Master List Of Logical Fallacies

Argumentum ad Baculum ("Argument from the Club." Also, "Argumentum ad Baculam," "Argument from Strength," "Muscular Leadership," "Non-negotiable Demands," "Hard Power," Bullying, The facility-Play, Fascism, Resolution by Force of Arms, Shock and Awe.): The fallacy of "persuasion" or "proving one is correct" by force, violence, brutality, terrorism, superior energy, uncooked military would possibly, or threats of violence. E.g., "Gimmee your wallet or I'll knock your head off!" or "We have the perfect right to take your land, since we now have the massive guns and you don't." Also applies to indirect types of risk. E.g., "Quit your foolish delight, kneel down and settle for our religion immediately if you don't want to burn in hell endlessly and ever!" A primarily discursive Argumentum ad Baculum is that of forcibly silencing opponents, ruling them "out of order," blocking, censoring or jamming their message, or just talking over them or/speaking more loudly than they do, this last a tactic notably attributed to men in blended-gender discussions. Argumentum advert Mysteriam ("Argument from Mystery;" additionally Mystagogy.): A darkened chamber, incense, chanting or drumming, bowing and kneeling, special robes or headgear, holy rituals and massed voices reciting sacred mysteries in an unknown tongue have a quasi-hypnotic impact and might often persuade extra strongly than any logical argument. The Puritan Reformation was in giant part a rejection of this fallacy. When used knowingly and intentionally this fallacy is especially vicious and accounts for a number of the fearsome persuasive power of cults. An example of an Argumentum ad Mysteriam is the "Long ago and much Away" fallacy, the truth that facts, evidence, practices or arguments from historic times, distant lands and/or "exotic" cultures seem to accumulate a particular gravitas or ethos simply due to their antiquity, language or origin, e.g., publicly chanting Holy Scriptures in their original (most frequently incomprehensible) ancient languages, preferring the Greek, Latin, Assyrian or Old Slavonic Christian Liturgies over their vernacular variations, or utilizing basic or newly invented Greek and Latin names for fallacies in order to support their validity. See additionally, Esoteric Knowledge. An obverse of the Argumentum ad Mysteriam is the usual Version Fallacy.

Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): The fallacy that if out there sources stay silent or present knowledge and proof can show nothing about a given subject or question this truth in itself proves the reality of 1's claim. E.g., "Science can inform us nothing about God. That proves God does not exist." Or "Science admits it will possibly inform us nothing about God, so that you cannot deny that God exists!" Often misused within the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment and the authorized presumption of innocence until proven responsible, remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is usually falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixon can provide no alibi for his whereabouts the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his spouse with a hatchet!" In at the moment's America, choosing to remain silent within the face of a police officer's questions could make one responsible sufficient to be arrested or even shot. See also, Argument from Ignorance. Availability Bias (additionally, Attention Bias, Anchoring Bias): A fallacy of logos stemming from the natural tendency to give undue attention and significance to info that's immediately out there at hand, significantly the first or final info obtained, and to reduce or ignore broader information or wider proof that clearly exists but will not be as simply remembered or accessed. E.g., "We know from experience that this would not work," when "expertise" means the most recent native try, ignoring overwhelming expertise from other locations and times where it has worked and does work. Also related is the fallacy of Hyperbole [also, Magnification, or generally Catastrophizing] the place a right away instance is immediately proclaimed "the most important in all of human historical past," or the "worst in the entire world!" This latter fallacy works extremely well with less-educated audiences and people whose "entire world" is very small certainly, audiences who "hate history" and whose historical reminiscence spans a number of weeks at finest.

The Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum advert Populum): The fallacy of arguing that as a result of "everybody," "the people," or "the majority" (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does one thing, it should subsequently be true and proper. E.g., "Whether there really is giant scale voter fraud in America or not, many people now think there is and that makes it so." Sometimes additionally contains Lying with Statistics, e.g. "Over 75% of Americans consider that crooked Bob Hodiak is a thief, a liar and a pervert. There will not be any evidence, however for anybody with half a mind that conclusively proves that Crooked Bob ought to go to jail! Lock him up! Lock him up!" This is generally mixed with the "Argumentum advert Baculum," e.g., "Prefer it or not, it's time to choose sides: Are you going to get on board the bandwagon with everybody else, or get crushed below the wheels because it goes by?" Or in the 2017 phrases of former White House spokesperson Sean Spicer, ""They need to both get with the program or they can go," A contemporary digital form of the Bandwagon Fallacy is the data Cascade, "in which people echo the opinions of others, usually online, even when their very own opinions or exposure to information contradicts that opinion. When info cascades form a sample, this sample can start to overpower later opinions by making it seem as if a consensus already exists." (Because of Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) See additionally Wisdom of the crowd, and The massive Lie Technique. For the other of this fallacy see the Romantic Rebel fallacy. The big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy (also, the Führerprinzip; Mad Leader Disease): A not-unusual but excessive example of the Blind Loyalty Fallacy beneath, in which a tyrannical boss, army commander, or religious or cult-chief tells followers "Don't think together with your little brains (the mind in your head), however together with your Big brain (mine)." This last is sometimes expressed in positive phrases, i.e., "You don't have to worry and stress out in regards to the rightness or wrongness of what you are doing since I, the Leader. am assuming all moral and legal responsibility for all of your actions. So long as you're faithfully following orders without query I will defend you and gladly accept all the consequences as much as and including eternal damnation if I'm incorrect." The alternative of that is the fallacy of "Plausible Deniability." See also, "Just Do It!", and "Gaslighting." The large "But" Fallacy (additionally, Special Pleading): The fallacy of enunciating a typically-accepted principle after which directly negating it with a "however." Often this takes the form of the "Special Case," which is supposedly exempt from the usual rules of regulation, logic, morality, ethics and even credibility E.g., "As Americans we now have all the time believed on principle that every human being has God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, together with in the case of criminal accusations a fair and speedy trial earlier than