Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[AnCap Dave]

I kind of mentioned this complaint in another thread, but I figure it is deserving of becoming a logical fallacy.

I call it, "It's just the internet" Fallacy. Pretty simple. It is basically when a person responds to an argument by claiming that since they are arguing on the internet, it is not meant to be taken as seriously. Usually this is meant to be a cop out. I believe we should also add "I'm just trolling" as a part of this fallacy because it generally goes by the same principle.

[kiri2tsubasa]

I don't know if it has a name but I am calling it the 'Little Guy Fallacy', or 'The Underdog Fallacy'.  Basically you take the side of the 'little guy' because they are the smaller group against the big guy (see Mojang v. Bethesda).  I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that intentionally take advantage of this fallacy ad try to garner some fake emotion from their ignorant fan base.

[MrBogosity]

I don't know if it has a name but I am calling it the 'Little Guy Fallacy', or 'The Underdog Fallacy'.  Basically you take the side of the 'little guy' because they are the smaller group against the big guy (see Mojang v. Bethesda).  I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that intentionally take advantage of this fallacy ad try to garner some fake emotion from their ignorant fan base.

Yes, and this seems to be related to the "They laughed at Galileo" argument. As Carl Sagan pointed out, yes, they laughed at Galileo, but more people laughed at Bozo the Clown. It's basically the flip side of argumentum ad populum.

Anyone know if it has a name already? If not, I'm cool with Underdog Fallacy.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

As someone pointed out, if the underdog actually WAS always the good guy who'd win in the end in a narrow but heartwarming victory, he wouldn't BE the underdog.

[MrBogosity]

This is some kind of corollary of the Nirvana Fallacy or something:

"This works!"

"[example of it not working]"

"Okay, it's not perfect..."

It's like it's ALMOST a Best Game In Town fallacy, except they don't actually state the last part. This is essentially writing off any counter-examples as being freak exceptions.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I LOVE it when people try and pull that "it's not perfect nonsense."

Imagine you come into your store one day to find half the merchandise gone even though you had a security guard there.  Oh and it turns out he didn't merely let the thieves steal it, he freaking GAVE it to them!

Are you going to, for one second, accept "Well I'm not perfect" as an excuse?  So pitiful...

[R.E.H.W.R.]

I've got a new one. The Bioshock fallacy. Its where someone brings up what happened in the game Bioshock as evidence of why libertarianism will lead to social disorder.

[MrBogosity]

I've got a new one. The Bioshock fallacy. Its where someone brings up what happened in the game Bioshock as evidence of why libertarianism will lead to social disorder.

For those of us who haven't played Bioshock, can you explain?

[AnCap Dave]

For those of us who haven't played Bioshock, can you explain?

Looked it up myself. According to this, the libertarianish city state Rapture turns into a massive shit hole full of violent freaks and cannibals. Apparently the idea being that without an all powerful central government, we're all going to hell. That and it basically shits all over the idea of seasteading.

[MrBogosity]

Wait a minute, the game devolves into this violent scenario BEFORE gameplay begins? So no one's even CLAIMING it's a simulation showing libertarianism leading to it? What is this supposed to prove other than the bias of the creators?

[AnCap Dave]

Wait a minute, the game devolves into this violent scenario BEFORE gameplay begins? So no one's even CLAIMING it's a simulation showing libertarianism leading to it? What is this supposed to prove other than the bias of the creators?

Not a god damned thing. Apparently these people believe that if libertarianism took place, this would happen no matter what. To be honest though, this isn't really a new argument from statists. It's just a bit of fiction that they want to point to in order to further that stupid argument.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Wait a minute, the game devolves into this violent scenario BEFORE gameplay begins? So no one's even CLAIMING it's a simulation showing libertarianism leading to it? What is this supposed to prove other than the bias of the creators?

Also, they game has a morality system that contradicts itself. There are these roaming creatures called Big Daddies who protect creatures that look like little girls called Little Sisters. If you kill a Big Daddy, you can either harvest the Little Sister to make the game easier or let her go. The thing is that Big Daddies don't attack you unless you attack them first, so either way, you're the one in the wrong.

[VectorM]

Well, the game is about Objectivism specifically, not libertarianism. It has a lot of the anti-libertarian clinches, like being able to buy guns and ammo from vending machines, etc.

And I am actually not sure if the game was honestly trying to critique objectivism/libertarianism, because it really does a shit job with it. Basically, the reason why the world went to shit, was because people found these super addictive sea ocean plants that would give you super powers. It's basically like when people say "Well, if Armageddon, how would libertarianism handle that, huh!?!??!?". You have ultra addictive drugs that also give you the power to lift heavy objects, of course that would turn ugly. How the hell is ANY system supposed to handle that properly? What would a democrat do exactly? Regulate them? Ban them? We all know how well that works. It doesn't.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Every now and then, I run into arguments that seem like definitive fallacies, but I can't find them listed anywhere and I think they should be formalized. Have you ever run into anything like that? If so, post it in this thread, and we'll discuss whether it really is a fallacy, if so, has it been named, and if not, what should we call it?

Here's one I keep running into: Argument from time/appeal to past/appeal to modernity: This is evaluating something based solely on when the idea is introduced.

It could be an appeal to past: "Acupuncture is over 2,000 years old! It wouldn't have been around all that time if it didn't work!"

Or an appeal to modernity: "What, you want the government of our founders? That's so 18th Century! Get with the times! Socialism is more modern--you don't want to go backwards, do you?"

I can't see any way this isn't fallacious. So, what do you think? What should it be called?

And what other unnamed fallacies have you run into?


Okay, here's the fallacies we have so far:

• Appeal from time (argumentum ad tempus)
• The Homework Fallacy
• Appeal to complication
• Argument from etymology (argumentum ad etymologia)
• Appeal to slavery (argumentum ad servitus)
• Original Sin Fallacy
• Appeal to idealism
• Ad hominem recursus
• Argumentum ad cutandpaste
• Piety Fallacy
• Appeal to precedent
• Appeal to majority
• False conspiracy
• The Best Game In Town Fallacy
• Remedy by Decapitation Fallacy
• Over Nine Thousand Fallacy
• The Democracy Fallacy (courtesy Downsize DC Foundation)
• The Null Comparison Fallacy (aka The Tide Paradox)
• The Underdog Fallacy

What the best way to counter the appeal to modernity fallcy? I get it alot in debates about guns.

[MrBogosity]

What the best way to counter the appeal to modernity fallcy? I get it alot in debates about guns.

Well, you could point out that it's an automatic loss: gun control was around longer than the Second Amendment. That's WHY there was a Second Amendment to begin with!

Statists like to think they have a modern 20th Century idea. The more we point out that their system has been tried for millennia and failed, the more progress we'll make.