05-01-2012, 08:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2022, 02:22 PM by Dekalb_Blues.)
Regarding Logical Fallacies
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Samson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
"Ahh, every time you think you weaken the nation!"
--- Moe Howard, to Curly Howard
"In order to understand ideas at least brains are needed."
--- Oswald Spengler
"Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."
--- Arthur Schopenhauer
❦
THE EXCELLENT LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES:
BUT WHICH FALLACY IS ITSELF MOST EXCELLENT?
[Found at
http://blog.geekpress.com/2006/09/excell...iesad.html ]
Ad Hominem:
This is the best logical fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, with someone like you, it's only to be expected.
Affirming the Consequent:
If it is proven that Affirming the Consequent is the best, then I will be very happy. I am feeling very happy, so obviously Affirming the Consequent is the best fallacy.
Appeal To False Authority:
Your logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all -- because Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this one is better.
Appeal To Emotion:
See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad leaving and refusing to support us, and me with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to get proper schooling. So really, if you look deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my fallacy here is the best.
Appeal to Fear:
If you don't accept Appeal to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON. Do you want that on your conscience, that THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON because you were a pansy who didn't really think that Appeal to Fear was worth voting for, and you wanted to vote for something else? Of course not, and neither would the people you let die because THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
Appeal to Flattery:
If you agree with me that Appeal to Flattery is the greatest fallacy, it shows that you are intelligent and good looking and really good in bed. And a snappy dresser
Appeal To Force:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Force is the greatest logical fallacy, I will kick your ass.
Appeal to Ignorance:
No one has been able to prove that another fallacy is better than Appeal to Ignorance, so it must be the best.
Appeal To Majority:
Most people think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.
Appeal To Novelty:
The Appeal to Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best.
Appeal To Numbers:
Millions think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.
Appeal to Pity:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think how it will hurt the feelings of me and the others who like it!
Appeal To Tradition:
We've used Appeal to Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be wrong?
Argumentum Ad Nauseam:
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Bandwagon:
It's obvious that Bandwagon is going to win as the greatest fallacy. You wouldn't want to be one of the losers who choose something else, would you?
Begging The Question:
Circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Since it can prove anything, it can obviously prove the above statement.
Since it can prove the first statement, it must be true.
Therefore, circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Biased Sample:
I just did a poll of all the people in the "Biased Sample Fan Club" and 95% of them agree that Biased Sample the best fallacy. Obviously it's going to win.
Burden Of Proof:
Can you prove that Burden of Proof isn't the best logical fallacy?
Complex Question:
Have you stopped beating your wife and saying Complex Question isn't the best fallacy?
Composition:
Each of the other fallacies suck. The Fallacy of Composition is therefore better than the whole lot of them combined.
Denying the Antecedent:
If Denying the Antecedent were not the best fallacy, then I would be sad. I am actually in quite a good mood right now, so obviously Denying the Antecedent is the best.
Division:
This is the best list of fallacies. It follows that there could be no better description of the Fallacy of Division than this.
Equivocation:
The best fallacy is on this list.
Equivocation is on this list.
Therefore, the best fallacy is equivocation.
Fallacy Fallacy:
Some have argued that the Fallacy Fallacy couldn't be the best fallacy because some arguments for it being the best fallacy are themselves fallacious. Clearly, this is a fallacious argument, from which we can only conclude that the Fallacy Fallacy is indeed the best fallacy.
False Analogy:
Just as the jelly donut is the best donut, so too is False Analogy the best fallacy.
False Dilemma:
I've found that either you think False Dilemma is the best fallacy, or you're a terrorist.
False Premise:
All of the other fallacies are decent, but clearly not the best as they didn't come from my incredibly large and sexy brain.
Gambler's Fallacy:
In all the previous talks about this subject, Gambler's Fallacy lost, so I just know the Gambler's Fallacy is going to win this time because it's the Gambler's Fallacy's turn to win!
Guilt By Association:
You know who else preferred those other logical fallacies?
