Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[valvatica]

How about, where they keep going on about "I don't have time to sit here typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you," when they do, in fact, have time to sit there typing post after post saying why they don't have time to sit there typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you.

That needs a REALLY good name, IMO.

This is related to those commenters saying that that particular comment they're currently typing will be their "last word" on the subject/argument because they have to go do something, yet will continue to make subsequent replies to subsequent comment replies because they can't stand not having the last word.

The "Last Word" fallacy? The "Cherry on Top" fallacy (they have to "finish" the topic / have the absolute last word on the topic / put the finishing touch on it)? A lot of silly names I've been throwing around lately for sure, maybe some of them will bear fruit, it's worth a try  

[Gumba Masta]

Yes, or the Global Warming BS: "We don't have time to figure out of we're right! We need to act NOW!"

(Um, if you don't know that you're right, how do you know your proposal will have the effect you want?)

Hmm, you don't know where you're going but you want to go there anyway... How about "Moleman Effect"?

[MrBogosity]

How about, where they keep going on about "I don't have time to sit here typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you," when they do, in fact, have time to sit there typing post after post saying why they don't have time to sit there typing post after post giving you evidence or trying to explain it to you.

That needs a REALLY good name, IMO.

What about, "Traditional 'First Avoidance' Maneuver" (from The Road to El Dorado)?

[valvatica]

This one might lead to others. I've seen it far too many times.

The inevitability for the opponent to explain that "unlike you, I have a life and am not on the computer all day", "well I'd blah blah blah but you obviously spend a lot more time on the computer than I do", "you only know that because you have no life and don't leave your computer", "why don't you leave your computer for once and you wouldn't be so blah blah blah", "instead of bitching about things, why don't you do something for once and make an impact on the world", etc. It's similar to pot calling the kettle black, but on a specific criterion. This can even be between two people who are jocks, or spend so much as one minute more on the computer than the other, or have a proven track record of infrequent updates (whether a video maker or merely a commenter), and so on. The low-blow aspect of this fallacy is that if the person making the accusation of the other having "no life" was truly on higher ground they wouldn't be participating in the discussion in the first place! If you're going to join, you forfeit your right to resort to last-ditch efforts. The accused isn't going to feel compelled to "prove" to you that they indeed have a life and then subsequently run a marathon, squat 500 lbs., whiz through a soup kitchen and help the needy at the speed of light, go ballroom dancing and make his way up the bar skank ladder, and plant trees all along the waterfront in order to fulfill some arbitrary real-life (well, anything that's not being on the computer) quota that you, the opponent, has set. It's a loaded statement, similar to asking "why are you so defensive?" There's no way the accused can answer without fulfilling the trap you've set.

Candidates thus far:
Rickets Fallacy (staying indoors too much as a computer user would)
Captain Planet Fallacy (the accused must be outdoors saving the world before bedtime instead of doing what he's currently doing, even though you as the opponent are also doing what he's currently doing)
Merit Badge Fallacy (the accused has to have done at least as much as you in "real-world-y" stuff or he loses because of the fact he's on the computer)

[Travis Retriever]

Here's another one that should probably be added: argument from etymology. I run into this now and again; it's when someone tries to refute someone's argument by using the origin of a word, rather than the common definition.

Kent Hovind probably has the most (in)famous use when he claimed "universe" came from "uni," meaning "single," and "verse," meaning "spoken sentence," so we live in a "single spoken sentence," "God said."

Of course, "verse" does not mean "spoken sentence," it means "turn," and universe literally means, "all turned into one." But here's the thing: even if what he said were correct, it would still be completely irrelevant.

The word "influenza" comes from "influence," because people used to believe that illness was caused by the influence of the stars. "Disaster" as well means "bad star." But people don't believe in astrology, nor is astrology true, just because people still use the words.

We can say "sunrise" and "sunset" without being geocentrists. We can say "Thank God" without being theists. The origin of a word or phrase doesn't necessarily match its current usage, and no one should be held responsible for its origin when using it in a modern context.

As I've said before, be careful with this one.
Atheism
A - without
Theism - belief in gods.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

This one needs a name.

