Commonly abused logical Fallacies..

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Darker in the general aspect, as in the fall of society. The fall of humanity in response to the decay. I feel that society, like an ecosystem responds to stimulus and change, and evolves. I think humans are beyond the peak, and on their way out. That we will change, and evolve. Whether or not we will retain our consciousnesses about existence, is a whole other matter.

That's pretty low on my list of things to be concerned about.

Change can't be avoided, and as a matter of fact, I don't think modern American conservatism has much of an interest in stewardship, which would be something I could find merit in. They talk a good game about balancing the budget when they're out of power, but then they keep running up the deficit anyway once they get the reigns. I think the last President to actually balance the budget was Bill Clinton. There's also the matter of natural resources, which again, they show no interest in, probably because the politicians can't line their pockets as easily that way.

In the U.S., it's less about protecting and safeguarding things of value, and more about hitting the (very expensive) panic button every time something that seems weird comes along.

 

[Maou]

That's pretty low on my list of things to be concerned about.

Change can't be avoided, and as a matter of fact, I don't think modern American conservatism has much of an interest in stewardship, which would be something I could find merit in. They talk a good game about balancing the budget when they're out of power, but then they keep running up the deficit anyway once they get the reigns. I think the last President to actually balance the budget was Bill Clinton. There's also the matter of natural resources, which again, they show no interest in, probably because the politicians can't line their pockets as easily that way.

In the U.S., it's less about protecting and safeguarding things of value, and more about hitting the (very expensive) panic button every time something that seems weird comes along.

The budget is something that isnt a real concern. The problem is the constant erratic change of personality that pays off the loans in the form of different political parties in power.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The budget is something that isnt a real concern. The problem is the constant erratic change of personality that pays off the loans in the form of different political parties in power.

My point exactly. It's not something conservatives actually care about.

 

[Norexan]

Because of peer pressure, and you yourself changing and becoming comfortable with your way of life.

For example, you do not choose to step on the ants on the ground. But to move forward, even if you try to avoid ants. You will step on a few. It is an act of "evil", but it is also a part of life. It is the only way to move forward. Power is the same way. Humans get caught up in the results, not the means used to get there. It is easy to ignore suffering you do not have to see. If you enjoy the results or benefits, it is even easier.

No one is evil for the sake of evil. Everyone usually thinks they are the good guy. But everyone can be a villan in someone else's story. So I think it is better to not get caught up on morality to rationalize anything.

You miss the point...

Just because someone has a gun that doesn't mean he will kill you! Power itself is not a treat but what you do with that power. Read how many nukes we have on planet and get to the real world. Grow up!

But everyone can be a villan in someone else's story

Justification of your own stupidity. I have seen it many times.

 

[Maou]

You miss the point...

Just because someone has a gun that doesn't mean he will kill you! Power itself is not a treat but what you do with that power. Read how many nukes we have on planet and get to the real world. Grow up!




Justification of your own stupidity. I have seen it many times.

I think you are thinking too small. I am not talking on the scale of physical violence. I am talking on the scale of taking action on a scale that its impossible to determine the exact affects on people involved, such as government or policy creation. Everything has unintentional consequences. If you think you can wield any power without affecting anyone negatively. You are the one naive.

 

[Norexan]

I think you are thinking too small. I am not talking on the scale of physical violence. I am talking on the scale of taking action on a scale that its impossible to determine the exact affects on people involved, such as government or policy creation. Everything has unintentional consequences. If you think you can wield any power without affecting anyone negatively. You are the one naive.

That's what I am talkin' about. We have 10.000 nuke warheads. Now let's nuke some city to demonstrate our power. Very responsible.

People must work on their morality, be more smart, care more about consequence of their actions. If not so we are doomed. Why? Because most of our leaders are just arrogant idiots and I don't give them an aquarium of fishes to care!

 

[The Cat]

The world doesn't respond well to my nonsense. Clearly the world is broken.