[*insert pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot here*]
Hypostatization (personification):
Go, Hypostatization Fallacy, you can do it! If you just try hard enough you can be the best fallacy there is! Oh come on now, don't look at me like that.
Non Sequitur:
Non Sequitur is the best fallacy because none of my meals so far today have involved asparagus.
Phallic Fallacy
My argument's bigger in scope, harder-headed in rationality, and longer-lasting -- more upstanding in every way than yours -- as I relentlessly probe for the inevitable chink in even the most seemingly impregnable logical matrix.
Post Hoc/False Cause:
Since I've started presuming that correlation equals causation, violent crime has gone down 54%.
Red Herring:
They say that to prove your fallacy is the best requires extraordinary evidence, because it's an extraordinary claim. Well, I'd like to note that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is itself an extraordinary claim.
Relativism:
Well maybe all those other fallacies are the best for you, but to me, the relativist fallacy is the greatest logical fallacy ever.
Slippery Slope:
If you don't like Slippery Slope arguments, you will do poorly in class, drop out of school, commit crimes, go to prison, and die of AIDS.
Special Pleading:
I know that everyone is posting about their favorite fallacies, but Special Pleading is out-and-out the best, so it should just win with no contest.
Straw Man Argument:
Apparently you think the Straw Man Argument is bad because you have something against the Wizard of Oz. Well, you know what? It doesn't have anything to do with the Wizard of Oz! Therefore, the Straw Man Argument must be the best fallacy.
Use/Mention:
If I mention the idea that "the use/mention fallacy is the best fallacy" then the use/mention fallacy is the best fallacy.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
MORE EXCELLENT LOGICAL FALLACIES, YET
[Found at http://funnyclassnotes.blogspot.com/2007...acies.html ]
No doubt about it. Knowing the names of logical fallacies makes us seem smarter and sparkles up our repartee. Not content to just use the old school fallacies, we went to the FCN Lab and discovered a healthy passel of new ones. We publish our results here for the benefit of the general intellectual community....
Learn them well, then incorporate them in your everyday conversations.
1) Plurium Stupidium: Fallacy of Much Stupidity. Consists of several stupid comments improperly grouped into one. Often, a single refutation is expected against all the nonsense.
Examples:
"Gas prices are so low today that I think I'll fill every container in my house to make my own strategic oil reserve by stockpiling all the gas in that nook next to the fireplace."
"We should let women rule the world because they drive cars better."
"I've decided to spend the rest of my life sitting right here and eating this cheese."
2) Petitio Kapowio: Fallacy of Begging to get Socked in the Nose. Consists of defending a position in a really irritating way, such that the opponent has no choice but to point out the logical error in a very physical and satisfying fashion.
Examples:
"Bring it, punk."
"Well, I'm right, and that's just how it is."
"Why are you REALLY arguing with me? Is it because you're scared?"
3) Retardio Terminorum: Fallacy of Retarded Terms. Consists of a categorical syllogism that has retarded terms.
Examples:
Major Premise: That's lame.
Minor Premise: Lame is pathetic.
Conclusion: You're lame.
Major Premise: White is the new black.
Minor Premise: Silver is the new gold.
Conclusion: I'll buy that one.
Major Premise: Nothing is too good for the king.
Minor Premise: A bowl of oatmeal is better than nothing.
Conclusion: A bowl of oatmeal is too good for the king.
4) Consensus Minoritum: Appeal to Minority. The inverse of Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum.). Consists of an argument supported by its own lack of support.
Examples:
"That's what they all say. I can't believe you fell for it, too."
"The court ruled 8-1. The dissenting opinion, however, has some very choice arguments in support of my position."
"We'll never win this election unless we can befriend minorities."
5) Argumentum Dementum: Fallacy of Arguing from a Position or State of Dementia. Consists of arguments which accidentally make no sense and are not the fault of the arguments themselves. Argumentum Dementum is a very hard fallacy to spot.
Examples:
Major Premise: All cats are animals.
Minor Premise: Ginger is an animal.
