Name that logical fallacy

[cannabineer]

"reductio ad Hitlerum", lol

"Godwin's law" is congeneric. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Mentioning Hitler, "playing the Nazi card", is so emotionally and ideologically charged that it can remove a debate from the realm of the rational.

I dare the thread Gestapo to disagree.*

cn

*n.b. I am not making an unpleasant claim about anyone here ... it's my example of the principle!

 

[mindphuk]

False compromise is what I was going for. Argument to moderation can sometimes reach a legitimate compromise. If jack's position is that he wants to use the family computer 100% of the time because he paid for it, and Jill's position is that she wants to use the computer 100% of the time because she pays the rent and electric to facilitate it, an argument to moderation suggests that 50/50 is fair.

The false compromise, or splitting the difference, occurs when the compromise fails to satisfy one or both positions. If Jack wants to go north, and Jill wants to south, going west is a compromise that benefits neither side. If Jack wants to buy a car, and Jill does not, buying half a car satisfies no one. Argument to moderation is invalid if it assumes both positions must be unacceptable, and equal compromise is the only solution. When brought up in the context of fallacy, we assume the mistake has already been made, which is why argument to moderation has become synonymous with false compromise.

I award the point to cannabineer since he was first and the most specific. This means we have a tie!

According to Nizkor, Iron Chariots and wikipedia they are different names for the same fallacy. I think neer deserves the point

 

[Heisenberg]

"reductio ad Hitlerum", lol

"Godwin's law" is congeneric. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Mentioning Hitler, "playing the Nazi card", is so emotionally and ideologically charged that it can remove a debate from the realm of the rational.

I dare the thread Gestapo to disagree.*

cn

*n.b. I am not making an unpleasant claim about anyone here ... it's my example of the principle!

Exactly right. Godwin's law states that as any internet thread grows in length, the chance of mentioning Hitler, Nazi's or the holocaust reaches 1. Some people expand Godwin's law to include any ad hominem attack or false comparison which derails a discussion. For example, if I said "The moderator deleted my post, he might as well be a pedophile", it could also been seen as invoking Godwin's law. This is an obscure detail, but your mention of reductio ad Hitlerum ensures your point, and gives you the lead.

We will now break for intermission until later.

 

[cannabineer]

Very gracious mindphuk! I tried to +rep you, but something about spreading.
Heis, I confess curiosity about judges, plural. I had a GREAT T-shirt that declared "You're just jealous because all the voices are talking to me." cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Very gracious mindphuk! I tried to +rep you, but something about spreading.
Heis, I confess curiosity about judges, plural. I had a GREAT T-shirt that declared "You're just jealous because all the voices are talking to me." cn

I consult judges and award points in much the same manner as Drew Carey.

 

[Heisenberg]

According to Nizkor, Iron Chariots and wikipedia they are different names for the same fallacy. I think neer deserves the point

It's true I tend to be overly fastidious. I have seen a few discussions about the distinction between the two, with most people concluding that there is no distinction. I think I made a good case for a distinction, but perhaps I am adding a layer of redundancy. We could think of an argument to moderation as always saying compromise must be the best solution, in which case it is always invalid. Legitimate compromise is simply that; compromise. Even if the middle ground is sometimes the best solution, it is not always the best solution, which argument to moderation stipulates. I am not sure argument to moderation necessarily stipulates this. That is why I left it up to the judges, which happen to be my cats, so they sided with me.

 

[gfreeman]

dj jesus, he died for your spins.

 

[gfreeman]

View attachment 1804397View attachment 1804395i couldnt find those 'argue about god' threads but i have great memes for when they do reappear.View attachment 1804394

 

[cannabineer]

 

[Heisenberg]

1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".

2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.

3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.

 

[mindphuk]

my answer - generalizing from incomplete information.

 

[Heisenberg]

my answer - generalizing from incomplete information.

Yes but a more specific mechanism is being used. This one is sort of obscure.

Hint: Misapplication of Leibniz' Law

 

[tyler.durden]

1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".

2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.

3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.

That's my favorite, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Can give an air of credibility to even the most batshit arguments...

 

[Heisenberg]

That's my favorite, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Can give an air of credibility to even the most batshit arguments...

I agree. Post hoc arguments can be very convincing. They play perfectly to our intuition and are backed up by confirmation bias. However, none of the above arguments can be reduced to "after this, therefore because of this".

Is that your final answer?

 

[Dr Kynes]

It also doesn't make sense that a species would evolve such a resource intensive organ without specific need. The brain demands constant oxygen and energy. It seems odd that evolution would select to preserve something with 10% efficiency.

and yet our society has evolved to do just that, which explains government bureaucrats.

 

[Dr Kynes]

1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".

2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.

3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.

would that not be the disjunctive fallacy, or assuming facts not in evidence?

when i have to piss my sister is always in the can, thus she has a mind reading ray to allow her to anticipate and prevent my every urination!

 

[tyler.durden]

I agree. Post hoc arguments can be very convincing. They play perfectly to our intuition and are backed up by confirmation bias. However, none of the above arguments can be reduced to "after this, therefore because of this".

Is that your final answer?

Ah, right as usual. Forgive me, I'm so high. You made look at Wiki for the last 30 minutes: Your first example is an epistemic fallacy your second example is the Masked Man fallacy, are all your examples considered Intensional Fallacies?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

great thread

i was informal fallacied(ya i know i should not make up words) earlier tonight . . i felt dirty and used

 

[guy incognito]

This thread is too phallic for my liking.

 

[Heisenberg]

Ah, right as usual. Forgive me, I'm so high. You made look at Wiki for the last 30 minutes: Your first example is an epistemic fallacy your second example is the Masked Man fallacy, are all your examples considered Intensional Fallacies?

They are all in fact variations of The Masked Man fallacy, also known as an epistemic or intensional fallacy. This happens when we misapply Leibniz's law.

Leibniz's law states that two entities can be thought of as identical if their properties are identical. This of course depends on us knowing all the properties of the entity.

1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".

Because Richard Bachaman and Stephen king share the exact same properties they can be though of as the same, however we would be mis-characterizing what Joe meant if we equivocate the two. We can not assume Joe is aware of the identical properties.

2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.

In this case we make the mistake of attributing our knowledge of someone as a property. My mother has the property of being known by me. The killer does not have the property of being known by me. Therefore they can not be the same person. Stated this simply it's an obvious error. But some people are swayed by the following argument.

God is the most perfect being imaginable. The most perfect being imaginable possesses the property of existence, as existing is certainly more perfect than not existing. Therefore God exists.

3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.

Our consciousnesses is like our brain wearing a mask. When we look at the masked version, we do not see the properties that are in fact identical to that of the brain. Until we can demonstrate that the mind has properties distinct from the brain, we can not say they are different. When we damage the brain, we damage the mind, which is evidence that they share identical properties.