 

[Maou]

That's what I am talkin' about. We have 10.000 nuke warheads. Now let's nuke some city to demonstrate our power. Very responsible.

People must work on their morality, be more smart, care more about consequence of their actions. If not so we are doomed. Why? Because most of our leaders are just arrogant idiots and I don't give them an aquarium of fishes to care!

I think you severely underestimate the intelligence and morality of the common man. No one wishes for the death of anyone. But when it comes to us vs them, you will surely wish you were part of us. No matter the cost of the war. War is inevitable, it is human nature. Concepts such a peace is just means to rationalize the periods in between wars. It was never about morality. It was never about who was right or wrong. It was always about who was left. Which is why in fact, that our fate as a species lies on the shoulders of people who do not give a single fuck. But if you vote carefully enough, you will be fine.

 

[Norexan]

I think you severely underestimate the intelligence and morality of the common man. No one wishes for the death of anyone. But when it comes to us vs them, you will surely wish you were part of us. No matter the cost of the war. War is inevitable, it is human nature. Concepts such a peace is just means to rationalize the periods in between wars. It was never about morality. It was never about who was right or wrong. It was always about who was left. Which is why in fact, that our fate as a species lies on the shoulders of people who do not give a single fuck. But if you vote carefully enough, you will be fine.

I don't underestimate because common men are imbeciles. If they aren't system of voting would work. But it doesn't. Imbeciles vote for imbeciles. And then imbeciles cause the havoc on the world. And for what? Ideology? No. For economic desires. They will burn everything to the ground, they will cause civil war in some country only because of economics. I don't have a problem dying for higher purpose because it is a honorable death. But dying for someone's full pockets? No. It is foolish.

 

[Tomb1]

Probably slippery slope because that's the one at the heart of arguments accepted by Christians for the resurrection (and there's like, what, a billion of 'em).

Its one thing to say that a character Jesus in the bible rose from the dead. Quite another to go from that to the conclusion that this actually occurred in real life.

That maneuver is worse than a slippery slope...it's a steep hill covered in a thick sheet of black ice.

 

[The Cat]

I don't believe in a thing. Therefore said thing does not exist. This is rational.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh, there's whataboutism. I am really sick of this in political discourse. It may have already been mentioned here.

 

[Cellmold]

I think in day to day life one of the most common ones I encounter is the fallacy of relative privation..or more commonly known as the "not as bad as" fallacy.

It's one thing to suggest that people should be more grateful when complaining about comparatively minor issues, it is something else entirely to use that comparison to ignore or dismiss actually doing something about the issue. Or intellectually dishonest people who love to use this to make anyone voicing dissatisfaction feel guilty when they themselves are known to voice similar complaints about even less extreme circumstances.

An example I've used before is that of a parent using 'starving African children' as a way to guilt their children into eating all of their food, even if they claim they are full. Sure, the child could be spoilt and trying it on to get something sweet and gratifying, or maybe the parent knows from experience that they might be hungry later, but that doesn't change the fact that the parent has no intentions of doing anything to help any starving children. They have a different agenda, with its roots in control and convenience.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Non sequitur in the form of "it's the current year/decade/century"

Stating the current year, decade or century is not a solid basis for an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I'm guilty of this one: Appeal to novelty - Wikipedia Just because something is shiny and new doesn't mean it's good.

Reversal of the appeal to tradition, a fallacy I see used a lot by social conservatives. Just because something was done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it was a good or sound way.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Non sequitur in the form of "it's the current year/decade/century"

Stating the current year, decade or century is not a solid basis for an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I'm guilty of this one: Appeal to novelty - Wikipedia Just because something is shiny and new doesn't mean it's good.

Reversal of the appeal to tradition, a fallacy I see used a lot by social conservatives. Just because something was done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it was a good or sound way.

Oooh, don't forget appeal to nature!

 

[The Cat]

I don't remember it that way. So it didn't happen that way.