Conclusion: Teeheehee!
"Due to my incredible good looks, remarkable intelligence, contagious charisma, discriminating good taste, and skill with a joystick, I will take over the world at this time tomorrow, and anyone who wants to stop me can ... teeheehee!"
A = B
B = C
Therefore, A = Teeheehee!
6) Terminorum Confusium: Fallacy of Confusing Terms. Consists of arguments expressed in confusing ways. This often involves mathematical notation. It is designed to block the opponent from effective response.
Examples:
If no birds are dogs, no dogs can fly, no birds can swim, some fish can fly, no dogs are fish, some dogs can swim, no fish are birds, and all fish can swim, then all birds can fly.
A = B
B ⊄ C
B ⊄ D
D ⊂ either B or C
C ≠ A
B ⇒ A ⇒ C
D = B ≡ C ≠ D
B ¬ C
Therefore, A ∀ B := C ∃! D.
If aggregate assessment driven system development can only be optimized under synergistic group-based outcome models, then growing functionalities on core competencies will only recontextualize pre-existing proactive relationships rather than enhancing holistic cross-circular networks.
7) Refutatum ad Mortem: Fallacy of Arguing a Point to the Death. Consists of an argument issued from the mouth of one who has been arguing so long he no longer knows what he is saying.
Examples:
"I'm not sure what you just said because my ears are ringing so loud from all the caffeine, but I'm sure it's wrong."
"Just oooooooooooooooooooone more jelly donut. Then I'll stop. This time I mean it. I'm really going to stop."
"Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ... Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ... Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ..."
8) Ipse Dimwit: Fallacy of Appealing to a Dimwit. A subset of Argument from Authority; occurs when the cited authority is a dimwit.
Examples:
"Homer Simpson once said: 'Bart, with $10,000, we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of useful things like ... love!'"
"Homer Simpson once called beer the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems."
"Homer Simpson once said that weaseling is what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel."
9) Argumentum ad Baculum Squidium Magnus: Fallacy of Fear of Giant Squid. Consists of an emotional appeal involving a giant squid; this fallacy typically involves said squid falling from the sky. Also known as Secundum Squidium.
Examples:
"I would love to get a driver's license, but I don't want to risk having a giant squid fall on me in the middle of the test."
"You're so obssessed with people starving in Africa. What about those poor people in Quebec? Why, a giant squid could gobble them up at any moment!"
Major Premise: All cows eat grass.
Minor Premise: Betsy is a cow.
Conclusion: However, due to the giant squid, Betsy actually does not eat grass.
10) The Stupid Pants Fallacy. Consists of an argument in which substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to one that is stupid pants. Such arguments often neglect to consider the high prevalence of stupid pants entities.
Examples:
Fact 1: I know who X is.
Fact 2: X is stupid pants.
Fact 3: I do not know who Y is.
Conclusion: Y is not stupid pants.
"My cousin James lives in Iowa. He isn't stupid pants. So I'm going to move to Iowa, where the stupid pants concentration is lower."
If Bob is stupid pants, then Bill is stupid pants. If Bill is stupid pants, then Bob is stupid pants. Bob is not stupid pants. Therefore, Bill is not stupid pants.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK UP THE NUMBER); OR,
SEE, I RUN RINGS AROUND YOU LOGICALLY; OR,
THIRTY-EIGHT WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT--
PER FAS ET NEFAS ["THROUGH RIGHT AND WRONG"] :-)
From Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy:
1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy."
Person B replies, "Oh, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.
[& so on; moar at link]
"As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool — desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la vérité ["Peace is better than the truth"]. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."
--- Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, XXXVIII
❦
==========
I wish to thank Krystal, professional exotic dancer, website designer, programmer, and logician (who taught me about the art of wielding cut-and-pasties for the greater glory of the One [even when it appears as Two]) for her help and inspiration in assembling this post and otherwise improving various shining hours.
How doth the little busy bee
Improve each shining hour,
And gather honey all the day
From every opening flower!