a jury of 1's peers. But, your crime was so unspeakable and a trial would be so problematic for national safety that it justifies locking you up for life in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or risk of appeal." Or, "Yes, Honey, I nonetheless love you greater than life itself, and I know that in my marriage ceremony vows I promised earlier than God that I'd forsake all others and be faithful to you 'until demise do us part,' however you could have to grasp, this was a particular case..." See also, "Shopping Hungry," and "We Should do Something!" The big Lie Technique (additionally the Bold Faced Lie; "Staying on Message."): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, fallacy, slogan, talking-level, nonsense-assertion or misleading half-reality time and again in numerous kinds (particularly within the media) until it turns into part of each day discourse and folks settle for it without additional proof or evidence. Sometimes the bolder and more outlandish the big Lie turns into the extra credible it seems to a willing, most often indignant audience. E.g., "What about the Jewish Problem?" Note that when this particular phony debate was occurring there was no "Jewish Problem," only a Nazi Problem, however hardly anyone in power acknowledged or wished to discuss that, whereas far too many peculiar Germans have been only too able to discover a handy scapegoat to blame for his or her suffering during the good Depression. Writer Miles J. Brewer expertly demolishes The large Lie Technique in his traditional (1930) short story, "The Gostak and the Doshes." However, extra contemporary examples of the massive Lie fallacy is perhaps the completely fictitious August 4, 1964 "Tonkin Gulf Incident" concocted underneath Lyndon Johnson as a false justification for escalating the Vietnam War, or the non-existent "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq (conveniently abbreviated "WMD's" so as to lend this Big Lie a legitimizing, army-sounding "Alphabet Soup" ethos), used in 2003 as a false justification for the Second Gulf War. The November, 2016 U.S. President-elect's assertion that "tens of millions" of ineligible votes had been solid in that 12 months's American. presidential election seems to be a traditional Big Lie. See additionally, Alternative Truth; The Bandwagon Fallacy, the Straw Man, Alphabet Soup, and Propaganda. Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, Unthinking Obedience, the "Team Player" attraction, the Nuremberg Defense): The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is correct merely and solely because a revered leader or supply (a President, expert, one’s mother and father, one's own "aspect," team or nation, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is correct. This is over-reliance on authority, a gravely corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above reality, above one's personal cause and above conscience. In this case an individual makes an attempt to justify incorrect, silly or criminal conduct by whining "That is what I used to be advised to do," or "I was simply following orders." See also, The massive Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy. Blood is Thicker than Water (additionally Favoritism; Compadrismo; "For my pals, anything."): The reverse of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos the place an announcement, argument or motion is automatically thought to be true, appropriate and above challenge because one is expounded to, is aware of and likes, or is on the identical team or aspect, or belongs to the same religion, get together, club or fraternity as the individual concerned. (E.g., "My brother-in-legislation says he saw you goofing off on the job. You're a tough worker but who am I going to believe, you or him? You're fired!") See additionally the Identity Fallacy. Brainwashing (also, Propaganda, "Radicalization."): The Cold War-era fantasy that an enemy can instantly win over or "radicalize" an unsuspecting viewers with their vile but one way or the other unspeakably persuasive "propaganda," e.g., "Don't take a look at that web site! They're trying to brainwash you with their propaganda!" Historically, "brainwashing" refers more correctly to the inhuman Argumentum ad Baculum of "beating an argument into" a prisoner through a combination of pain, fear, sensory or sleep deprivation, prolonged abuse and sophisticated psychological manipulation (also, the "Stockholm Syndrome."). Such "brainwashing" will also be achieved by pleasure ("Love Bombing,"); e.g., "Did you like that? I know you probably did. Well, there's lots more the place that got here from if you signal on with us!" (See additionally, "Bribery.") An unspeakably sinister type of persuasion by brainwashing includes deliberately addicting a person to medication and then providing or withholding the substance depending on the addict's compliance. Note: Only the other side brainwashes. "We" by no means brainwash. Bribery (additionally, Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors is the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculum. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery hardly ever "stays persuaded" in the long term except the bribes carry on coming in and rising with time. See also Appeasement. Calling "Cards": A contemporary fallacy of logos, arbitrarily and falsely dismissing acquainted or easily-anticipated however legitimate, reasoned objections to at least one's standpoint with a wave of the hand, as mere "playing cards" in some type of "game" of rhetoric, e.g. "Don't attempt to play the 'Race Card' towards me," or "She's taking part in the 'Woman Card' again," or "That 'Hitler Card' won't score with me on this argument." See also, The Taboo, and Political Correctness. Circular Reasoning (also, The Vicious Circle; Catch 22, Begging the Question, Circulus in Probando): A fallacy of logos the place A is because of B, and B is due to A, e.g., "You cannot get a job with out experience, and also you can't get expertise with no job." Also refers to falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the identical assertion in different words. E.g., "The witchcraft problem is the most urgent spiritual crisis on the planet right now. Why? Because witches threaten our very eternal salvation." A corrupt argument from logos. See also the "Big Lie approach." The Complex Question: The contemporary fallacy of demanding a direct reply to a query that can not be answered without first analyzing or difficult the idea of the question itself. E.g., "Just reply me 'sure' or 'no': Did you assume you would get away with plagiarism and never suffer the implications?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also applies to conditions the place one is pressured to either settle for or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing each acceptable and unacceptable elements. A corruption of the argument from logos. A counterpart of Either/Or Reasoning. Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, the common tendency to note, search out, choose and share proof that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to contrary evidence. This fallacy is how "fortune tellers" work--If I'm told I will meet a "tall, darkish stranger" I might be looking out for a tall, dark stranger, and when i meet somebody even marginally meeting that description I will marvel on the correctness of the "psychic's" prediction. In contemporary occasions Confirmation Bias is most often seen in the tendency of assorted audiences to "curate their political environments, subsisting on one-sided information diets and [even] selecting into politically homogeneous neighborhoods" (Michael A. Neblo et al., 2017, Science magazine). Confirmation Bias (also, Homophily) means that people are inclined to seek out and follow solely these media outlets that confirm their common ideological and cultural biases, typically to an diploma that leads a the false (implicit and even explicit) conclusion that "everybody" agrees with that bias and that anybody who doesn't is "loopy," "looney," evil and even "radicalized." See additionally, "Half Truth," and "Defensiveness." Cost Bias: A fallacy of ethos (that of a product), the fact that something expensive (either in terms of cash, or one thing that's "arduous fought" or "onerous won" or for which one "paid dearly") is usually valued extra extremely than something obtained free or cheaply, regardless of the merchandise's actual high quality, utility or true worth to the purchaser. E. g., "Hey, I worked arduous to get this automobile! It may be nothing however a clunker that cannot make it up a steep hill, but it is mine, and to me it's better than some millionaire's limo." Also applies to judging the standard of a consumer item (or even of its proprietor!) primarily by the merchandise's model, value, label or supply, e.g., "Hey, you there in the Jay-Mart suit! Har-har!" or, "Ooh, she's driving a Mercedes!" Default Bias: (also, Normalization of Evil, "Deal with it;" "If it ain't broke, do not repair it;" Acquiescence; "Making one's peace with the state of affairs;" "Get used to it;" "Whatever is, is correct;" "It's what it's;" "Let or not it's, let or not it's;" "That is the best of all attainable worlds [or, the one possible world];" "Better the satan you understand than the satan you do not."): The logical fallacy of routinely favoring or accepting a situation simply because it exists proper now, and arguing that another alternative is mad, unthinkable, unattainable, or not less than would take an excessive amount of effort, expense, stress or threat to vary. The other of this fallacy is that of Nihilism ("Tear all of it down!"), blindly rejecting what exists in favor of what could possibly be, the adolescent fantasy of romanticizing anarchy, chaos (an ideology sometimes known as political "Chaos Theory"), disorder, "everlasting revolution," or change for change's sake. Defensiveness (additionally, Choice-support Bias: Myside Bias): A fallacy of ethos (one's own), wherein after one has taken a given resolution, commitment or course of action, one robotically tends to defend that call and to irrationally dismiss opposing choices even when one's decision later on proves to be shaky or unsuitable. E.g., "Yeah, I voted for Snith. Sure, he turned out to be a crook and a liar and he bought us into struggle, however I still say that at that time he was better than the accessible alternate options!" See also "Argument from Inertia" and "Confirmation Bias." Deliberate Ignorance: (additionally, Closed-mindedness; "I don't need to listen to it!"; Motivated Ignorance; Tuning Out; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys' Fallacy]): As described by author and commentator Brian Resnik on Vox.com (2017), this is the fallacy of merely choosing not to pay attention, "tuning out" or turning off any information, evidence or arguments that challenge one's beliefs, ideology, standpoint, or peace of thoughts, following the popular humorous dictum: "Don't attempt to confuse me with the info; my thoughts is made up!" This seemingly innocuous fallacy has enabled essentially the most vicious tyrannies and abuses over history, and continues to do so in the present day. See also Trust your Gut, Confirmation Bias, The Third Person Effect, "They're All Crooks," the Simpleton's Fallacy, and The Positive Thinking Fallacy. Diminished Responsibility: The widespread contemporary fallacy of applying a specialized judicial concept (that criminal punishment should be much less if one's judgment was impaired) to actuality basically. E.g., "You cannot depend me absent on Monday--I used to be hung over and could not come to class so it isn't my fault." Or, "Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway and killed a guy, however I used to be buzzed out of my thoughts and did not know what I used to be doing so it did not matter that a lot." In reality the demise does matter very much to the sufferer, to his family and friends and to society in general. Whether the perpetrator was excessive or not does not matter in any respect since the fabric results are the same. This additionally includes the fallacy of Panic, a very common contemporary fallacy that one's words or actions, irrespective of how damaging or evil, in some way don't "count" as a result of "I panicked!" This fallacy is rooted within the confusion of "consequences" with "punishment." See also "Venting." Disciplinary Blinders: A quite common contemporary scholarly or skilled fallacy of ethos (that of 1's self-discipline, profession or tutorial area), automatically disregarding, discounting or ignoring a priori otherwise-relevant analysis, arguments and evidence that come from outside one's personal skilled discipline, discourse group or academic space of research. E.g., "That could be relevant or not, however it's so not what we're doing in our field proper now." See also, "Star Power" and "Two Truths." An analogous fallacy is that of Denominational Blinders, arbitrarily ignoring or waving apart without serious consideration any arguments or discussion about faith, morality, ethics, spirituality, the Divine or the afterlife that come from outside one's personal specific religious denomination or faith tradition. Dog-Whistle Politics: An excessive model of reductionism and sloganeering in the public sphere, a contemporary fallacy of logos and pathos during which a short phrase or slogan of the hour, e.g., "Abortion," "The 1%," "9/11," "Zionism,""Chain Migration," "Islamic Terrorism," "Fascism," "Communism," "Big authorities," "Taco trucks!", "Tax and tax and spend and spend," "Gun violence," "Gun control," "Freedom of selection," "Lock 'em up,", "Amnesty," etc. is flung out as "crimson meat" or "chum in the water" that reflexively sends one's viewers into a snapping, foaming-at-the-mouth feeding-frenzy. Any reasoned try and more clearly identify, deconstruct or problem an opponent's "dog whistle" enchantment results in puzzled confusion at best and wild, irrational fury at worst. "Dog whistles" differ extensively in numerous locations, moments and cultural milieux, and they alter and lose or gain energy so quickly that even latest historic texts sometimes turn out to be extraordinarily tough to interpret. A common however sad instance of the fallacy of Dog Whistle Politics is that of candidate "debaters" of differing political shades simply blowing a succession of discursive "dog whistles" at their audience as a substitute of addressing, refuting or even bothering to hear to each other's arguments, a situation leading to contemporary (2017) allegations that the political Right and Left in America are speaking "completely different languages" when they are merely blowing different "dog whistles." See also, Reductionism.. The "Draw Your personal Conclusion" Fallacy (additionally the Non-argument Argument; Let the Facts Speak for Themselves). On this fallacy of logos an otherwise uninformed viewers is offered with rigorously chosen and groomed, "shocking information" after which prompted to instantly "draw their very own conclusions." E.g., "Crime charges are greater than twice as high among middle-class Patzinaks than amongst another related inhabitants group--draw your own conclusions." It is well-known that these who are allowed to "come to their very own conclusions" are usually way more strongly convinced than those who are given both evidence and conclusion up entrance. However, Dr. William Lorimer factors out that "The only rational response to the non-argument is 'So what?' i.e. 