless, you can make the argument for pretty much anything and mostly just seems to be used as scare mongering or to try and make and argument seem unreasonable by linking it to something that is obviously unreasonable even though they are barely related.
It pops up all the time but the most common one I see around is "legalising gay marriage will lead to paedophilia and bestiality being legalised".

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

In conversation, one must be prepared to take in a few grains of salt and not jump to conclusions too harshly. Incidentally, I have another one I want to share:

I believe this counts, if only for the fact that it is foolish to think that any topic ever discussed in a forum EVER will somehow change the course of that subject. You can change people's thoughts on the matter, but not what it IS. The better console, PC, browser, show, or whatever else people always grumble about will not be decided here and the companies involved do not care. Ergo, to believe that any of this is too terribly important is tragic.

 

[Saulkar]

You are either with us or with them.
Don't get me started on this kind of binary argument.
The worst offender would have to be Vic Toews and his comment on lawful internet spying: "You are either with us or the child pornographers." If this is the case then I am with the pornographers you senile fuck.

 

[Scrustle]

-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.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

"You like X so your opinion on Y is completely invalidated"

I saw that coming up so many times when I was reading Dark Knight Rises reviews, people would keep going "Well you liked so everything you said here is completely invalidated".

It pissed me off.

Also, quoting out of context and quoting only a some of what someone says (removing the bits that disprove the counter-argument).

 

[evenest]

If I can do it, you can do it.

followed by: if we allow gay people to marry, next, people will want to marry their sheep

followed by: no true Scotsman would x

 

[SaunaKalja]

False dichotomy really gets me. Usually it's accompanied by argument from ignorance. I bet you can guess the context where this comes up often.

 

[Daymo]

-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.