Correcting Truthers on logical fallacies

[Brainache]

Oh, Tweeter was seriously trying to pass off Neal Peart lyrics (perhaps from Rush's most well known, internationally loved song) as his own prose?

I thought it was sarcasm / attempted but failed irony, but if he was indeed serious...SHEESH.

It's worse than I thought.

Rush totally ripped off Tweeter, just like Elton John did to REO Speedwagon.

 

[Mr.D]

Wrong, those are my own words.
Must of been a coincidence.

Are you sure you didn't get them from a bunch of physics majors you know?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

WHAT IT ISN'T: RedIbis, take note:

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.

...unless, of course, you believe in the Undead. Or you play as the Necrons in Warhammer 40K. But either way, I think you get my drift. You either believe the FDNY fire chief is lying or you don't.

something ive come to realize is that truthers will turn a non-fallacious dichotomy into a false dichotomy via another fallacy

either X is lying or he isnt. if he isnt lying provide evidence he is telling the truth

the dichotomy offered "either X is lying or he isnt" is not fallacious, the fallacy (equivocation in this case) is introduced in the second statement, which equates "not lying" to "telling the truth" and thus creates a secondary fallacy by making the first statement into a false dichotomy of "lying or telling the truth"


also, not sure if its a specific fallacy, but they try to portray everyone as one of those brown hats that always lie or a white hat that always tells the truth from an old riddle, so if they can show some politician lied (or "didnt tell the truth" as it were) about some trivial aspect of something this is evidence they have lied about anything and everything