'What do you suppose you've proved, and why/how do you assume you've proved it?'" Closely related (if not identical) to this is the nicely-recognized "Leading the Witness" Fallacy, where a sham, sarcastic or biased query is requested solely as a way to evoke a desired reply. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias that leads folks of limited expertise or information to mistakenly consider their abilities are better than they really are. (Due to Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) E.g., "I do know Washington was the Father of His Country and by no means informed a lie, Pocahontas was the first Native American, Lincoln freed the slaves, Hitler murdered six million Jews, Susan B. Anthony received equal rights for ladies, and Martin Luther King stated "I have a dream!" Moses parted the Red Sea, Caesar stated "Et tu, Brute?" and the only reason America did not win the Vietnam War hands-down like we always do was as a result of they tied our generals' fingers and the politicians minimize and run. See? Why do I have to take a history course? I do know all the things about history!" E" for Effort. (also Noble Effort; I'm Trying My Best; The Lost Cause): The frequent contemporary fallacy of ethos that something must be proper, true, precious, or worthy of respect and honor solely as a result of one (or another person) has put a lot sincere good-religion effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See additionally Appeal to Pity; Argument from Inertia; Heroes All; or Sob Story). An extreme example of this fallacy is Waving the Bloody Shirt (additionally, the "Blood of the Martyrs" Fallacy), the fallacy that a cause or argument, regardless of how questionable or reprehensible, can't be questioned with out dishonoring the blood and sacrifice of those who died so nobly for that cause. E.g., "Defend the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore..." (from the official Maryland State Song). See additionally Cost Bias, The Soldier's Honor Fallacy, and the Argument from Inertia. Either/Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, All or Nothing Thinking; False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary): A fallacy of logos that falsely provides solely two potential options even though a broad range of doable alternate options, variations and combos are all the time readily out there. E.g., "Either you might be 100% Simon Straightarrow or you're as queer as a three dollar invoice--it is so simple as that and there is not any center ground!" Or, "Either you’re in with us all the best way or you’re a hostile and have to be destroyed! What's it gonna be?" Or, in case your performance is something short of perfect, you consider yourself an abject failure. Also applies to falsely contrasting one possibility or case to another that is probably not opposed, e.g., falsely opposing "Black Lives Matter" to "Blue Lives Matter" when in truth not a couple of police officers are themselves African American, and African Americans and police usually are not (or ought not to be!) natural enemies. Or, falsely posing a alternative of both helping needy American veterans or helping needy international refugees, when in reality in right now's United States there are ample resources out there to simply do both should we care to do so. See additionally, Overgeneralization. Equivocation: The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or knowingly and intentionally utilizing phrases in a unique sense than the one the audience will perceive. (E.g., President Bill Clinton stating that he didn't have sexual relations with "that girl," meaning no sexual penetration, figuring out full effectively that the audience will understand his statement as "I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.") This can be a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic usually used in American jurisprudence. Historically, this referred to a tactic used throughout the Reformation-era religious wars in Europe, when people had been compelled to swear loyalty to 1 or one other side and did as demanded via "equivocation," i.e., "Once i solemnly swore true religion and allegiance to the King I really meant to King Jesus, King of Kings, and not to the evil usurper squatting on the throne right now." This latter form of fallacy is excessively uncommon in the present day when the swearing of oaths has turn out to be effectively meaningless except as obscenity or as speech formally topic to perjury penalties in authorized or judicial settings. The Eschatological Fallacy: The ancient fallacy of arguing, "This world is coming to an end, so..." Popularly refuted by the commentary that "Since the world is coming to an end you will not want your life financial savings anyhow, so why not give it all to me?" Esoteric Knowledge (additionally Esoteric Wisdom; Gnosticism; Inner Truth; the Inner Sanctum; Need to Know): A fallacy from logos and ethos, that there is some data reserved just for the Wise, the Holy or the Enlightened, (or those with correct Security Clearance), issues that the masses can not understand and don't deserve to know, no less than not till they grow to be wiser, extra trusted or more "spiritually advanced." The counterpart of this fallacy is that of Obscurantism (additionally Obscurationism, or Willful Ignorance), that (almost at all times mentioned in a basso profundo voice) "There are some issues that we mere mortals must never search to know!" E.g., "Scientific experiments that violate the privacy of the marital bed and expose the deep and non-public mysteries of human sexual habits to the harsh gentle of science are obscene, sinful and morally evil. There are some issues that we as people are simply not meant to know!" For the alternative of this latter, see the "Plain Truth Fallacy." See additionally, Argumentum ad Mysteriam. Essentializing: A fallacy of logos that proposes an individual or thing "is what it's and that’s all that it is," and at its core will always be the way in which it is right now (E.g., "All terrorists are monsters, and will nonetheless be terrorist monsters even if they dwell to be 100," or "'The poor you'll always have with you,' so any effort to eradicate poverty is pointless."). Also refers back to the fallacy of arguing that one thing is a certain approach "by nature," an empty declare that no quantity of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are chilly and greedy by nature," or "Women are naturally better cooks than men.") See also "Default Bias." The opposite of this is Relativizing, the usually postmodern fallacy of blithely dismissing any and all arguments against one's standpoint by shrugging one's shoulders and responding " Whatever..., I do not feel like arguing about it;" "All of it relies upon...;" "That's your opinion; all the things's relative;" or falsely invoking Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Weirdness or the theory of Multiple Universes in an effort to confuse, mystify or "refute" an opponent. See also, "Red Herring" and "Appeal to Nature." The Etymological Fallacy: (additionally, "The Underlying Meaning"): A fallacy of logos, drawing