--- Isaac Watts, "Against Idleness and Mischief", from Divine Songs for Children (1751)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Samson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
"Ahh, every time you think you weaken the nation!"
--- Moe Howard, to Curly Howard
"In order to understand ideas at least brains are needed."
--- Oswald Spengler
"Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."
--- Arthur Schopenhauer
❦
THE EXCELLENT LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES:
BUT WHICH FALLACY IS ITSELF MOST EXCELLENT?
[Found at
http://blog.geekpress.com/2006/09/excell...iesad.html ]
Ad Hominem:
This is the best logical fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, with someone like you, it's only to be expected.
Affirming the Consequent:
If it is proven that Affirming the Consequent is the best, then I will be very happy. I am feeling very happy, so obviously Affirming the Consequent is the best fallacy.
Appeal To False Authority:
Your logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all -- because Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this one is better.
Appeal To Emotion:
See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad leaving and refusing to support us, and me with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to get proper schooling. So really, if you look deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my fallacy here is the best.
Appeal to Fear:
If you don't accept Appeal to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON. Do you want that on your conscience, that THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON because you were a pansy who didn't really think that Appeal to Fear was worth voting for, and you wanted to vote for something else? Of course not, and neither would the people you let die because THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
Appeal to Flattery:
If you agree with me that Appeal to Flattery is the greatest fallacy, it shows that you are intelligent and good looking and really good in bed. And a snappy dresser
Appeal To Force:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Force is the greatest logical fallacy, I will kick your ass.
Appeal to Ignorance:
No one has been able to prove that another fallacy is better than Appeal to Ignorance, so it must be the best.
Appeal To Majority:
Most people think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.
Appeal To Novelty:
The Appeal to Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best.
Appeal To Numbers:
Millions think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.
Appeal to Pity:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think how it will hurt the feelings of me and the others who like it!
Appeal To Tradition:
We've used Appeal to Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be wrong?
Argumentum Ad Nauseam:
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Bandwagon:
It's obvious that Bandwagon is going to win as the greatest fallacy. You wouldn't want to be one of the losers who choose something else, would you?
Begging The Question:
Circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Since it can prove anything, it can obviously prove the above statement.
Since it can prove the first statement, it must be true.
Therefore, circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Biased Sample:
I just did a poll of all the people in the "Biased Sample Fan Club" and 95% of them agree that Biased Sample the best fallacy. Obviously it's going to win.
Burden Of Proof:
Can you prove that Burden of Proof isn't the best logical fallacy?
Complex Question:
Have you stopped beating your wife and saying Complex Question isn't the best fallacy?
Composition:
Each of the other fallacies suck. The Fallacy of Composition is therefore better than the whole lot of them combined.
Denying the Antecedent:
If Denying the Antecedent were not the best fallacy, then I would be sad. I am actually in quite a good mood right now, so obviously Denying the Antecedent is the best.
Division:
This is the best list of fallacies. It follows that there could be no better description of the Fallacy of Division than this.
Equivocation:
The best fallacy is on this list.
Equivocation is on this list.
Therefore, the best fallacy is equivocation.
Fallacy Fallacy:
Some have argued that the Fallacy Fallacy couldn't be the best fallacy because some arguments for it being the best fallacy are themselves fallacious. Clearly, this is a fallacious argument, from which we can only conclude that the Fallacy Fallacy is indeed the best fallacy.
False Analogy:
Just as the jelly donut is the best donut, so too is False Analogy the best fallacy.
False Dilemma:
I've found that either you think False Dilemma is the best fallacy, or you're a terrorist.
False Premise:
All of the other fallacies are decent, but clearly not the best as they didn't come from my incredibly large and sexy brain.
Gambler's Fallacy:
In all the previous talks about this subject, Gambler's Fallacy lost, so I just know the Gambler's Fallacy is going to win this time because it's the Gambler's Fallacy's turn to win!
Guilt By Association:
You know who else preferred those other logical fallacies?
