not an expert just a nerd with a pet peeve for improper argument formcompiling a library of internet dummies for your edification :)
Last active 60 minutes ago
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Note
ohhh yess that's a good one!
I saw SO MANY before i was running this blog and now I cannot find any 😭
(if anyone from the jewish side of tumblr sees a "let's define the word antisemitism based on the word semite even though linguistically that makes no sense" one hit me up because i feel like i saw posts like that suuuper often before I had use for them)
Oh for other readers: An argument from etymology is when someone insists that the true meaning of a word is different from the dictionary/commonly accepted/actual meaning of a word because of the etymologic building blocks of the word. Fake example for clarity, insisting that unicorn means "one corn" and doesn't have anything to do with horses or metaphorically hard to find things
favourite fallacy?
Oooh good question! If I interpret "favourite" to be "most infuriating to argue against and linguistically fascinating" I'd have to go for motte and bailey.
The arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one easy to defend and logical (the motte) and one controversial (the bailey). They argue the bailey and then revert to the motte when challenged, which provides them the opportunity to frame the critic as unreasonable, the bailey as unrefuted, and the opponent as the one who is conflating two issues unreasonably (while actually being the one making the two issues more confusing to distract from the actual issues).
It makes one go mad trying to argue against and is also named after a castle!
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
favourite fallacy?
Oooh good question! If I interpret "favourite" to be "most infuriating to argue against and linguistically fascinating" I'd have to go for motte and bailey.
The arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one easy to defend and logical (the motte) and one controversial (the bailey). They argue the bailey and then revert to the motte when challenged, which provides them the opportunity to frame the critic as unreasonable, the bailey as unrefuted, and the opponent as the one who is conflating two issues unreasonably (while actually being the one making the two issues more confusing to distract from the actual issues).
It makes one go mad trying to argue against and is also named after a castle!
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
I would say it's tu quoque/appeal to hypocrisy (which is a subtype of ad-hominem.
An appeal to hypocrisy is essentially when someone tries to say "well, if you really cared about xyz rights youd care about this thing, and you didn't mention that so therefore you must not actually care about xyz rights therefore your point must be invalid"
(Honestly, one could make the argument this is a type of whataboutism, which is an appeal to hypocrisy used as a red herring to detract from the issue being discussed or as a thought terminating cliche to diminish the discussion)
i'm gonna be real with you kitten, the universalization of the Holocaust by leftists is scaring the shit out of daddy
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Genuinely part of why I run this blog is because i kept having arguments with people where I was simultaneously teaching them Arguments 101 *and* trying to logically argue my point.
I have noticed especially an over reliance on pathos based arguments even though as you say often logos based is more convincing. But every time i try to point that out to people I just get a blank stare like I was the only one who went over this concept in school
Yall have got to stop arguing against fascist policies by saying “Oh but that will hurt colored people” or “This means women won’t be able to vote.” They know. Thats the point. You won’t convince them by telling them the selling points (to them) of their policies. It sucks. I know. We shouldn’t have to explain to people that other people matter. And unfortunately, doing so probably won’t actually work that well. We need to convince them on the things they already care about. We need to tell them that pro-DEI policies make companies money and anti-DEI policies will cause them to loose profit. We need to show how immigrant improve the economy. We need to tell them that their policies will loose them more of the vote than it will gain them. We need to find the reinforcers that matter to them and control those reinforcers in any and every way possible until we manufacture change.
12 notes
·
View notes
Note
https://www.tumblr.com/thestudentempanada/784358624273301504
specifically talking about the tweet - is this an example of the fallacy of relative privation?
Thank you for running this blog.
Yes! The fallacy of relative privation attempts to make something seem better or worse by comparing it to the best case or worst case scenario.
It is an unfortunately common fallacy on the internet and in real life, either being used like "nothing matters compared to the The Issue" or "that issue is not as bad as The Issue so it's completely unimportant" or some variation as such. (And as someone who's dealt with chronic illness I can tell you it's definitely bullshit- the fact I didn't have one of the common diseases people fear did not make my life any less in danger but that didn't stop people from trying to cheer me up by "at least it's not"s)
2 notes
·
View notes
Note
https://www.tumblr.com/mogai-sunflowers/755171327009226752/well-people-like-you-are-fascist-bootlickers-who
are these reblogs an example of a fallacy? Or more than one. I'm not very knowledgeable about this.
There's not one that is jumping out at me as a particularly clear example of a specific one. Unfortunately being blatantly wrong is not always a fallacy sometimes it's just ignorance and playing on coolmathgames.com when your teacher is explaining how the americans have structured their voting system
Thank you for sending this to me anyway!
#Friendly reminder to tumblr that the US cannot vote third party#Every time they have tried the president has been the majority's least preffered choice#This is a flaw with the “first past the post” voting system they use#(My gosh some of the people in the notes of that post are Certainly Something)
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
correlation versus causation... the OG classic 😔
A 50 year-old-man just looked me dead in the eyes at clinic and said “Doc, I don’t want to quit smoking because I think I’ll get cancer if I quit smoking. My dad smoked for 60 years and he got lung cancer the moment he quit.”
Nothing like morning clinic session to remind you of the extent of human stupidity
27 notes
·
View notes
Note
"There is no court-admissable evidence" so you agree there IS evidence... Interesting...
This is an excellent example of the proof fallacy. The proof fallacy occurs when a person assumes that something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false or vice versa. In this instance, Anonymous assumes that because I didn’t say that there is no evidence, I am saying that there is evidence. This is simply untrue, as just because I haven’t said “there is no evidence” outright doesn’t mean that there is evidence.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
englishman: [commits terrible crime]
me (to a scotsman): didn't you hear? a scotsman just committed a terrible crime
scotsman: what no that was an englishman
me, the most intelligent thing in the universe: heh. well. that's just funny because. well. heh. there's this thing called uh. eh. eheheheh
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
anyway, Occam's Razor doesn't actually say that the *simplest* solution is usually correct. if it did then the explanation for most things would just be "wizards n' warlocks, probably" so, what *does* it say? That the solution requiring the *fewest assumptions* is often correct It's not an appeal against complexity, it's meant to shave away conspiracy theorizing, black-and-white thinking, and circular logic, and appeal towards evidence-first reasoning
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
hi i am the Expert (self appointed) and i can confirm you are intelligently not falling victim to fallacies and I am proud of you
Decided to NOT go to Optional School Thing that has been ruining my life and health for the past month and. I know its the right thing to do (cause why would i throw up over sometjing that brings me no tangible rewards) But! I feel like SUCH a coward
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
btw guys i need more content that's not just strawmen and sunk cost over and over again, please send me stuff you come across that seems like it might be a fallacy (it's a great way to win an argument ;)
1 note
·
View note
Text
reversing cause and effect fallacy: suggesting that B caused A in the face of evidence of the opposite

32K notes
·
View notes
Text
Insulting somebody isn't an Ad Hominem attack. An Ad Hominem attack is only when you attack somebody to invalidate their argument.
"You're stupid, therefore your conclusion is wrong" Ad Hominem
"You're stupid, and your conclusion is wrong" not Ad Hominem
3K notes
·
View notes