 

[FemMecha]

I think in day to day life one of the most common ones I encounter is the fallacy of relative privation..or more commonly known as the "not as bad as" fallacy.

It's one thing to suggest that people should be more grateful when complaining about comparatively minor issues, it is something else entirely to use that comparison to ignore or dismiss actually doing something about the issue. Or intellectually dishonest people who love to use this to make anyone voicing dissatisfaction feel guilty when they themselves are known to voice similar complaints about even less extreme circumstances.

An example I've used before is that of a parent using 'starving African children' as a way to guilt their children into eating all of their food, even if they claim they are full. Sure, the child could be spoilt and trying it on to get something sweet and gratifying, or maybe the parent knows from experience that they might be hungry later, but that doesn't change the fact that the parent has no intentions of doing anything to help any starving children. They have a different agenda, with its roots in control and convenience.

Oh I hate that one too!! If it actually makes someone feel better, then that seems a little sick to me. Why would hearing about horrible suffering make me feel better? Maybe it assumes that people think their own suffering is the only one happening in the world, but that takes a phenomenally stupid, self-centered person to think that. I'm always a little sad because my brain will continually glimpse sufferings, and sometimes getting caught up in my own nonsense hurts less than looking at the whole of the suffering in the world. All I know is that the approach you describe is the surest way to send me into depressive thinking if I'm not already there. I have never understood why anyone would think that's a good idea.

 

[Vendrah]

I think in day to day life one of the most common ones I encounter is the fallacy of relative privation..or more commonly known as the "not as bad as" fallacy.

It's one thing to suggest that people should be more grateful when complaining about comparatively minor issues, it is something else entirely to use that comparison to ignore or dismiss actually doing something about the issue. Or intellectually dishonest people who love to use this to make anyone voicing dissatisfaction feel guilty when they themselves are known to voice similar complaints about even less extreme circumstances.

An example I've used before is that of a parent using 'starving African children' as a way to guilt their children into eating all of their food, even if they claim they are full. Sure, the child could be spoilt and trying it on to get something sweet and gratifying, or maybe the parent knows from experience that they might be hungry later, but that doesn't change the fact that the parent has no intentions of doing anything to help any starving children. They have a different agenda, with its roots in control and convenience.

Oh I hate that one too!! If it actually makes someone feel better, then that seems a little sick to me. Why would hearing about horrible suffering make me feel better? Maybe it assumes that people think their own suffering is the only one happening in the world, but that takes a phenomenally stupid, self-centered person to think that. I'm always a little sad because my brain will continually glimpse sufferings, and sometimes getting caught up in my own nonsense hurts less than looking at the whole of the suffering in the world. All I know is that the approach you describe is the surest way to send me into depressive thinking if I'm not already there. I have never understood why anyone would think that's a good idea.

That happens against me too and I feel pretty much the same way.
Some people had been even using that with good intentions in their argument for seeing the bright side of things, like "at least you are not a starving". I always said that it just makes me feel worse...

 

[typologyenthusiast]

[MENTION=39833]Ravenn[/MENTION]eta, [MENTION=15392]Cellmold[/MENTION], [MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION], red herring?

 

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=39833]Ravenn[/MENTION]eta, [MENTION=15392]Cellmold[/MENTION], [MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION], red herring?

The second part of my post probably is, but I find that the thinking that results in the fallacy of privation can lead to the second based on the context. Because human beings are only partly logical, this seems an area worth considering. Especially since we are discussing 'commonly' abused fallacies, as common invites an explanation of why they are common and, as such, they may be tied to other areas of behaviour and thinking in their common use.

But perhaps this thread is intended to be purely about the fallacies themselves. This is a good demonstration that it is difficult to escape committing a fallacy at some point.

Although it appears that a few of us found some similarities in experience, which might lend itself towards this being a common occurrence and maybe it is more suitable to the thread after all.