false conclusions from the (most often lengthy-forgotten) linguistic origins of a current word, or the alleged meanings or associations of that word in one other language. E.g., "As used in physics, electronics and electrical engineering the term 'hysteresis' is grossly sexist because it originally came from the Greek word for 'uterus' or 'womb.'" Or, "I refuse to eat fish! Don't you already know that the French phrase for "fish" is 'poisson,' which appears to be like simply like the English word 'poison'? And doesn't that recommend one thing to you?" Famously, postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida performed on this fallacy at great length in his (1968) "Plato's Pharmacy." The Excluded Middle: A corrupted argument from logos that proposes that since just a little of something is nice, extra have to be better (or that if much less of something is sweet, none at all is even better). E.g., "If consuming an apple a day is good for you, consuming an all-apple weight loss plan is even higher!" or "If a low fats weight loss program prolongs your life, a no-fats diet should make you live perpetually!" An reverse of this fallacy is that of Excluded Outliers, the place one arbitrarily discards proof, examples or outcomes that disprove one's standpoint by simply describing them as "Weird," "Outliers," or "Atypical." See also, "The large 'But' Fallacy." Also reverse is the Middle of the Road Fallacy (additionally, Falacia advert Temperantiam; "The Politics of the center;" Marginalization of the Adversary), the place one demonstrates the "reasonableness" of 1's own standpoint (no matter how excessive) not on its own deserves, but solely or primarily by presenting it as the one "reasonable" path amongst two or extra obviously unacceptable extreme alternate options. E.g., anti-Communist scholar Charles Roig (1979) notes that Vladimir Lenin successfully argued for Bolshevism in Russia as the only obtainable "reasonable" middle path between bomb-throwing Nihilist terrorists on the extremely-left and a corrupt and hated Czarist autocracy on the precise. As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower famously declares in an undated quote, "The middle of the street is for yellow lines and lifeless armadillos." The "F-Bomb" (additionally Cursing; Obscenity; Profanity). An adolescent fallacy of pathos, attempting to defend or strengthen one's argument with gratuitous, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to make an argument stronger, apart from maybe to create a way of identification with sure young male "urban" audiences. This fallacy additionally consists of including gratuitous sex scenes or "adult" language to an otherwise unrelated novel or movie, typically simply to keep away from the dreaded "G" ranking. Related to this fallacy is the Salacious Fallacy, falsely attracting consideration to and thus potential settlement with one's argument by inappropriately sexualizing it, particularly connecting it to some type of sex that's perceived as deviant, perverted or prohibited (E.g., Arguing towards Bill Clinton's presidential legacy by continuing to wave Monica's Blue Dress, or in opposition to Donald Trump's presidency by obsessively highlighting his past boasting about genital groping). Historically, this harmful fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, during which false, racist accusations against a Black or minority sufferer had been nearly at all times salacious in nature and the sensation concerned was efficiently used to whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch. See also, Red Herring. The False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly evaluating one factor to a different so as to draw a false conclusion. E.g., "Similar to an alley cat must prowl, a traditional adult can’t be tied down to 1 single lover." The alternative of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy (additionally, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given individual, place, thing or concept below consideration is "sui generis" i.e., totally different and distinctive, in a class unto itself. Finish the Job: The dangerous contemporary fallacy, usually aimed at a lesser-educated or working class audience, that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of that motion or standpoint) is probably not questioned or discussed as a result of there is "a job to be executed" or finished, falsely assuming "jobs" are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize ("buy into") the "job" and make the duty a part of their own ethos. (E.g., "Ours is not to purpose why / Ours is but to do or die.") Related to that is the "Only a Job" fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers stand to take a look at themselves in the mirror? But I assume it's Ok because for them it is just a job like every other, the job that they get paid to do.") See additionally "Blind Loyalty," "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy" and the "Argument from Inertia."
The Free Speech Fallacy: The infantile fallacy of responding to challenges to 1's statements and standpoints by whining, "It's a free country, isn't it? I can say anything I wish to!" A contemporary case of this fallacy is the "Safe Space," or "Safe Place," where it isn't allowed to refute, problem and even talk about one other's beliefs as a result of that is likely to be too uncomfortable or "triggery" for emotionally fragile individuals. E.g., "All I informed him was, 'Jesus loves the little children,' however then he turned round and asked me 'But what about start defects?' That's mean. I feel I'll cry!" Prof. Bill Hart Davidson (2017) notes that "Ironically, essentially the most strident requires 'security' come from those that want us to difficulty protections for discredited concepts. Things that science does not assist AND that have destroyed lives - things just like the inherent superiority of one race over another. Those ideas wither beneath calls for for proof. They *are* unwelcome. But let's be clear: they're unwelcome as a result of they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny." Ironically, in contemporary America "free speech" has usually develop into shorthand for freedom of racist, offensive and even neo-Nazi expression, ideological traits that when in energy typically quash free speech. Additionally, a current (2017) scientific research has found that, actually, "folks suppose tougher and produce higher political arguments when their views are challenged" and not artificially protected with out challenge. The basic Attribution Error (also, Self Justification): A corrupt argument from ethos, this fallacy occurs on account of observing and comparing habits. "You assume that the dangerous conduct of others is caused by character flaws and foul dispositions while your behavior is explained by the environment. So, for example, I get up within the morning at 10 a.m. I say it's because my neighbors social gathering till 2 in the morning (scenario) but I say that the explanation why you do it's that you are lazy. Interestingly, it is more frequent in individualistic societies where we worth self volition. Collectivist societies are likely to look at the atmosphere more. (It occurs there, too, but it surely is much much less common.)" [Due to scholar Joel Sax for this!] The obverse of this fallacy is Self Deprecation (also Self Debasement), where, out of either a false humility or a genuine lack of vanity, one deliberately puts oneself down, most often in hopes of attracting denials, gratifying compliments and praise.

