Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Travis Retriever]

Is that like a "The end justifies the means" thing or is that the opposite of that? I can't tell.

It's more of a "the intentions justify the results" sort of them.

[MrBogosity]

Actually, it's more like, "The intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."

[Gumba Masta]

So it's more or less the same?

[Travis Retriever]

Actually, it's more like, "The intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."

OK.
Kind of ironic that many leftists will use this, when they would have denounced Bush's "The ends justify the means" policy just a few years ago, eh?

[Gumba Masta]

Would it still apply if you get the desired endresult albeit by somewhat unsanitory methods?

[MrBogosity]

Would it still apply if you get the desired endresult albeit by somewhat unsanitory methods?

Yes, for the same reason that an ad hominem is an ad homiem even if the person being attacked ends up being wrong.

[Travis Retriever]

How about this one:

Conservational cherry picking.

When person uses one example to try to refute something you say, despite you presenting ones that don't fit that.

Example.  On FlowCell's latest video, I'm arguing for anarchy with this douche.
He throws out Somalia and says, "Ah-Ha!  Anarchy, won't work!"  Despite me giving him examples of Anarchic Iceland and Anarchic Ireland, and ignores the others while constantly harping on Somalia and won't even look at the links I posted explaing the increase in standard of living there (and the fact that Somalia is NOT an anarchy...).

[Gumba Masta]

Is it related to things such as selective hearing and selective memory?

[Travis Retriever]

Is it related to things such as selective hearing and selective memory?

Yes.
By his logic (to go with the example to make the fallacy more apparent), I could just point to any of the many States that failed (e.g. Soviet Union) (Cherry picking), use that as an example for why ALL forms of States don't work (composition fallacy and confirmation bias), ignoring all relavent facts about the ones that did far better, or asking WHY they did better, and blowing off whatever people that try to correct me.
You know?

[valvatica]

It just sounds like Confirmation Bias to be. Accept all evidence that favors your position, and ignore all that doesn't support it. Religion in a nutshell.

[Travis Retriever]

It just sounds like Confirmation Bias to be. Accept all evidence that favors your position, and ignore all that doesn't support it. Religion in a nutshell.

Agreed.
There's a reason why Murray N. Rothbard called it "The Cult of the Omnipotent State".

[Gumba Masta]

I heard that state is very popular with the ladies.
Seriously though, I did hear from some studies that women generaly tend to favor a big goverment, that and harder sentences for crimes.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

The Stalin defense

Okay, kinda overly specific but damn if they don't love to hit us with this.  The old chestnut of using Joseph Stalin as an example of atheists behaving badly.

[MrBogosity]

Argumentum ad Stalinum. Related to Argumentum ad Hitlerum.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Didn't study him much, is he even a legit example of atheism gone too far?