Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

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

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.

Right on cue, I got the Micheal Moore, "If the Founding Fathers had seen an automatic gun, they would have banned them."

Mentioned that autos are already illegal and Criminals have no problem getting ahold of them. He somehow turned into a rant about how Americans have an unhealthy relationship with guns.

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

What is it when people say That Americans are too dumb to legalize drugs?

[tnu]

Hey Shane I have to ask. Is this a fallacy n its own right with/without a name or is it just a variation on Broken Window? Like my mother argues "without ObamaCare I would never get the treatment I need" or "Without government programs you would have never gotton the treatment you needed." Same with the "government is the only thing keeping business/the rich from doing htis bad thing."

Essentially  raising the question of "How do you know that? What are you comparing it to?"

[MrBogosity]

Hey Shane I have to ask. Is this a fallacy n its own right with/without a name or is it just a variation on Broken Window? Like my mother argues "without ObamaCare I would never get the treatment I need" or "Without government programs you would have never gotton the treatment you needed." Same with the "government is the only thing keeping business/the rich from doing htis bad thing."

Essentially  raising the question of "How do you know that? What are you comparing it to?"

It's an unfounded assertion. Although it is employed quite a bit; maybe it does deserve a name of its own.

My favorite rebuttal to this: the Smithsonian was working on heavier-than-air flight when the Wright Brothers made their historic flight. Let's say a family emergency kept them in Ohio, and the Smithsonian ended up inventing the airplane. Would you then say that without government we wouldn't have powered flight?

[MrBogosity]

It's an unfounded assertion. Although it is employed quite a bit; maybe it does deserve a name of its own.

How about, Overlooked Alternative?

[tnu]

sounds about right.

[tnu]

I've got another one. Reductio ad religio. Comparing your opponents views or arguments to those of religion in an attempt to discredit them. What do you think? I just noticed when a guy on another baord I frequent accused everybody that was opposed to gun control of being homophobic young earth creationists.

[MrBogosity]

I used to think Claus Larsen was the only one dishonest enough to make this argument, but I'm seeing it more and more lately: demanding a peer-reviewed scientific source for something that is completely inappropriate for that. Claus first did it to me when he was defending his beloved Denmark's regulation that gasoline should be at least 92 octane. I pointed out that this is a waste of money for people with cars that only require 86 octane, and he claimed that the higher octane somehow made the engine run better. I schooled him on it, but he said he wouldn't budge unless I could find a peer-reviewed scientific source showing that a car that requires 86 octane runs no better on 92 than 86. I kid you not!

But now I'm seeing it more and more with statists. Case in point, that integralmath video about "Libertooning" whatever. I explained, thoroughly and logically, to ExtrackterYT that it is logically impossible for the exercise of one person's freedoms to interfere with another (and that's absolutely what property rights are for). He responded with, "show me a peer reviewed paper on this of what you're certain before I decide even to comment on it."

Or, same video, when I explained to TDDMS--and cited numerous economics sources for support--that cost is considered to be other things in addition to money (like time and effort), and he demanded a peer-reviewed source showing this.

Thoughts? Ideas what to call it?

[MrBogosity]

Another one I've seen a lot, most recently on Jacob Spinney's video Reply to your comment on: Why Libertarianism Is Not Idiotic: the insistence that libertarianism and objectivism are synonymous. I'm thinking of calling it "argumentum ad aynrandium."

Of course, there's an overlap between objectivism and libertarianism, but libertarians don't believe everything objectivists do and objectivists don't believe everything that libertarians do.

It's kind of like invoking Hitler to make your opponents seem worse than they really are.

[Altimadark]

IntegralMath's poorly parsed "libertarian" video made me aware of one I call argumentum ad pactum, or "appeal to contract." It might be the inverse of appeal to slavery; where appeal to slavery denounces some social or economic theory by comparing it to slavery (wage slavery argument), appeal to contract supports government expansion or regulation by comparing it to a contract ("Love it or Leave it" argument).

[Interstate317]

One fallacy that keeps rearing its ugly head is a fallacy I call "The fixed starting point fallacy" Its a modified version of the correlation causation fallacy.

Here is a real world example

liberal: "For the last 30 labor unions have been destroyed and income inequality has gone up."

At first it just seems like a correlation causation fallacy. But here is the twist.

income inequality started to go up in 1980, but labor union participation had declined since 1953. In fact, the percent of the workforce in a union went from 35% in 1953 to 20% to 1980. The person merely claims that they started at the same time to make it APPEAR that there is a correlation! In this sense the starting point of event A is "fixed" to the starting point of event B to create the illusion they started simultaneously.

a modified correlation causation fallacy indeed.

[MrBogosity]

income inequality started to go up in 1980, but labor union participation had declined since 1953. In fact, the percent of the workforce in a union went from 35% in 1953 to 20% to 1980. The person merely claims that they started at the same time to make it APPEAR that there is a correlation! In this sense the starting point of event A is "fixed" to the starting point of event B to create the illusion they started simultaneously.

a modified correlation causation fallacy indeed.[/size]

It's a form of cherry-picking. Global Warming deniers do this: "We've been cooling since 1998!" (Yeah, cos 1998 happens to be the hottest year on record. Why not pick 1997, or 1999?) Or OSHA advocates: worker safety has been improving since government created OSHA. But if you extend the graph farther back, worker safety was improving at the same rate before OSHA was created. OSHA did absolutely nothing to change the situation one way or the other.

Good to see you here, finally!

[MrBogosity]

There definitely needs to be one for where the person simply restates the claim while ignoring the counter-arguments. Any ideas?

[Travis Retriever]

There definitely needs to be one for where the person simply restates the claim while ignoring the counter-arguments. Any ideas?

Brick Wall Fallacy?

[MrBogosity]

Brick Wall Fallacy?

Teflon Fallacy? 'Cause the counter-arguments just aren't sticking.