[*insert pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot here*]
Hypostatization (personification):
Go, Hypostatization Fallacy, you can do it! If you just try hard enough you can be the best fallacy there is! Oh come on now, don't look at me like that.
Non Sequitur:
Non Sequitur is the best fallacy because none of my meals so far today have involved asparagus.
Phallic Fallacy
My argument's bigger in scope, harder-headed in rationality, and longer-lasting -- more upstanding in every way than yours -- as I relentlessly probe for the inevitable chink in even the most seemingly impregnable logical matrix.
Post Hoc/False Cause:
Since I've started presuming that correlation equals causation, violent crime has gone down 54%.
Red Herring:
They say that to prove your fallacy is the best requires extraordinary evidence, because it's an extraordinary claim. Well, I'd like to note that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is itself an extraordinary claim.
Relativism:
Well maybe all those other fallacies are the best for you, but to me, the relativist fallacy is the greatest logical fallacy ever.
Slippery Slope:
If you don't like Slippery Slope arguments, you will do poorly in class, drop out of school, commit crimes, go to prison, and die of AIDS.
Special Pleading:
I know that everyone is posting about their favorite fallacies, but Special Pleading is out-and-out the best, so it should just win with no contest.
Straw Man Argument:
Apparently you think the Straw Man Argument is bad because you have something against the Wizard of Oz. Well, you know what? It doesn't have anything to do with the Wizard of Oz! Therefore, the Straw Man Argument must be the best fallacy.
Use/Mention:
If I mention the idea that "the use/mention fallacy is the best fallacy" then the use/mention fallacy is the best fallacy.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
MORE EXCELLENT LOGICAL FALLACIES, YET
[Found at http://funnyclassnotes.blogspot.com/2007...acies.html ]
No doubt about it. Knowing the names of logical fallacies makes us seem smarter and sparkles up our repartee. Not content to just use the old school fallacies, we went to the FCN Lab and discovered a healthy passel of new ones. We publish our results here for the benefit of the general intellectual community....
Learn them well, then incorporate them in your everyday conversations.
1) Plurium Stupidium: Fallacy of Much Stupidity. Consists of several stupid comments improperly grouped into one. Often, a single refutation is expected against all the nonsense.
Examples:
"Gas prices are so low today that I think I'll fill every container in my house to make my own strategic oil reserve by stockpiling all the gas in that nook next to the fireplace."
"We should let women rule the world because they drive cars better."
"I've decided to spend the rest of my life sitting right here and eating this cheese."
2) Petitio Kapowio: Fallacy of Begging to get Socked in the Nose. Consists of defending a position in a really irritating way, such that the opponent has no choice but to point out the logical error in a very physical and satisfying fashion.
Examples:
"Bring it, punk."
"Well, I'm right, and that's just how it is."
"Why are you REALLY arguing with me? Is it because you're scared?"
3) Retardio Terminorum: Fallacy of Retarded Terms. Consists of a categorical syllogism that has retarded terms.
Examples:
Major Premise: That's lame.
Minor Premise: Lame is pathetic.
Conclusion: You're lame.
Major Premise: White is the new black.
Minor Premise: Silver is the new gold.
Conclusion: I'll buy that one.
Major Premise: Nothing is too good for the king.
Minor Premise: A bowl of oatmeal is better than nothing.
Conclusion: A bowl of oatmeal is too good for the king.
4) Consensus Minoritum: Appeal to Minority. The inverse of Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum.). Consists of an argument supported by its own lack of support.
Examples:
"That's what they all say. I can't believe you fell for it, too."
"The court ruled 8-1. The dissenting opinion, however, has some very choice arguments in support of my position."
"We'll never win this election unless we can befriend minorities."
5) Argumentum Dementum: Fallacy of Arguing from a Position or State of Dementia. Consists of arguments which accidentally make no sense and are not the fault of the arguments themselves. Argumentum Dementum is a very hard fallacy to spot.
Examples:
Major Premise: All cats are animals.
Minor Premise: Ginger is an animal.
Conclusion: Teeheehee!
