• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Logical Fallacy Pisses You Off Most

Rob Lister

Unregistered
R
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
8,504
What logical fallacy /debating technique pisses you off the most. I'm not going to make this a poll because I only have about ten options. For me it is the intentional strawman and/or intentional derail. I've been guilty of both strawman and derail in the past but never for the explicit purpose of changing a subject I wasn't comfortable in discussing.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Edit to add: the Data Dump comes in a very close second. The Debate by Link a close third. Intentional obtuseness comes in fourth I suppose.
 
I would say it was the "ad hominem" fallacy, if you weren't too STUPID and EVIL to understand why... :p
 
Skeptic said:
I would say it was the "ad hominem" fallacy, if you weren't too STUPID and EVIL to understand why... :p
Click to expand...

I actually like the ad hom. It lets me know I'm on the right track.
 
Ad hom, for being totally friggin' unnecessary. Which isn't to say I've never committed it.

Tu quoque pisses me off because it just feels so playground and there's a fine line between that and honestly pointing out hypocrisy.
 
I don't know if there is an abbreviated term for the logical fallacy that pisses me off most.

It is basically someone making a claim that has no evidence to support it, and then using that claim as evidence for yet another claim, and then using that claim as evidence for a third claim, ad infinitum.

In order to deconstruct the final claim, you have to deconstruct a mountain of "supporting evidence" which each require their own deconstruction. Requires a superhuman effort.

It is easy to make a claim and believe it based on absolutey nothing more than a desire to believe the claim. Deconstruct it requires a lot more effort. So paranormal believers can outpace you without breaking a sweat.

Very frustrating.
 
Luke T. said:
I don't know if there is an abbreviated term for the logical fallacy that pisses me off most.

It is basically someone making a claim that has no evidence to support it, and then using that claim as evidence for yet another claim, and then using that claim as evidence for a third claim, ad infinitum.

In order to deconstruct the final claim, you have to deconstruct a mountain of "supporting evidence" which each require their own deconstruction. Requires a superhuman effort.

It is easy to make a claim and believe it based on absolutey nothing more than a desire to believe the claim. Deconstruct it requires a lot more effort. So paranormal believers can outpace you without breaking a sweat.

Very frustrating.
Click to expand...

That one pisses me off too. I don't think I'm guilty of that one.

I'm not sure it's a technical case of a logical fallacy but the one I engage in most -- am most guilty of -- is 'scab picking'. That's why I like it when others use ad homs; the use of such usually points to a freshly scabbed wound. So I pick it a bit and see if I can get some blood and puss to run. If so, I can pick it a bit more and see if it causes a total bleed-out. It has on occasion and it was so satisfying (as any scab-picker knows) that it encourages me to do it in other debates.

It generally does not resolve any debate so it is a fallacy. I would apologize but I'm not a wuss so I refuse to do so. :)
 
call me crazy, but...

Poisoning the Well.

It is insiduous right from the start, as you must enter into a debate trying to overcome a 'deficit' even before you even state your case.

Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into falling for an ad hominem fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
BTW, DataNation has a good review of logical fallacies.

Interesting thread, Rob Lister, but does it belong here within the Politics subheading?


{{{ edited to correct live links }}}
 
I don't know the technical term, but the one that goes "You say that, and these other people say that as well, and they say these other things so you're saying those other things as well". That one. Another one that pisses me off the most is "You made this mistake, so you're mistaken about everything".
 
Ex post facto

I like this one because for some reason I always find it humorous although ad hominem is annoying and usually an act of desperation.
 
Re: call me crazy, but...

webfusion said:
Interesting thread, Rob Lister, but does it belong here within the Politics subheading?
Click to expand...

The forum is titled Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues. This is probably the most social issue this forum engages in. Yes, I think it belongs here. If a moderator wishes to move it to the community, I've got no beef.
 
Luke T. said:
I don't know if there is an abbreviated term for the logical fallacy that pisses me off most.

It is basically someone making a claim that has no evidence to support it, and then using that claim as evidence for yet another claim, and then using that claim as evidence for a third claim, ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
That's "iterative begging of the question". (Iteration, n. : see Iteration). Also known as "surfing the asymptote".
 
CapelDodger said:
That's "iterative begging of the question". (Iteration, n. : see Iteration). Also known as "surfing the asymptote".
Click to expand...

Wow. You seem smart. What the technical term for scab picking?
 
I don't know what it's called, or if it's technically a logical fallacy, but what irritates me is the lumping together of widely different things as if they were the same. Especially when it happens so often that the items become rhetorically linked through sheer habit. Like how some of the people who oppose gay marriage keep bringing up bestiality and polygamy. It always reminds me of one of Chesterton's Father Brown stories, where Father B goes off on how mad it is to conflate all the sins together, thinking that the miser will be a spendthrift the next day, and that the idle layabout will dash around being a seducer en masse as well.
 
Appeal to ignorance of this flavor:

Psychics exist.

Me: I don't think so.

Prove that they don't exist!!
 
CapelDodger said:
What the hell is that in layman's terms?
Click to expand...

Where you discover an emotional weakness of the person you are debating relating directly to the debate and you pick at it until he becomes irrational. The irrational behavior then leads to more picking, more irrational behavior, etc. This is not done to resolve the issue but simple for the fun of it. There must be a term for it because it happens on school playgrounds and presidential debates everywhere.
 
Rob Lister said:
Where you discover an emotional weakness of the person you are debating relating directly to the debate and you pick at it until he becomes irrational. The irrational behavior then leads to more picking, more irrational behavior, etc. This is not done to resolve the issue but simple for the fun of it. There must be a term for it because it happens on school playgrounds and presidential debates everywhere.
Click to expand...

Campaign Debates 2007

Clinton: And I say my opponent has no call to question my commitment to the defense of the nation, because he peed his pants in third grade, right on the playground, and everyone called him Pee-pee Pants for five years after that!

Frist: Waaaaaaah! No fair! I'm going to KILL YOU ALL! Rrraarrr!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Campaign Debates 2007

Clinton: And I say my opponent has no call to question my commitment to the defense of the nation, because he peed his pants in third grade, right on the playground, and everyone called him Pee-pee Pants for five years after that!

Frist: Waaaaaaah! No fair! I'm going to KILL YOU ALL! Rrraarrr!
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not a terrible simplified example. For a real one I would have to get (or seem) partisan and provide an example from the last debates (but the attempt failed). We'll go with yours. There are many, many, many examples on this board (Mycroft is particularly skilled in this type of fallacy -- if it is one -- but he does it with such style and class that I don't fault him, nay, I strive to learn from him).
 
Is there a technical term that describes an attempt to dismiss an argument because it was at one time used by other, bad, people. e.g. "That's exactly what Hitler said!"

Then there is the straw man, but with a twist. True straw men are annoying, but on these forums the term is abused regularly to refer to any simplification or misuderstood aspect of an argument.

A: It's clear that left handed golfers should be banned from the course after 4:00, for safety reasons.

B: A is nuts. He thinks it will reduce injuries if we ban people who golf with a certain hand in the afternoon.

A: B, you ignorant slut. I didn't say in the afternoon, I was specific about after 4:00 p.m. and not just any hand, but specifically the left hand. All you are doing is constructing a straw man!

Is there a term for a fallacy that consists of inaccurately accusing someone else of employing a fallacy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom