Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

I have become quite convinced logical fallacies are 9/10ths of trolling.

[Lord Shonus]

There's another one that annoys me, but I can't think of the proper name for it. It goes like this:


You spend more money/effort on X than I do
My needs are met
You therefore need to stop spending so much money/effort because your situation and needs are of course identical to mine in every way

Or, even more commonly,

We spend more money/effort on X than you do
Your needs are met
We therefore need to stop spending so much money/effort because our situation and needs are of course identical to yours in every way


One very common example of this:

"Why do you use space heaters and window air conditioners? We just use the furnace and central air!"

"My house is over a century old, leaky, and larger than it needs to be. It works better if we just heat or cool the room we're currently using instead of the whole house."

"That's so stupid! It only costs us $150 dollars a month to heat our little, very modern house. If it costs you more than that, you must be doing something wrong!"

[Bauglir]

I have become quite convinced logical fallacies are 9/10ths of trolling.

Are made up statistics a logical fallacy somehow? I don't think so, but they would make this post (as well as this post) so wonderful if they were.

[Aqizzar]

I once saw a flamewar wherein one party provided sources to support their claims, without prompting for sources.  The opposing side labeled said citations as a logical fallacy, in the form of "appeal to authority".

No shit.  That's exactly what "authorities" are for, to be appealed to, because they are widely and demonstrably recognized as knowing what they're talking about, so that you don't have to.  That's why we have experts in the first place, instead of learning everything in the world ourselves and relying on everyone else in the argument to do the same.

I don't know if calling something a "logical fallacy" as a way of diverting an argument is itself a logical fallacy.  I bet it is, the list is pretty much all-inclusive.

[noah22223]

Random uber-christian yells at me because I tried weed once. I didn't get addicted, but I was high as hell. she was yelling about how I was tainting my body and whatnot, when I asked her this;

"If god created everything, then he must have created weed, right?"

She has a mind-blue screen of death before starting off, giving me the ugliest damn stare ive ever seen.
By the way, I despise drugs. Its just kinda hard to keep up your will when your surrounded by about 30 people all chanting 'Light it!'.

[Leafsnail]

I don't know if calling something a "logical fallacy" as a way of diverting an argument is itself a logical fallacy.  I bet it is, the list is pretty much all-inclusive.

Fallacist's fallacy is kindof like that but for genuine fallacies ("Proposition X is wrong because person Y arguing for proposition X made a fallacy").  I guess it would be fallacist's fallacy with an incorrect premise (and with an intent to distract).

[Blargityblarg]

Yeah, I guess there's quite a lot of nationalist tension there. But what would your Greek teacher call the residents of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? FYROMians?

He calls them Slavs.

[klingon13524]

 

Actually the 4th one is completely valid logic if you're prepared to equate "Bible" with "scripture" (there might be some significance in those words I'm missing though).  The problem is that the first premise is untrue (and would have to be reached by association fallacy again).

For the purposes of my proofs, yes the scripture means the Bible. It wouldn't be good writing form (is that what it's called?) for me to use the word Bible 3 times in a row somewhat close together, I mixed things up a little bit. Observe the differing lengths of sentences in this post. See?

[Glowcat]

I once saw a flamewar wherein one party provided sources to support their claims, without prompting for sources.  The opposing side labeled said citations as a logical fallacy, in the form of "appeal to authority".

So they thought since there's a fallacy dealing with Appeals to Authority, all forms of authority-based sources were wrong? *facepalm*

It's only when said Authority wouldn't apply that it's an Appeal to Authority fallacy.