"Due to my incredible good looks, remarkable intelligence, contagious charisma, discriminating good taste, and skill with a joystick, I will take over the world at this time tomorrow, and anyone who wants to stop me can ... teeheehee!"
A = B
B = C
Therefore, A = Teeheehee!
6) Terminorum Confusium: Fallacy of Confusing Terms. Consists of arguments expressed in confusing ways. This often involves mathematical notation. It is designed to block the opponent from effective response.
Examples:
If no birds are dogs, no dogs can fly, no birds can swim, some fish can fly, no dogs are fish, some dogs can swim, no fish are birds, and all fish can swim, then all birds can fly.
A = B
B ⊄ C
B ⊄ D
D ⊂ either B or C
C ≠ A
B ⇒ A ⇒ C
D = B ≡ C ≠ D
B ¬ C
Therefore, A ∀ B := C ∃! D.
If aggregate assessment driven system development can only be optimized under synergistic group-based outcome models, then growing functionalities on core competencies will only recontextualize pre-existing proactive relationships rather than enhancing holistic cross-circular networks.
7) Refutatum ad Mortem: Fallacy of Arguing a Point to the Death. Consists of an argument issued from the mouth of one who has been arguing so long he no longer knows what he is saying.
Examples:
"I'm not sure what you just said because my ears are ringing so loud from all the caffeine, but I'm sure it's wrong."
"Just oooooooooooooooooooone more jelly donut. Then I'll stop. This time I mean it. I'm really going to stop."
"Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ... Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ... Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ..."
8) Ipse Dimwit: Fallacy of Appealing to a Dimwit. A subset of Argument from Authority; occurs when the cited authority is a dimwit.
Examples:
"Homer Simpson once said: 'Bart, with $10,000, we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of useful things like ... love!'"
"Homer Simpson once called beer the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems."
"Homer Simpson once said that weaseling is what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel."
9) Argumentum ad Baculum Squidium Magnus: Fallacy of Fear of Giant Squid. Consists of an emotional appeal involving a giant squid; this fallacy typically involves said squid falling from the sky. Also known as Secundum Squidium.
Examples:
"I would love to get a driver's license, but I don't want to risk having a giant squid fall on me in the middle of the test."
"You're so obssessed with people starving in Africa. What about those poor people in Quebec? Why, a giant squid could gobble them up at any moment!"
Major Premise: All cows eat grass.
Minor Premise: Betsy is a cow.
Conclusion: However, due to the giant squid, Betsy actually does not eat grass.
10) The Stupid Pants Fallacy. Consists of an argument in which substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to one that is stupid pants. Such arguments often neglect to consider the high prevalence of stupid pants entities.
Examples:
Fact 1: I know who X is.
Fact 2: X is stupid pants.
Fact 3: I do not know who Y is.
Conclusion: Y is not stupid pants.
"My cousin James lives in Iowa. He isn't stupid pants. So I'm going to move to Iowa, where the stupid pants concentration is lower."
If Bob is stupid pants, then Bill is stupid pants. If Bill is stupid pants, then Bob is stupid pants. Bob is not stupid pants. Therefore, Bill is not stupid pants.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK UP THE NUMBER); OR,
SEE, I RUN RINGS AROUND YOU LOGICALLY; OR,
THIRTY-EIGHT WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT--
PER FAS ET NEFAS ["THROUGH RIGHT AND WRONG"] :-)
From Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy:
1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy."
Person B replies, "Oh, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.
[& so on; moar at link]
"As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool — desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la vérité ["Peace is better than the truth"]. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."
--- Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, XXXVIII
❦
==========
I wish to thank Krystal, professional exotic dancer, website designer, programmer, and logician (who taught me about the art of wielding cut-and-pasties for the greater glory of the One [even when it appears as Two]) for her help and inspiration in assembling this post and otherwise improving various shining hours.
How doth the little busy bee
Improve each shining hour,
And gather honey all the day
From every opening flower!
--- Isaac Watts, "Against Idleness and Mischief", from Divine Songs for Children (1751)
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)