Using different words, often incorrectly, to sugar coat something.

Using the word sacrifice in place of stealing/extortion to make taxes sound noble being the prime example.

The term sacrifice implies something given up personally and voluntarily so using it to sugar coat taxes is quite dishonest.

[MrBogosity]

Isn't that just newspeak?

[BZ987654]

Has anyone said "being Ray Comfort".

That's a logical fallacy 

[AHPMB]

This one needs a name.

Using different words, often incorrectly, to sugar coat something.

Using the word sacrifice in place of stealing/extortion to make taxes sound noble being the prime example.

The term sacrifice implies something given up personally and voluntarily so using it to sugar coat taxes is quite dishonest.

I think Daniel Dennett had a great term for these: "Deepities"  Where you attempt to use obscurantism and rhetorical flourish to disguise the fact that you're logically incoherent.  The term Greater Good is a fantastic example.  Greater Good all too often means us at the expense of you.

[MrBogosity]

Has anyone said "being Ray Comfort".

That's a logical fallacy 

No, that's a deep-rooted psychological disorder.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I got a new one...

The Decapitation Remedy Fallacy

The argument that because there are people who do X and X is a bad thing, the solution is to give the government the power to do X to a far greater extreme.  I call it this because I equate with curing a headache by decapitating yourself.  Not medically advisable...

Example: EEEEEEVIL business men will buy all the water companies and charge us outlandish prices for them!  The solution: Give the government a violent monopoly on water services which will inevitably flush more and more tax dollars down the drain but hey, at least the EEEEEVIL business men won't gouge us!

[Travis Retriever]

I got a new one...

The Decapitation Remedy Fallacy

The argument that because there are people who do X and X is a bad thing, the solution is to give the government the power to do X to a far greater extreme.  I call it this because I equate with curing a headache by decapitating yourself.  Not medically advisable...

Example: EEEEEEVIL business men will buy all the water companies and charge us outlandish prices for them!  The solution: Give the government a violent monopoly on water services which will inevitably flush more and more tax dollars down the drain but hey, at least the EEEEEVIL business men won't gouge us!

I like it!
How about "The Remedy by Decapitation Fallacy"?
It makes it more obvious by the name in my honest opinion.

[Travis Retriever]

Straw man recursus.

When you are falsely accused by your opponent of straw-manning him.

Example:  [yt]laCYmjUDOvk[/yt]
Half the comments left by Nightmare060 when he's corned.

[MrBogosity]

Here's one I see a lot:

"Eleventy-bajillion people have died within one month after eating bread! Eating bread is fatal!"

Now, of course, there are a lot of fallacies here: correlation/causation, misunderstanding the nature of statistics, etc. But the one I want to focus on comes at the beginning, where a Really Big Number is mentioned.

One example from Neil deGrasse Tyson was when he was called to Jury Duty and sat through a reading by the judge where the defendant was caught with 2000mg of cocaine (which is, of course, 2g).

In a society of 300 million people, you're GOING to find people who are killed by vaccines or whatever. Of course, the number needs to be taken into the proper context--but these people don't do that, choosing instead to spout out the Really Big Number for shock value. That's the fallacy I want to name.

But all the good names seem to be taken. The Fallacy of Large Numbers is when anomalous results are presented as not being normal. It's related, but I'm talking about the tactic of scaring people with the Really Big Number (e.g., 2000mg instead of 2g).

Other examples are where aggregate results of unacceptable things appear acceptable, or a regression to the mean, etc. Again, not what I'm referring to here.

So, unless anyone can find somewhere where this tactic is already named, or can come up with something better, I'd like to tip a hat to 4chan and call it the Over Nine Thousand Fallacy.

[Travis Retriever]

So, unless anyone can find somewhere where this tactic is already named, or can come up with something better, I'd like to tip a hat to 4chan and call it the Over Nine Thousand Fallacy.

I love you for that. 

If not, I was thinking of calling it, "appeal to numeric fear" fallacy or something like that.
But the "Over Nine Thousand Fallacy" sounds awesome too.