I am most pissed off when I see people using false dichotomies and slippery slope mentalities. So much rage. So little thought.
Most irritating logical fallacy
- Thread starter megamanenm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd have to go with post-hoc ergo propter hoc, due to the fact that my mother uses it to explain why video games are bad for me. Actually, she might have used all of these to explain why games are bad for me at some point.
The sunk cost fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_fallacy#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy] isn't one necessarily related to communicating with the situationally retarded, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the inevitable lose-lose. 
(In rhetoric, strawmen are the most obtrusive to me. And the Halo Effect just pisses me off.)
(In rhetoric, strawmen are the most obtrusive to me. And the Halo Effect just pisses me off.)
Only the guilty would want to hit their accusors in the face with a wooden tableYossarian1507 said:None of the mention irritate me as logical Catch-22 (Hah, you thought I picked that username JUST because I loved the book? Well... You're right, it's purely a coincidence but nevermind
What am I taking about? Situations like that (which sadly happens to me from time to time):
Something bad/awkward happened, and thanks to some gossip and mislead point of view, you are the painted as a horrible, horrible man who did something unforgivable (or at least critique worthy), even if it's completely false or only 5% correct.
You try to explain yourself... And you can usually hear 'only guilty explains himself'. You're doomed. If you won't try to explain yourself... 'Then you are admitting your guilt'. You're doomed as well.
Seriously, whenever I hear something like that I want to hit that person saying it in the face with a wooden table.
You've convinced me to go with false dichotomy as the worst, because of it's consequences.PasDeChat said:
The one that I first thought of was the "Your argument was bad, therefore your conclusion is false." It's kind of like a sneakier version of the strawman. The strawman puts ridiculous or simply very weak words into their mouth and then refutes it. So strawman is sometimes easy to spot. But this one takes what they actually said, then shows the argument to be invalid, and then uses that as an argument that their conclusion is false. Proving an argument to be invalid, does not equal "not conclusion"
"A is the truth and if you cant see that then you are ignorant"
This one argument ALMOST made me physically harm my girlfriends father... and I wasn't even the one he was talking to. I was just listening in on the "debate".
I seriously wish I was exagerating either what he said or my reaction, but what makes me almost lose faith in humanity is the fact that his ENTIRE side of the family uses this same "logic" with the two exeptions of my girlfriend and this one branch off couple that converted to Buddism (sp?) and ever since have not been invited to the Christmas family reunions.
This one argument ALMOST made me physically harm my girlfriends father... and I wasn't even the one he was talking to. I was just listening in on the "debate".
I seriously wish I was exagerating either what he said or my reaction, but what makes me almost lose faith in humanity is the fact that his ENTIRE side of the family uses this same "logic" with the two exeptions of my girlfriend and this one branch off couple that converted to Buddism (sp?) and ever since have not been invited to the Christmas family reunions.
All of them? I dislike fallacy in general especially when dealing with factual things. It tends to impede on interesting conversation by causing dead ends.
Yea but didn't he host the Olympics? So should he have said people who host it are like Hitler?Hubilub said:
If he would then that would mean that he's saying that I'm hosting the olympics.Cody211282 said:
Which means that he's saying that the people hosting the Olympics don't actually care about sports.
So... he was agreeing with me while calling me Hitler...
I guess that is what you call "disrespectfully agreeing" with someone.
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.Hubilub said:
The Olympics are pointless though.
Ironic, that. Nazis were very much into their Olympics, so far as I know.Hubilub said:
And yes, they're absolutely pointless. Perhaps if they didn't spend billions that could be used more beneficially..But it's just sport. Can't pour ridiculous amounts of moolah into what essentially amounts to some ladies and gentlemen running around in short-shorts.
I believe the way it was used can be considered a logical fallacy though.Gildan Bladeborn said:
It went something like a person defending me saying "Can't you respect his opinion? All opinions are equal"
Then the guy says "You can think the same of all opinions. Hitler's opinion shouldn't be considered right, and neither should his"
So basically, because Hitler had an opinion, I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
That's a logical fallacy, right?
or it would just prove he was a retard, like his other statement did, I still can't get my brain around how he said you were like hitler.Hubilub said:
Post-hoc ergo propter hoc is the one I hate, otherwise known as "Of course correlation means causation!"
Basically all Australian politicians for censorship use this.
Basically all Australian politicians for censorship use this.
I believe it was when he was trying to disprove my own opinion.Cody211282 said:
He said that Hitler had an opinion, and that it was wrong. Therefore, my opinion must also be wrong.
In short, to this man, disliking the olympics = Trying to eradicate all jews in the world.
Oh certainly, but the example you've cited is hardly the only way misguided internet debaters compare their opponents in some way to Hitler - all of those methods are of course also logical fallacies, but what Godwin's Law describes is just the increasing likelihood that somebody will use Hitler in a logical fallacy as an argument drags on, not any specific logical fallacy involving Hitler.Hubilub said:
Forgot one: Argumentum ad numerum-Appeal to numbers. Basically, the idea that the more people that support an idea or belief, then that idea or belief is correct. Common among Christianity, but I also see Fox News supporters, (and even Fox News themselves), doing this. 'They're the number 1 rated news', 'They have more people watching them', 'They're most trusted name in news'....Yes, that just shows they're popular. Being popular doesn't mean you're correct. Anyone and anything can be popular. There's no skill in it. Slavery, naziism, Brittny Spears, and Halo were all popular at one point or another. Being popular and being correct are two different things. You can be popular AND be correct. But claiming you're correct BECAUSE you're popular is not a defense.
Goalpost moving can get very irritating.
Person A: That chair isn't real.
Person B: Sure it is.
Person A: Okay, prove it.
Person B: *sits in chair*
Person A: That doesn't count! You have to prove it without touching the chair.
Person B: *throws a paper ball, which lands on the chair*
Person A: No, I mean prove the chair exists without interacting with it at all.
Person B: I'm not sure I can do that...
Person A: See? Told you it isn't real.
Person A: That chair isn't real.
Person B: Sure it is.
Person A: Okay, prove it.
Person B: *sits in chair*
Person A: That doesn't count! You have to prove it without touching the chair.
Person B: *throws a paper ball, which lands on the chair*
Person A: No, I mean prove the chair exists without interacting with it at all.
Person B: I'm not sure I can do that...
Person A: See? Told you it isn't real.