Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Skm1091]

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

Head up the Ass Fallacy?

[dallen68]

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?

Um, actually I believe the Smithsonian was started with a bequest to the United States government to found an institution of learning in Washington, D.C.; so the bogon emitter's answer to your question would be "Yes", and they'd just happen to be right. Not that the "point" isn't valid, but you chose a poor example.

[MrBogosity]

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

[dallen68]

You're argument is "If the Smithsonian institute had invented the airplane without the involvement of the Wright brothers, then the airplane would have been invented regardless of the government." Since the Smithsonian is (sort of) the Government (the exact relationship of the modern Smithsonian is unclear, but a lot of it's financing comes from the public sector), you in fact make the opposite point than the one you are trying to make with you're example.

If you want to use the airplanes, you could have the Wright brothers develop the plane without the government; or, actually better yet have the thing finished by one of the dozen other people that were working on designs at the time.

[dallen68]

Oh, and I like to call the fallacy under discussion the "repeatious verbious " Fallacy. If I keep saying it, it will become true!

[MrBogosity]

You're argument is "If the Smithsonian institute had invented the airplane without the involvement of the Wright brothers, then the airplane would have been invented regardless of the government."

No, it isn't. Reread it. The argument is that if the Smithsonian had invented the plane instead of the Wright Brothers, then statists would be claiming we needed government to invent the plane because the free market couldn't do it.

[MrBogosity]

Oh, and I like to call the fallacy under discussion the "repeatious verbious " Fallacy. If I keep saying it, it will become true!

If we're going Latin, then "iterum dico" (I say again) would be a better name IMO. I'm not even sure "repeatious verbious" is proper Latin.

[Travis Retriever]

If we're going Latin, then "iterum dico" (I say again)

Sounds like a winner to me!

[dallen68]

I was making a word up. I assure you "repeatious verbious" is not proper latin; only English in latin form. I assure you, that the person using the tactic won't know the difference.

Sorry about misunderstanding you're argument.

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

How about the you should be ashamed fallacy?

Where when you say something that another person doesn't like and they respond, "You can't believe that!"

[evensgrey]

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

I noticed this while looking for something else in the thread, and it occured to me that in the case of Government, the actual claim is more like:

"The claimed intentions justify the means, and we get to ignore the actual ends."

After all, how often is it that the claimed intentions are not completely implausible?

[MrBogosity]

Not one we came up with, but give it up for argumentum ad Monsantium!

[Travis Retriever]

Not one we came up with, but give it up for argumentum ad Monsantium!

About fucking time someone made that an official fallacy!

[tnu]

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

I'm pretty sure this already exists. It's called argumentum ad nauseam.

[MrBogosity]

I'm pretty sure this already exists. It's called argumentum ad nauseam.

According to TVtropes, that's "Repeating a statement until nobody cares to respond anymore, then claiming you're right since nobody contradicts you." Not really what I was talking about, although it could lead to that.