Gaslighting: A lately-distinguished, vicious fallacy of logic, denying or invalidating a person's own information and experiences by intentionally twisting or distorting known facts, memories, scenes, occasions and proof as a way to disorient a susceptible opponent and to make him or her doubt his/her sanity. E.g., "Who're you going to consider? Me, or your individual eyes?" Or, "You claim you found me in bed with her? Think once more! You're loopy! You critically need to see a shrink." A very common, though cruel instance of Gaslighting that seems to have been significantly familiar amongst mid-twentieth century generations is the fallacy of Emotional Invalidation, questioning, after the actual fact, the reality or "validity" of affective states, both another's or one's personal. E.g., "Sure, I made it occur from beginning to end, but but it surely wasn't me doing it, it was just my stupid hormones betraying me." Or, "You did not actually imply it when you stated you 'hate' Mommy. Now take a time-out and you'll really feel better." Or, "No, you're not really in love; it's just infatuation or 'pet love.'" The fallacy of "Gaslighting" is named after British playwright Patrick Hamilton's 1938 stage play "Gas Light," also referred to as "Angel Street." See additionally, Blind Loyalty, "The large Brain/Little Brain Fallacy," The Affective Fallacy, and "Alternative Truth." Guilt by Association: The fallacy of attempting to refute or condemn somebody's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the damaging ethos of these with whom the speaker is identified or of a bunch, occasion, religion or race to which she or he belongs or was as soon as associated with. A type of Ad Hominem Argument, e.g., "Don't take heed to her. She's a Republican so you can't trust anything she says," or "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" An excessive instance of this is the Machiavellian "For my enemies, nothing" Fallacy, the place actual or perceived "enemies" are by definition always fallacious and have to be conceded nothing, not even the time of day, e.g., "He's a Republican, so even if he stated the sky is blue I wouldn't believe him." The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Stacking the Deck, Incomplete Information): A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of consciously deciding on, accumulating and sharing solely that proof that supports one's own standpoint, telling the strict reality but deliberately minimizing or omitting important key particulars with the intention to falsify the bigger picture and support a false conclusion.(E.g. "The fact is that Bangladesh is among the world's fastest-growing nations and might boast of a younger, formidable and hard-working inhabitants, a family-optimistic culture, a delightful, warm local weather of tropical beaches and swaying palms where it by no means snows, low value medical and dental care, a vibrant religion tradition and a multitude of locations of worship, an exquisite, world-class spicy native curry delicacies and a swinging leisure scene. Taken collectively, all these solid info clearly prove that Bangladesh is one of the world’s most fascinating locations for younger households to reside, work and raise a household.") See additionally, Confirmation Bias. Hero-Busting (also, "The perfect is the Enemy of the great"): A postmodern fallacy of ethos underneath which, since nothing and no one on this world is ideal there usually are not and have never been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was (by our contemporary standards) a racist, Karl Marx sexually exploited his family's personal younger reside-in home worker and received her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr. had a watch for ladies too, Lenin condemned feminism, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), Pope Francis is improper on abortion, capitalism, similar-intercourse marriage and ladies's ordination, Mother Teresa loved suffering and was wrong on just about the whole lot else too, and many others., and so on Also applies to the now close to-common political tactic of ransacking all the things an opponent has stated, written or carried out since infancy in order to find one thing to misinterpret or condemn (and all of us have one thing!). An early example of this latter tactic is deftly described in Robert Penn Warren's basic (1946) novel, All of the King's Men. That is the alternative of the "Heroes All" fallacy, beneath. The "Hero Busting" fallacy has additionally been selectively employed on the service of the Identity Fallacy (see beneath) to falsely "prove" that "you cannot belief anybody" however a member of "our" identification-group since everybody else, even the so-called "heroes" or "allies" of different groups, are all racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hate "us." E.g., In 1862 Abraham Lincoln mentioned he was keen to settle the U.S. Civil War either with or without freeing the slaves if it would preserve the Union, thus "conclusively proving" that every one whites are viciously racist at coronary heart and that African Americans must do for self and by no means trust any of "them," not even those who claim to be allies. Heroes All (also, "Everybody's a Winner"): The contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel dangerous). Thus, each member of the Armed Services, previous or present, who serves honorably is a national hero, each scholar who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and each racer is awarded a winner's yellow jersey. This corruption of the argument from pathos, a lot ridiculed by disgraced American humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the truth that if everybody wins no one wins, and if everyone's a hero nobody's a hero. The logical results of this fallacy is that, as kids's creator Alice Childress writes (1973), "A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich." See additionally the "Soldiers' Honor Fallacy." Hoyle's Fallacy: A fallacy of logos, falsely assuming that a possible event of low (even vanishingly low) chance can by no means have occurred and/or would by no means happen in actual life. E.g., "The likelihood of something as advanced as human DNA emerging by purely random evolution in the time the earth has existed is so negligible that it's for all practical purposes impossible and should have required divine intervention." Or, "The prospect of a informal, Saturday-evening poker participant being dealt four aces off an honest, shuffled deck is so infinitesimal that it might never happen even as soon as in a standard lifetime! That proves you cheated!" See additionally, Argument from Incredulity. An obverse of Hoyle's Fallacy is "You Can't Win if You don't Play," (additionally, "Someone's gonna win and it might as effectively be YOU!") a typical and cruel contemporary fallacy used to steer susceptible audiences, significantly the poor, the mathematically illiterate and playing addicts to throw their money away on lotteries, horse races, casinos and different lengthy-shot playing schemes. I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation over which one has power. E.g., "What can we do about gas prices? As Secretary of Energy I want I had a magic wand, but I do not" [shrug] . Or, "No, you cannot stop piano classes. I wish I had a magic wand and will train you piano in a single day, however I do not, so like it or not, it's a must to carry on training." The mum or dad, of course, ignores the chance that the little one might not want or have to learn piano. See also, TINA. The Identity Fallacy (additionally Identity Politics; "Die away, ye old varieties and logic!"): A corrupt postmodern argument from ethos, a variant on the Argumentum advert Hominem by which the validity of one's logic, evidence, experience or arguments depends not on their very own power but fairly on whether the one arguing is a member of a given social class, technology, nationality, religious or ethnic group, color, gender or sexual orientation, career, occupation or subgroup. On this fallacy, valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed apart or "othered" with out remark or consideration, as merely not price arguing about solely because of the lack of correct background or ethos of the person making the argument, or as a result of the one arguing doesn't self-identify as a member of the "in-group." E.g., "You'd understand me instantly for those who had been Burmese however since you are not there isn't any way I can explain it to you," or "Nobody but another nurse