Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[Travis Retriever]

I don't remember if anyone else brought this one up, but another one we see from creationists and statists alike: asking a question, not out of genuine inquiry, but with smug arrogance implying that there can be no possible answer, as if the question itself would expose the person as a complete idiot; e.g., "Why are there still monkeys?" or "Who will build the roads?"

Anyway, unless anyone has a better name, I was thinking of calling this "Pulling a Lindy" after Michael Lind.

Sounds like loaded question?  I could be wrong though.

[MrBogosity]

Sounds like loaded question?  I could be wrong though.

No, a loaded question is like, "Have you stopped beating your wife"? It's "loaded" with an unfounded assumption in such a way that one cannot give a "proper" answer to the question without acknowledging the truth of the assumption.

[tnu]

Isn't this just God of the Gaps/State of the Gaps fallacy?

[Travis Retriever]

Well, since no one else is going to list/state this elephant in the room of a fallacy that we've all heard no less than a Googolplex (Google it) of times each day.

Let
X = a government service
and
Y = worst case scenario of removing not just the government service, but all forms of that service whatsoever.
For example, if X is government healthcare, Y is the poor, if not everyone dying of disease in the streets from disease; you get the idea.

libertarian: "I don't think we should have X./X is ineffective or immoral because it involves theft."
statist: "YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE Y!"

Yes, it's technically a strawman, but like with Ad Hominem Tu Quoque being just another form of Ad Hominem, this one comes up so damn often it fucking NEEDS its own name.
I've heard this one called Tin Man Fallacy.  For assuming the libertarian or anyone calling X into question doesn't have a heart.

Or as Stefan Molyneux put the fallacy (in his book The Manual of Human Ownership), the propaganda behind it goes as follows:

1. The government provides service X.
2. If the government does not provide service X, service X will never be provided.
3. Therefore, anyone arguing against the government providing service X is arguing against the necessity or value of service X.
--page 21
which leads to:
4.  Anyone arguing against the necessity or value of service X is therefore evil and should not be trusted/taken seriously, tar and feather him/etc/etc;
Yeah; We've all heard this song and dance before.

[Travis Retriever]

Since I don't have anywhere else to put this--
If it wasn't obvious, this is surhotchaperchlorome.  I decided after manually updating AIM to change my username (on that and on this site) to something a bit more...pronounceable and something easier to refer to me as.

[MrBogosity]

Well, since no one else is going to list/state this elephant in the room of a fallacy that we've all heard no less than a Googolplex (Google it)

I see what you did there.

For the lazy, a googol is 10^10^2 and a googolplex is 10^10^10^2.

1. The government provides service X.
2. If the government does not provide service X, service X will never be provided.
3. Therefore, anyone arguing against the government providing service X is arguing against the necessity or value of service X.
--page 21

It's just Cult of the Omnipotent State again.

[Travis Retriever]

I see what you did there.

For the lazy, a googol is 10^10^2 and a googolplex is 10^10^10^2.

Glad someone got that. ^_^

It's just Cult of the Omnipotent State again.

Not that that makes it any less fallacious.
http://battlestarcatallactica.com/2013/10/31/new-logical-fallacy-proposal-the-tin-man-argument/
Lays it out.  And yes, you're right, but I addressed that (more or less) in my post.  It occurs so often, It fucking *needs* it's own name.  No two ways around it.
And yes, "Tin Man Fallacy" sounds like a good name for it.  I even did a search on this forum for it and didn't find it.  It's time to give it that name!

[Travis Retriever]

Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.

Related to this fallacy in quotes above, how about Appeal to Rape?  Same as above only using rape instead of slavery.
An example would be of feminists saying that pornography is demeaning and anyone supporting it might as well be in favor of objectification and rape of women as sex objects.
And in both cases shitting on the graves and heads of those were really were slaves and raped.  Used primarily by feminists.

[MrBogosity]

http://battlestarcatallactica.com/2013/10/31/new-logical-fallacy-proposal-the-tin-man-argument/
Lays it out.  And yes, you're right, but I addressed that (more or less) in my post.  It occurs so often, It fucking *needs* it's own name.  No two ways around it.
And yes, "Tin Man Fallacy" sounds like a good name for it.  I even did a search on this forum for it and didn't find it.  It's time to give it that name!

