Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Gumba Masta]

Does'nt she at least guide the ants to what they do with the use of pheromones?

[MrBogosity]

Only to help find their way back home.

[Gumba Masta]

I thought that's what the ruby slippers where for.

[Travis Retriever]

I thought that's what the ruby slippers where for.

Back on topic Gumba.

[MrBogosity]

Gumba couldn't stay on topic if you super-glued him there.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Anywho, anyone got a name for nitpicking analogies while dodging the actual point of them?

[Travis Retriever]

Anywho, anyone got a name for nitpicking analogies while dodging the actual point of them?

Hmmm..
It sounds like a red herring to me.

[Gumba Masta]

See, I..uh...help out in my own way...yeah that's the ticket. <_<;;

[valvatica]

Anywho, anyone got a name for nitpicking analogies while dodging the actual point of them?

My mom does this a lot; I wish I knew the name for it.

Me: "For example, when Little Caesar's hires people to hold signs out in the intersections, it's on par with telling--"

My mom: "YUCK I HATE Little Caesar's"

MISSED THE POINT.

Also, it's probably obvious but nitpicking an analogy to discuss something irrelevant shouldn't be confused with pointing out why an analogy doesn't work to illustrate a specific point.

[Travis Retriever]

How about this one:

Two people are saying the same thing:  e.g. that the other is wrong, or that one's and not the other's idea/policy/etc is better etc.
The fallacy is blowing both off and not actually examining the facts or arguments based on their own merits.

Does this already have a name?

If not, how does "appeal to same argument" sound?

[MrBogosity]

I don't get what you're talking about. How about a real-world example?

[Travis Retriever]

OK, I'll admit my thought process when wording it wasn't as clear as I would have liked.

Take the example between me, Gumba and the modern liberals he mentions, and the conservatives.

I say, the most evidence is for free markets.
The liberals say that the most evidence is for regulation and their "progressive" policies.
The conservatives say that by having a paternalistic state is the way, and that the evidence is for interventionism.

Gumba, upon seeing all of us saying this, blows all of us off without an examination of the facts, and concludes we're all full of shit.
Basically, it's a golden mean fallacy, only instead of two positions, it can be many, and instead of the middle ground between them, you just blow them all off as wrong.

It's kinda like the flawed thinking by numbers in this video by QualiaSoup:
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5NPpoM5lIQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5NPpoM5lIQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

[Gumba Masta]

You did think it possible that I was trying to pull your leg, yes?

[Travis Retriever]

If you were, then I apologize.
I've heard people making that same argument and mean it.
I guess Poe's Law really does apply to political woes too.

[Gumba Masta]

I know, next time I'll post some links to Dinner Dash porn to make it more obvious.