can know what a nurse has to undergo." Identity fallacies are strengthened by frequent ritual, language, and discourse. However, these fallacies are often self-involved, driven by the egotistical ambitions of teachers, politicians and would-be group leaders anxious to construct their own careers by carving out a special id group constituency to the exclusion of present broader-primarily based identities and leadership. An Identity Fallacy may result in scorn or rejection of probably helpful allies, actual or potential, because they aren't of one's own id. The Identity Fallacy promotes an exclusivist, sometimes cultish "do for self" philosophy which in at present's world virtually guarantees self-marginalization and ultimate defeat. A recent software of the Identity Fallacy is the fallacious accusation of "Cultural Appropriation," through which those who aren't of the precise Identity are condemned for "appropriating" the cuisine, clothing, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the previous axiom that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Accusations of Cultural Appropriation fairly often stem from competing egocentric economic interests (E.g., "What right do these p*nche Gringos must arrange a taco place right here on Guadalupe Drive to take away enterprise from Doña Teresa's Taquería? They even dare to play Mexican music in their dining room! That's cultural appropriation!"). See also, Othering. Infotainment (additionally Infortainment; Fake News; InfoWars); A really corrupt and dangerous modern media-pushed fallacy that intentionally and knowingly stirs in information, information, falsities and outright lies with leisure, a mixture often concocted for particular, base ideological and revenue-making motives. Origins of this fallacy predate the present era in the type of "Yellow" or "Tabloid" Journalism. This deadly fallacy has induced endless social unrest, discontent and even shooting wars (e.g., the Spanish American War) over the course of fashionable historical past. Practitioners of this fallacy typically hypocritically justify its use on the idea that their readers/listeners/viewers "know beforehand" (or ought to know) that the content supplied shouldn't be supposed as actual news and is obtainable for entertainment functions only, however in fact this caveat isn't observed by uncritical audiences who eagerly swallow what the purveyors put forth. See also Dog-Whistle Politics. The Job's Comforter Fallacy (additionally, "Karma is a bi**h;" "What goes around comes round."): The fallacy that since there isn't a such thing as random probability and we (I, my group, or my country) are beneath particular safety of heaven, any misfortune or natural disaster that we endure should be a punishment for our own or another person's secret sin or open wickedness. The other of the Appeal to Heaven, this is the fallacy employed by the Westboro Baptist Church members who protest fallen service members' funerals all around the United States. See also, Magical Thinking. Just Do it. (also, "Discover a way;" "I do not care how you do it;" "Accomplish the mission;" "By Any Means Necessary." ): A pure, abusive Argumentum ad Baculum (argument from drive), during which somebody in energy arbitrarily waves apart or overrules the ethical objections of subordinates or followers and orders them to perform a objective by any means required, fair or foul The clear implication is that unethical or immoral strategies must be used. E.g., "You say there is not any manner you can end the dig on schedule because you discovered an previous pioneer gravesite with a fancy tombstone on the excavation site? Well, discover a means! Make it disappear! Just do it! I do not need to know the way you do it, simply do it! That is one million dollar contract and we need it carried out by Tuesday." See also, Plausible Deniability. Just Plain Folks (additionally, "Values"): This corrupt trendy argument from ethos argues to a less-educated or rural audience that the one arguing is "just plain folks" who is a "plain talker," "says what s/he's pondering," "scorns political correctness," someone who "you don't need a dictionary to grasp" and who thinks like the audience and is thus worthy of perception, in contrast to some member of the fancy-talking, latte-sipping Left Coast Political Elite, some "double-domed professor," "inside-the-beltway Washington bureaucrat," "tree-hugger" or other despised outsider who "doesn't suppose like we do" or "doesn't share our values." This can be a counterpart to the Ad Hominem Fallacy and most frequently carries a distinct reek of xenophobia or racism as effectively. See additionally the Plain Truth Fallacy and the Simpleton's Fallacy. The Law of Unintended Consequences (also, "Every Revolution Ends up Eating its own Young:" Grit; Resilience Doctrine): In this very harmful, archly pessimistic postmodern fallacy the bogus "Law of Unintended Consequences," as soon as a semi-humorous satirical corollary of "Murphy's Law," is elevated to to the status of an iron regulation of history. This fallacy arbitrarily proclaims a priori that since we can never know every thing or securely foresee something, in the end in today's "complicated world" unforeseeable hostile penalties and unfavorable unwanted effects (so-referred to as "unknown unknowns") will at all times find yourself blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all naive "do-gooder" efforts to enhance our world. Instead, one should at all times count on defeat and be able to roll with the punches by creating "grit" or "resilience" as a main survival skill. This nihilist fallacy is a practical negation of the the potential for any legitimate argument from logos. See also, TINA. Lying with Statistics: The contemporary fallacy of misusing true figures and numbers to "prove" unrelated claims. (e.g. "In real phrases, attending college has by no means been cheaper than it's now. When expressed as a percentage of the national debt, the price of getting a faculty schooling is actually far less today than it was again in 1965!"). A corrupted argument from logos, often preying on the public's perceived or actual mathematical ignorance. This consists of the Tiny Percentage Fallacy, that an quantity or action that is kind of important in and of itself one way or the other turns into insignificant just because it's a tiny share of something much bigger. E.g., the arbitrary arrest, detention or interception of "only" just a few hundred legally-boarded worldwide travelers as a tiny share of the tens of hundreds who usually arrive. Under this identical fallacy a consumer who would choke on spending an additional dollar for two cans of peas will usually ignore $50 additional on the value of a automotive or $1000 further on the worth of a home simply because these differences are "only" a tiny proportion of the a lot larger quantity being spent. Historically, gross sales taxes or worth-added taxes (VAT) have efficiently gained public acceptance and stay "beneath the radar" because of this latter fallacy, although amounting to a whole bunch or 1000's of dollars a yr in further tax burden. See also Half-truth, the Snow Job, and the Red Herring. Magical Thinking (also, the Sin of Presumption; Expect a Miracle!): An historic however deluded fallacy of logos, arguing that in the case of "crunch time," provided one has enough religion, prays onerous enough, says the proper words, does the proper rituals, "names it and claims it," or "claims the Promise," God will all the time suspend the laws of the universe and work a miracle on the request of or for the benefit of the True Believer. In practice this nihilist fallacy denies the existence of a rational or predictable universe and thus the potential of any legitimate argument from logic. See also, Positive Thinking, the Appeal to Heaven, and the Job's Comforter fallacy. Mala Fides (Arguing in Bad Faith; additionally Sophism): Using an argument that the arguer himself or herself is aware of is not legitimate. E.g., An unbeliever attacking believers by throwing verses from their own Holy Scriptures at them, or a lawyer arguing for the innocence of somebody whom s/he is aware of full nicely to be guilty. This latter is a typical apply in American jurisprudence, and is typically portrayed because the worst face of "Sophism." [Special because of Bradley Steffens for mentioning this fallacy!] Included underneath this fallacy is the fallacy of Motivational Truth (additionally, Demagogy, or Campaign Promises), deliberately lying to "the individuals" to gain their