Gets my vote!

[tnu]

Glad someone got that. ^_^
Not that that makes it any less fallacious.
http://battlestarcatallactica.com/2013/10/31/new-logical-fallacy-proposal-the-tin-man-argument/
Lays it out.  And yes, you're right, but I addressed that (more or less) in my post.  It occurs so often, It fucking *needs* it's own name.  No two ways around it.
And yes, "Tin Man Fallacy" sounds like a good name for it.  I even did a search on this forum for it and didn't find it.  It's time to give it that name!

Fredric Bastiat actually covwers this one in his book "The Law"

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

[Travis Retriever]

Fredric Bastiat actually covers this one in his book "The Law"

And yes, I remember that now.  Yeah, Bastiat was--nay is--awesome.

[dallen68]

"I don't (drink, smoke, gamble, play fish, eat carrots whatever it happens to be) why should you?"

[MrBogosity]

Several more from The Freeman:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/effectively-irrational

I won't put them in the OP, but they are:

1. Argument ad KochBrotherium
2. The Unicorn
3. Nut-Picking
4. Must Be Scared/Have No Answer (They pulled this crap on me all the time on the JREF forum)
5. The Tin Man (covered above)
6. Availability Cascade
7. Man on the Moon
8. The Gap
9. The Two-Step
10. Panglossian Fallacy
11. Your Side
12. The We/Society Fallacy
13. Deus ex Machina/Market Failure
14. The Organic Fallacy
15. Nobel Fallacy
16. No Parks for You
17. The Self-Exile Fallacy
18. Somalia
19. Social Contract
20. Start Somewhere
21. Social Darwinism
22. Argumentum Ad Googlum
23. We've Got to Do Something!
24. Empirical Fallacy
25. No True Libertarian
26. Fascist Ignorance
27. Just One Life
28. Consensus
29. Logo-phallo-euro-centric
30. Who Will Build the Roads?

[Travis Retriever]

Several more from The Freeman:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/effectively-irrational

I won't put them in the OP, but they are:

1. Argument ad KochBrotherium
2. The Unicorn
3. Nut-Picking
4. Must Be Scared/Have No Answer (They pulled this crap on me all the time on the JREF forum)
5. The Tin Man (covered above)
6. Availability Cascade
7. Man on the Moon
8. The Gap
9. The Two-Step
10. Panglossian Fallacy
11. Your Side
12. The We/Society Fallacy
13. Deus ex Machina/Market Failure
14. The Organic Fallacy
15. Nobel Fallacy
16. No Parks for You
17. The Self-Exile Fallacy
18. Somalia
19. Social Contract
20. Start Somewhere
21. Social Darwinism
22. Argumentum Ad Googlum
23. We've Got to Do Something!
24. Empirical Fallacy
25. No True Libertarian
26. Fascist Ignorance
27. Just One Life
28. Consensus
29. Logo-phallo-euro-centric
30. Who Will Build the Roads?

1) I'm sure BlameTheFirst will be glad to see that, as much as he's had to deal with that one.
30)  Natch.

[dallen68]

Several more from The Freeman:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/effectively-irrational

I won't put them in the OP, but they are:

1. Argument ad KochBrotherium
2. The Unicorn
3. Nut-Picking
4. Must Be Scared/Have No Answer (They pulled this crap on me all the time on the JREF forum)
5. The Tin Man (covered above)
6. Availability Cascade
7. Man on the Moon
8. The Gap
9. The Two-Step
10. Panglossian Fallacy
11. Your Side
12. The We/Society Fallacy
13. Deus ex Machina/Market Failure
14. The Organic Fallacy
15. Nobel Fallacy
16. No Parks for You
17. The Self-Exile Fallacy
18. Somalia
19. Social Contract
20. Start Somewhere
21. Social Darwinism
22. Argumentum Ad Googlum
23. We've Got to Do Something!
24. Empirical Fallacy
25. No True Libertarian
26. Fascist Ignorance
27. Just One Life
28. Consensus
29. Logo-phallo-euro-centric
30. Who Will Build the Roads?

#10 - Definition?
#3 - Is that supposed to Nit-Picking?