Sweeping generalisations, slippery slopes and dragging in probability theory when it doesn't belong are my top three.
Logical Fallacies That Grind Your Gears
- Thread starter Watcheroftrends
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"If you disagree, it's because you're not as sexy and manly as me."
You got the dumbshit pickup-artist wannabes saying that people who respect women are spineless virgins who let women walk all over them, and you got the people who respect women saying that the pickup-artist wannabes are spineless virgins who are angry that women won't fuck them.
And spineless virgins like me have to ask, "are you sure that you guys can't tone this down a bit?"
You got the dumbshit pickup-artist wannabes saying that people who respect women are spineless virgins who let women walk all over them, and you got the people who respect women saying that the pickup-artist wannabes are spineless virgins who are angry that women won't fuck them.
And spineless virgins like me have to ask, "are you sure that you guys can't tone this down a bit?"
That's close, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm referring to is when someone accuses you of completely liking or hating something purely because you don't subscribe to their way of thinking. For example:Loonyyy said:
Person A: EA is the worst company in the world, and they completely ripped me off. I bought one of their games and it isn't compatible with my computer.
Person B: Well, you should have checked the specifications before buying the game. It isn't really EA's fault in that scenario.
Person A: Oh, you're just an EA fanboy!
or
Person A: I really love My Little Pony! It's the best thing ever!
Person B: I checked it out, and it was okay. I don't believe it is the best thing in existence, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.
Person A: What?! You hate My Little Pony?! How dare you!!!
Its called faulty generalization, hasty generalization, or hasty induction pending on the person. The reason it happens so many times is because it is a very instinctual/intuitive approach to the world and evolutionarily advantageous. Heuristics make the world a much simpler and thus quicker to process. The opposite of it is slothful induction (willfully ignoring a strong inductive argument) in case you are curious.ohnoitsabear said:
I was going to say the fallacy fallacy as well. So many people use it in some variation "Oh I see you've resorted to (insert fallacy), guess that means I'm right". It drives me nuts when people point out fallacies and then turn around and make one.
I don't know if it has a particular name for this specific type of scenario, but it is a Affirming the consequent fallacy. The formal fallacy goes something likeMasochisticAvenger said:
If A->B
B
Therefore A
In this case
A would be a "EA Fanboy" or "Person who hates MLP"
B would be someone who believes "Their scenerio was not EA's fault" or "MLP is not the best thing ever".
For this example assume all fanboys take the side of what they are a fan of in all cases)
EA Fanboy -> Does not think the situation was EA's fault
A person does not think the scenario is EA's fault -> EA Fanboy
For this example assume that the semantics of MLP hater is "Someone who thinks that MLP is among the worst, or is the worst show ever created"
MLP Hater -> Does not think the show is the greatest ever made
Person does not think the show is the greatest ever made -> MLP hater
Clearly the same fallacy as
A->B
B
Therefore A
The same can be said for pretty much all "You agree with one piece of group X's position, you must belong to group X" type arguments
Godwin's law. Actually allow me to amend that, people who call out Godwin's law as a feeble attempt to invalidate other's arguments. Godwin's law has nothing to do with validity, it merely states that the longer an argument or debate goes on the more likely a comparison to Hitler will be made. Also Hitler comparisons are simply more likely to be invalid because it is likely it will devolve into either guilt by association (Hitler ate sugar) or Ad hominem (Yeah well you're Hitler!). Hitler and World War 2 comparisons are not inherently invalid and it bugs me when somebody yells Godwin's law at the first sight of the topic rather than actually refuting the point.
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.
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.