Name That Logical Fallacy Game.

[danydandan]

So Rules are:

1: Submit a comment, post or argument. Does not have to be from this website.

2: Keep the comment, post or argument anonymous. 

3: Comments, posts or arguments must have informal and/or formal fallacies.

4: You need to name the exact fallacy, not just that it's a formal or informal fallacy. For example if it's a strawman or ad homin or argument from authority.

I'll start:

Karen: I am sorry, but if you think man used to ride dinosaurs, then you are obviously not very well educated.

Kent:  First of all, I hold a PhD in creation science, so I am well-educated.  Second of all, your ad hominem attack shows that you are wrong, and man did use to ride dinosaurs.

Karen:  Getting your PhD in a couple of months, from a “college” in a trailer park, is not being well-educated.  My fallacy in no way is evidence for man riding on dinosaurs, and despite what you may think, the Flintstone’s was not a documentary!

Name that fallacy people.

[psyche101]

Formal? 

[psyche101]

Your honor... 

This man is a vital part of our community, he is a loving caring father and an outstanding husband. You cannot possibly determine a verdict of 'guilty' 

........... 

[danydandan]

20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Formal? 

It is but I was hoping for something more specific. The example I gave is a fallacy fallacy or argument from fallacy fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy 

Edited November 6, 2018 by danydandan

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It is but I was hoping for something more specific. The example I gave is a fallacy fallacy or argument from fallacy fallacy.

Well aren't you hard to please!!!! 

Your poor wife

JK

Its a fallacy fallacy because despite the content of the debate Karen's statement is true? 

Edited November 6, 2018 by psyche101

[danydandan]

29 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well aren't you hard to please!!!! 

Your poor wife

JK

Its a fallacy fallacy because despite the content of the debate Karen's statement is true? 

Not quite,

Karen’s ad hominem fallacy in her initial statement has nothing to do with the truth value of the argument that man used to ride dinosaurs.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Not quite,

Karen’s ad hominem fallacy in her initial statement has nothing to do with the truth value of the argument that man used to ride dinosaurs.

What if its taken as a statement of fact? It is true. If one thinks man rode dinosaurs, one is highly unlikely to have been exposed to an educational background, as there is hard evidence to dispel such claims, and unlikely to be skilled in critical thinking. 

[danydandan]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What if its taken as a statement of fact? It is true. If one thinks man rode dinosaurs, one is highly unlikely to have been exposed to an educational background, as there is hard evidence to dispel such claims, and unlikely to be skilled in critical thinking. 

That's not the issue, the issue is regarding her deflection of his statement, rather than actually arguing against the point she attacks him instead. 

 

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your honor... 

This man is a vital part of our community, he is a loving caring father and an outstanding husband. You cannot possibly determine a verdict of 'guilty' 

........... 

Token endorsement fallacy, that one is.

[danydandan]

There may even be technologically superior cycles Man has been in, historically. For instance, should UFOs be real, there might be a good chance, using this theory, that they are our Human cousins.

From the threads here. Can you name that logical fallacy?

[Ozymandias]

19 hours ago, danydandan said:

There may even be technologically superior cycles Man has been in, historically. For instance, should UFOs be real, there might be a good chance, using this theory, that they are our Human cousins.

From the threads here. Can you name that logical fallacy?

This is an example of an appeal to ignorance ('argumentum ad ignorantiam'). We don't actually know whether man has enjoyed periods of superior advancement in the past but are being asked to assume it in order to make the case being proposed.

How about this one, so dear to the deluded denizens of the Opening Gambits Brexit thread:

'No deal is better than a bad deal'.

 

[danydandan]

59 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

This is an example of an appeal to ignorance ('argumentum ad ignorantiam'). We don't actually know whether man has enjoyed periods of superior advancement in the past but are being asked to assume it in order to make the case being proposed.

How about this one, so dear to the deluded denizens of the Opening Gambits Brexit thread:

'No deal is better than a bad deal'.

 

Stupid brexit people's.

That's a relative privation fallacy, I believe. Also can be seen as an argument from ignorance too I suppose.

Edited November 13, 2018 by danydandan

[psyche101]

On 11/6/2018 at 10:34 PM, danydandan said:

That's not the issue, the issue is regarding her deflection of his statement, rather than actually arguing against the point she attacks him instead. 

 

He's a creationist but

That counts surely. 

[psyche101]

On 11/7/2018 at 12:53 AM, danydandan said:

Token endorsement fallacy, that one is.

There's more fallacies than you can poke a stick at! Gets confusing for me. 

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

There's more fallacies than you can poke a stick at! Gets confusing for me. 

There is a new one called a Jimmy Saville argument. 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

There is a new one called a Jimmy Saville argument. 

Sorry, I'm too thick to pick up the reference, all I know is he is something like England's Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby. 

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Sorry, I'm too thick to pick up the reference, all I know is he is something like England's Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby. 

Rolf Harris was an Aussie wasn't he?  

But Jimmy Savile was a bigoted pedophilic groper. The Jimmy Savile argument is a dismissal of crimes or act, just because they occurred in a different time period. 

Basically it was ok to call an African an N word back in the sixties or something. But it's not ok today. But in reality it was never ok to do. 

 

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Rolf Harris was an Aussie wasn't he?  

Yeah, Jake the Peg, he was a bit of a national icon. It was hard to believe. 

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

But Jimmy Savile was a bigoted pedophilic groper. The Jimmy Savile argument is a dismissal of crimes or act, just because they occurred in a different time period. 

Crikey  I thought that might have been a play on words

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Basically it was ok to call an African an N word back in the sixties or something. But it's not ok today. But in reality it was never ok to do. 

I don't quite understand that. Culturally it's accepted amongst each other, but not from other races. Did you hear about that Kendrick Lamar incident? I found that all very confusing. 

[danydandan]

7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Did you hear about that Kendrick Lamar incident? 

Nope, who is that and what was it?

[Ozymandias]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Stupid brexit people's.

That's a relative privation fallacy, I believe. Also can be seen as an argument from ignorance too I suppose.

Yes, although I'm also inclined to view it as an appeal to ignorance in so far as the proposition is indeterminable without knowing what a no deal will actually mean in reality.

[psyche101]

22 hours ago, danydandan said:

Nope, who is that and what was it?

Kendrick Lamar put a white fan in check over the N-word. Here's the reasoning

[danydandan]

Everything that exists has been designed dany. Your shirt. Your house. Your body. Your existence. Your life. None of it is an accident. 

Name That Logical Fallacy!

[Ozymandias]

On 11/19/2018 at 9:12 PM, danydandan said:

Everything that exists has been designed dany. Your shirt. Your house. Your body. Your existence. Your life. None of it is an accident. 

Name That Logical Fallacy!

I would say it is a non sequitur, or in modern parlance a 'slippery slope' fallacy. Possibly also false generalisation.

[danydandan]

Yeah to both I think. Definitely a non sequitur. 

Good job on that curry debate by the way, very interesting reading. 

[psyche101]

On 11/20/2018 at 7:12 AM, danydandan said:

Everything that exists has been designed dany. Your shirt. Your house. Your body. Your existence. Your life. None of it is an accident. 

Name That Logical Fallacy!

The Will Due fallacy. 

I think he's earned it!