What do you think is the most common logical fallacy used in this subforum?

[shortylickens]

Circle Jerk would be Bandwagon or Appeal to Majority.

 

[woolfe9998]

Many of these fallacies overlap in execution. Hard to pick between strawman and ad hominem.

Personally, I often appeal to emotion and use analogy to question an argument. I'm not sure that that's fallacy. If the appeal to emotion is because I believe their emotion is clouding objectivity, is that a fallacy?

No, but pointing out that someone is biased by emotion could be considered an ad hominem if you do not address the merits of their argument. The fallacy of appealing to emotion means trying to persuade someone with an emotional appeal rather than a logical one. Politicians do this all the time.

If the analogy fits the original argument instead of a distortion of it but is made to make reasoning more clear or remove emotional charge, is that a straw man?

No. False analogies are fallacious. Good ones are not.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The biggest logical fallacy is those who evoke logical fallacies.

The common ones I encounter:

Ad hominem (attacking the arguer)

Pooh-pooh (dismissive arrogance)

Argumentum ad populum (the bandwagon or circle jerk effect)

 

[interchange]

No, but pointing out that someone is biased by emotion could be considered an ad hominem if you do not address the merits of their argument. The fallacy of appealing to emotion means trying to persuade someone with an emotional appeal rather than a logical one. Politicians do this all the time.

Yeah I'm not sure how much I appeal to emotion itself versus try to make emotion already expressed but perhaps disguised part of the discussion. I'm usually not trying to argue against someone, though. I think without settling the emotional content it's a barrier to addressing the actual argument. I have found myself being attacked for disagreeing with a position that I've been very clear in supporting because I'm trying to do that.

No. False analogies are fallacious. Good ones are not.

Cool. Hard to argue that your analogy is a good one if someone calls it a straw man, though.

 

[bshole]

The biggest logical fallacy is those who evoke logical fallacies.

The common ones I encounter:

Ad hominem (attacking the arguer)

Pooh-pooh (dismissive arrogance)

Argumentum ad populum (the bandwagon or circle jerk effect)

Is appeal to consequences always a fallacy? For example, if there is no God. then nothing we do matters objectively is a logical fallacy in arguing for God's existence. However is it a logical fallacy to argue that if we do X it will result in the extinction of mankind?

 

[Moonbeam]

While I generally agree about the importance of tamping down our own hubris and acknowledging our limitations, the danger of your argument is that it can lead to the conclusion that we're all equally ignorant. In fact, there is such a thing as objective reality, and in fact, some people seem to have a better handle on it than others.

Love you woolfe. We always come to this basic impasse. There is a rational dualistic way to view this and a third way I might be tempted to call mystical. It is clear that some people are more objective than others or about some things more than others, but no matter the degree of objectivity, the feeling that one is the one true objective person in the world persists for almost everybody no matter how objective or biased they may actually be. In both cases there is a kind of certainty that is sacred and can't or won't easily be let go of.

When I was young, for example I believed there was an ultimate good and set out to prove it exists. I failed and died of a broken heart. The universe is cold and empty and cares not a whit about anybody or anything. Only in that empty lonely place of hopeless misery where all my dreams lay dead in utter defeat, did I notice that like the universe, love doesn't care or need a reason to be. It just is, always has, and ever will be. The empty cup fills itself. This is the truth, not of knowing, but of being. It is a state filled with presence, unity, without division or thought. You could call it riding the God wave but you only talk about surfing when you're not surfing. You don't say to yourself when you are surfing that you are surfing. You are surfing. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Politics makes no sense in that place. And if somebody yells, hey man you're not surfing and the words penetrate, you might answer, yeah, I right, I'm picking my nose. Who gives a shit what anybody thinks when you're surfing........ What the fuck do they know. Exactly, what they think they know but have no idea about.

 

[ivwshane]

Circlejerkism.

Just because 5 or so cowards all lick each other's.. oops I mean like each other's posts doesn't mean they're actually right about anything. So many threads are just total sewer echo chambers of nonsense. Pretty much every fallacy in the book is taken in place of any actual argument as long as some people that seem to need it think they are scoring enough circle jerk points.

Would this be considered an ad hominem? To me it is but I think alot of people think calling someone an idiot is (even when the poster responds/addresses the point).

 

[justoh]

It's probably the classic, "appeal to racism." Strawman wins in the most misused/misapplied category (but that could be due to one, single Canadian). And the worst car of 2017 is probably the Nissan Juke.

