Political Logical Fallacies We See On This Board

[spectrumc01]

I thought it would be helpful if you had a reference to use to identify the morass of logical fallacies plaguing this board.

Strawman Fallacy: The most common logical fallacy seen on this board. A strawman logical fallacy happens when a trait, characteristic, or belief is falsely attributed to someone without evidence they actually believe what is attributed to them. Very closely associated with Fallacy of the Excluded Middle (see below). This is also the most frequent fallacy one sees on the 24 hour partisan news channels.

Examples:
“The other guys want to destroy America.”
“The other guys will not be happy until we are returned to a feudal state.”



Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Also known as a False Dilemma: Probably the second most common fallacy seen on this board. Assumes that if one is not for something, then one must be in favor of a single terrible alternative.

Examples:
“If you aren’t for us, you are against us and want to destroy America.”
“Politician Murphy is opposed to the Help Save Puppies and Children Act. Therefore Murphy hates puppies and children.”
“If you don’t buy into my crazy idea, you are on the opposite end of the political spectrum as me and you suck!”




Hasty Generalization: A trait attributed to every member of a particular group, frequently for the purposes of taking something from that group.

Examples:
“Poor people want food stamps to buy crack.”
“Rich people got that way by taking advantage of others.”




Argument from Ignorance: A very frequent fallacy on this board. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Stating something as fact without supporting evidence, and then demanding someone provide a negative proof of the claim is a logical fallacy.

Example:
“Congressman Jingle killed his girlfriend. Unless you show me evidence he didn't, I win.”
"How is President Mandingo not a socialist?"
A subset of this fallacy is ipse dixit.





Argument from Authority: Someone whose knowledge in a specific field is used to give undue weight to any subject on which they speak, even if they speak about something outside their area of expertise.

Example:
“Nuclear physicist Jones says the Israelis were behind 9/11.”




Ad Hominem: Attack the person rather than the argument. Another huge favorite here.

Example:
“I am unable to put together a cogent argument for or against a piece of legislation I have never bothered to read since all my valuable time has been taken up creating topics which contain nothing more than links to urban legends, conspiracy theories, and YouTube videos. Therefore, I am just going to call the supporters of the legislation a bunch of socialists/racists/etc.”




Slippery Slope: If something is done, it will inevitably lead to something really, really destructive. This argument is not always wrong. But unless you can connect every single dot from beginning to end with evidence, then the argument is a fallacy.

Example:
“If we pass this bill legalizing Mississippians to drive, then we will have to allow dogs to drive.”





Single Cause Fallacy: Some great societal problem is the result of someone’s pet peeve.

Example:
“One third of all black babies are born to single mothers because of the existence of the Federal Reserve System.”



Association Fallacy: Guilt by association.

Example:
We know all Demopublicans are puppy killers because Demopublican Joe Schmoe was caught throwing puppies into rush hour traffic..




Argumentum Ad Populum: The truth as determined by popular vote. The more people believe a claim, and the more it is repeated (Argumentum ad Nauseam), the more truthful the claim. The only evidence for the claim is how many people believe it and the frequency with which it has been repeated.

Example:
“3 out of 4 people surveyed believe Demopublican John Schnozzle is an Ethiopian. That many people can’t be wrong!”



Appeal to Fear/Emotion: Taking hostages to get what one wants.

Examples:
“If you don’t pass this bill, this cancer lady dies.”
“Unless we allow the President to go to war without Congressional approval, the terrorists win!”
“What about in cases of rape or incest?”


Confirmation Bias: Ignoring the misses, remembering the hits. This is taking all of the fallacies above and constructing a self-contained delusion based on only those news items, emails, and overheard conversations which confirm the construct. All evidence to the contrary is ignored.


.

great read. You can identify all of them by watching FOX, and MSNBC. Leass than half an hour.

Didn't you just commit the Hasty Generalizationfallacy???? by writing "identify ALL of them by watching FOX"..

Well, I took my time comming to that descision, so I wasn't hasty. Yes, "them" was a generalization as I don't know everyone of them personally. My statement "you could identify them by watching FOX and MSNBC" is indeed correct. Watch them for half an hour and you'll see I'm correct. So in this case I must disagree with you.

The problem came in when you read the words, but didn't stop to unbderstand the words.

 

[whitehall]

Damn, if you used that logic on democrat political ads we will have to allow dogs to drive in Mississippi.

 

[g5000]

Damn, if you used that logic on democrat political ads we will have to allow dogs to drive in Mississippi.

 

[Agit8r]

As i understand it, logical fallacy is HOW one can kill 11,000,000 people

If you don't believe me, this one guy with a wholesome down-home voice said it in a video on youtube.

 

[Saigon]

I think the main one on this board is the Refusal to Consider Evidence.

a) Glaciers are actually growing.

b) Well, here is a piece of research which shows that 97% of glaciers are retreating.

a) I just told you that glacier are actuall growing, idiot!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I actually enjoyed reading this. I will consult this often and remind myself. I'll especially consult this when creating my own threads for now on.

I find Confirmation Bias to be the most common problem on this board. I actively respond to every negative to my arguments, instead of ignoring them.

 

[aaronleland]

In my opinion, "fallacy of the excluded middle" is the most common on this board, followed up by a "strawman fallacy".

You don't agree with what I say so you are labeled X, and believe Y.

 

[there4eyeM]

Congrats! This is the truest and at the same time funniest, most enjoyable thread I've seen in a long time!

Notice how I made this statement completely subjective and, thus, avoided all errors mentioned.