 

[outriding]

Drunk posting. Shit that makes no sense how you look at it


(I never done that..../)

 

[zinfamous]

I was going to say it's a hard call between whataboutism or strawmanning.

Lol, that image is great. I love the explanation.

 

[zinfamous]

What is it called (for example) when in the gun rights threads and people talk about banning guns, then some idiot says "WELL SMOKING KILLS 30 BAJILLION PEOPLE A YEAR WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT BANNING CIGARETTES IN HERE?!?!?"

Because I see a lot of that on here.

I think it's hilarious that smoking has replaced toaster fucking around here.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I think it's hilarious that smoking has replaced toaster fucking around here.

It hasn't around here...

 

[Amused]

I think it's hilarious that smoking has replaced toaster fucking around here.

My toaster fscking smokes.

 

[Kevin Dillon]

To me, I think it's Tu quoque (whataboutism/appeal to hypocrisy). This one derails virtually every discussion here and if I were to offer any advice, it would be to call out the logical fallacy and not respond to the bait.

What are your thoughts? And which others do you find commonly used? How many do you find you yourself make?

Most conversations don’t take place in a strict logical — and thus logical fallacy-sensitive — environment. Providing context, pointing out inconsistencies, those are fair game in most casual interactions. And I love Haspel’s relevant aphorism:

“If A does X, and you ignore it, and B does X, and you condemn it, one may infer that you have more interest in A and B than in X.” Aaron Haspel​

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Both sides!

To me nearly all of those arguements are about someone they like doing something they don’t like or are having trouble justifying the ethics of doing so.
They fallback on but Both Sides! instead of telling the truth which is usually easier but less comfortable

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Both sides!

To me nearly all of those arguements are about someone they like doing something they don’t like or are having trouble justifying the ethics of doing so.
They fallback on but Both Sides! instead of telling the truth which is usually easier but less comfortable

Sometimes there is an appeal to a logical fallacy when one may have a legitimate reason.

Let's say that Johnny hits Jimmy and that is the "thing of the day". Someone says "well yeah but Jimmy has been pummeling people for years and here are examples. Perhaps the issue goes beyond just Johnny and Jimmy".

BOTH SIDES!

What is something called when someone cries "logical fallacy" when related issues are mentioned without obvious intent to mitigate or justify?

 

[realibrad]

A lot of people seem to have a problem calling things logical fallacy while not understanding what is being done.

For example, people get energized when they see what they think is whataboutism. It could be that that was used to disprove a point, or, it could be an attempt for someone to understand the person's position. If you say A happens because of a set of reasons, but, B also happens which seems to conflict with A, then the what/how about B seems worthy of discussion. It could be that B is not actually in conflict with A, and that the underlying system that produces A and B is stable, or, maybe not. The moment people see B brought up, they label it whataboutism or Both sides and use that to dismiss it.

I just had a discussion with my girlfriend about how she wants vaping to have an age limit of 18, but, she thinks its okay for 17yo and 16yo to be able to have sex with others their age. The reason she said that was because she hates smoking and sees vaping as an extension. So when I asked "what about?" she could have reacted the same way many do here, but, she did not. We had a great discussion over dinner where we examined our values and their origins as best we could.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I just had a discussion with my girlfriend about how she wants vaping to have an age limit of 18, but, she thinks its okay for 17yo and 16yo to be able to have sex with others their age. The reason she said that was because she hates smoking and sees vaping as an extension.

Her reasoning for wanting to limit vaping has nothing to do with teen sex. Your 'what about' was indeed a logical fallacy. That fact that you managed to have an interesting conversation about it does not change that fact. You did not have a logical reason to dispute her reasoning. You could just as easily have said 'what about the chance that a meteor will hit them and they will never get the chance to see how Better Call Saul ends' and it would have made just as much sense and you could have still had a interesting conversation, because all conversations that are Breaking Bad adjacent are interesting.

Logic is not a method to have interesting conversations, it is a method to look for truth.

 

[realibrad]

Her reasoning for wanting to limit vaping has nothing to do with teen sex. Your 'what about' was indeed a logical fallacy. That fact that you managed to have an interesting conversation about it does not change that fact. You did not have a logical reason to dispute her reasoning. You could just as easily have said 'what about the chance that a meteor will hit them and they will never get the chance to see how Better Call Saul ends' and it would have made just as much sense and you could have still had a interesting conversation, because all conversations that are Breaking Bad adjacent are interesting.

Logic is not a method to have interesting conversations, it is a method to look for truth.

You are wrong. They are connected because of the underlying belief that young people should be protected from themselves. I think you are proving my point perfectly.

If you believe vaping should be limited to people 18yo or older, then you are doing so because you think vaping is or could be harmful. You thus want someone to have sufficient maturity to be able to weigh the pros and cons of their decision. The same thing is true for the age of consent when it comes to sex. The issue then becomes if you believe the age of consent for sex should be younger than the age of vaping, you should have a reason for why.

Both are age limits because you think they are harmful. The question then becomes why do you think one is more harmful than the other. Turns out, she thinks sex has a bigger risk than vaping, and shifted her position. Sex was not used to disprove her previous position. You just cant see how they are connected so you say they are not. Your limitations are your own, and not always shared by others.

 

[UNCjigga]

Usually the argument goes something like "someone [irrelevant] with liberal views said/did something dumb, therefore all liberals are dumb and cannot be trusted in public office."

 

[realibrad]

Usually the argument goes something like "someone [irrelevant] with liberal views said/did something dumb, therefore all liberals are dumb and cannot be trusted in public office."

You included "liberals" but really, you could take out that and make it true for a lot more of what people do here.

 

[Thebobo]

What is it called (for example) when in the gun rights threads and people talk about banning guns, then some idiot says "WELL SMOKING KILLS 30 BAJILLION PEOPLE A YEAR WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT BANNING CIGARETTES IN HERE?!?!?"

Because I see a lot of that on here.

that would be second hand smoking

 

[pmv]

Her reasoning for wanting to limit vaping has nothing to do with teen sex. Your 'what about' was indeed a logical fallacy. That fact that you managed to have an interesting conversation about it does not change that fact. You did not have a logical reason to dispute her reasoning. You could just as easily have said 'what about the chance that a meteor will hit them and they will never get the chance to see how Better Call Saul ends' and it would have made just as much sense and you could have still had a interesting conversation, because all conversations that are Breaking Bad adjacent are interesting.

Logic is not a method to have interesting conversations, it is a method to look for truth.

I think I disagree - there probably isn't, really, a fundamental, entirely-logic-based way to decide 'the truth' regarding at what age one attains adulthood with the ability to make adult choices. It's always going to be a culture-dependent question (though I suppose improved scientific knowledge about brain-development comes into it a bit).

And hence it's commonplace for such arguments to involve references to the inconsistencies we have about the topic. E.g. here it used to be allowed to join the army (and even, at one time, be sent into combat, though that changed at some point) at 16, while you couldn't vote or buy alcohol till 18 (but you could consent to sex at 16). People noted that was a bit inconsistent. Generally the trend, though, has been to slowly increase the age for 'adulthood' for most things, but there's always been an odd-mishmash of age-cut-offs and I don't think it's fallacious for people to argue there should be some consistency there.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You are wrong. They are connected because of the underlying belief that young people should be protected from themselves.

Not unless she used that as her argument. If her argument was basically 'I want to limit the age of vaping because I hate smoking and want to do everything I can get away with to limit it' it has nothing to do with sex or age of consent, it is about limiting vaping with arbitrary rules. Logic only has to be internally consistent, not externally.

If you believe vaping should be limited to people 18yo or older, then you are doing so because you think vaping is or could be harmful.

You are now creating a strawman to justify your whataboutism. That was not her argument. You are creating a argument for her to argue against. You can argue against her premise (I think vaping should be limited because I hate smoking) by questioning the validity of that statement, but it is a logical fallacy to say 'what about sex' to that argument.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think I disagree - there probably isn't, really, a fundamental, entirely-logic-based way to decide 'the truth' regarding at what age one attains adulthood with the ability to make adult choices. It's always going to be a culture-dependent question (though I suppose improved scientific knowledge about brain-development comes into it a bit).

Any logical argument is only as good as it's premises. Start with premises that are opinion and you end up with a conclusion that is an opinion. Logic give us a way to test that the conclusion is internally sound to the premises. It tells us nothing about how true it is to the outside world.

If something eats kibble it is a cat.
If a dog gets hungry enough it will eat kibble.
Therefore some dogs are cats.

This is a logical argument that proves that some dogs are also cats. It is perfectly logical, and stupid.