assist or motivate them towards some action the rhetor perceives to be desirable (using evil discursive means towards a "good" materials finish). A particularly bizarre and corrupt form of this latter fallacy is Self Deception (also, Whistling by the Graveyard). through which one deliberately and knowingly deludes oneself so as to achieve a goal, or maybe simply to suppress anxiety and maintain one's vitality stage, enthusiasm, morale, peace of thoughts or sanity in moments of adversity. Measurability: A corrupt argument from logos and ethos (that of science and mathematics), the trendy Fallacy of Measurability proposes that if something can't be measured, quantified and replicated it doesn't exist, or is "nothing but anecdotal, touchy-feely stuff" unworthy of critical consideration, i.e., mere gossip or subjective opinion. Often, reaching "Measurability" essentially demands preselecting, "fiddling" or "massaging" the obtainable knowledge merely in order to make it statistically tractable, or as a way to help a desired conclusion. Scholar Thomas Persing thus describes "The modernist fallacy of falsely and inappropriately making use of norms, standardizations, and knowledge point requirements to quantify productivity or success. This is much like advanced query, measurability, and oversimplification fallacies the place the person attempts to categorize sophisticated / diverse matters into phrases that when measured, suit their place. For example, the calculation of inflation within the United States does not embody the adjustments in the value to gasoline, because the price of gasoline is just too unstable, regardless of the very fact gasoline is critical for most individuals to reside their lives in the United States." See also, "A Priori Argument," "Lying with Statistics," and the "Procrustean Fallacy." Mind-reading (Also, "The Fallacy of Speculation;" "I can learn you like a guide"): An historical fallacy, a corruption of stasis concept, speculating about someone else's ideas, feelings, motivations and "body language" after which claiming to understand these clearly, sometimes extra precisely than the individual in query is aware of themselves. The rhetor deploys this phony "information" as a fallacious warrant for or towards a given standpoint. Scholar Myron Peto gives as an example the baseless claim that "Obama doesn’t a da** [sic] for human rights." Assertions that "call for speculation" are rightly rejected as fallacious in U.S. judicial proceedings but far too usually pass uncontested in public discourse. The other of this fallacy is the postmodern fallacy of Mind Blindness (additionally, the Autist's Fallacy), a complete denial of any normal human capacity for "Theory of Mind," postulating the utter incommensurability and privateness of minds and thus the impossibility of ever realizing or really understanding one other's thoughts, emotions, motivations or intents. This fallacy, much promoted by the late postmodernist guru Jacques Derrida, necessarily vitiates any form of Stasis Theory. However, the Fallacy of Mind Blindness has been decisively refuted in several studies, together with current (2017) research revealed by the Association for Psychological Science, and a (2017) Derxel University examine indicating how "our minds align once we communicate." Moral Licensing: The contemporary moral fallacy that one's constantly ethical life, good conduct or recent excessive suffering or sacrifice earns him/her the right to commit an immoral act with out repercussions, consequences or punishment. E.g., "I have been good all year, so one unhealthy won't matter," or "After what I've been by means of, God is aware of I want this." The fallacy of Moral Licensing can also be sometimes applied to nations, e.g., "Those that criticize repression and the Gulag in the former USSR neglect what extraordinary suffering the Russians went by in World War II and the millions upon thousands and thousands who died." See also Argument from Motives. The opposite of this fallacy is the (excessively rare in our occasions) moral fallacy of Scruples, through which one obsesses to pathological excess about one's unintentional, forgotten, unconfessed or unforgiven sins and due to them, the seemingly inevitable prospect of eternal damnation. Moral Superiority (also, Self Righteousness; the Moral High Ground): An historic, immoral and intensely dangerous fallacy, enunciated in Thomistic / Scholastic philosophy in the late Middle Ages, arguing that Evil has no rights that the nice and the Righteous are bound to respect. That method lies torture, heretic-burning, and the Spanish Inquisition. Those who practice this vicious fallacy reject any "ethical equivalency" (i.e., even-handed treatment) between themselves (the Righteous) and their enemies (the Wicked), in opposition to whom anything is truthful, and to whom nothing must be conceded, not even the suitable to life. This fallacy is a particular denial of the historical "Golden Rule," and has been the cause of endless intractable conflict, since if one is Righteous no negotiation with Evil and its minions is possible; The only conceivable street to a "just" peace is through complete victory, i.e., the absolute defeat and liquidation of one's Wicked enemies. American people singer and Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan expertly demolishes this fallacy in his 1963 protest music, "With God on Our Side." See also the Appeal to Heaven, and Moving the Goalposts. Mortification (also, Live as though You're Dying; Pleasure-hating; No Pain No Gain): An ancient fallacy of logos, attempting to "beat the flesh into submission" by excessive train or ascetic practices, deliberate starvation or infliction of pain, denying the undeniable proven fact that discomfort and pain exist for the purpose of warning of lasting damage to the physique. Extreme examples of this fallacy are varied forms of self-flagellation resembling practiced by the brand new Mexico "Penitentes" throughout Holy Week or by Shia devotees during Muharram. More acquainted contemporary manifestations of this fallacy are extreme "insanity" exercise regimes not intended for regular health, fitness or competitive functions but just to "toughen" or "punish" the body. Certain pop-nutritional theories and diets seem based on this fallacy as properly. Some contemporary experts counsel that self-mortification (an English phrase related to the Latinate French root "mort," or "loss of life.") is in reality "suicide on the installment plan." Others counsel that it involves a narcotic-like addiction to the physique's natural endorphins. The other of this fallacy is the ancient fallacy of Hedonism, in search of and valuing physical pleasure as a great in itself, merely for its personal sake. Moving the Goalposts (also, Changing the rules; All's Fair in Love and War; The Nuclear Option; "Winning isn't all the things, it is the only factor"): A fallacy of logos, demanding sure proof or proof, a certain degree of help or a sure number of votes to decide an issue, after which when this is offered, demanding even more, totally different or higher assist so as to deny victory to an opponent. For those who follow the fallacy of Moral Superiority (above), Moving the Goalposts is commonly perceived as perfectly good and permissible if obligatory to prevent the victory of Wickedness and make sure the triumph of 1's own aspect, i.e, the Righteous. MYOB (Mind Your own Business; also You are not the Boss of Me; "None of yer beeswax," "So What?", The Appeal to Privacy): The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting or terminating any dialogue of one's personal standpoints or habits, irrespective of how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privateness around oneself and one's actions. A corrupt argument from ethos (one's own). E.g., "Sure, I was doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Mesa Street--what's it to you? You're not a cop, you are not my nanny. It's my business if I want to hurry, and your online business to get the hell out of my manner. Mind your personal rattling business!" Or, "Yeah, I killed my baby. So what? Butt out! It wasn't your brat, so it is none of your damn business!" Rational dialogue is minimize off because "it is none of your enterprise!" See also, "Taboo." The counterpart of this is "Nobody Will Ever Know," (additionally "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas;" "I think We're Alone Now," or the center of Darkness Syndrome) the fallacy that simply because nobody necessary is looking (or as a result of one is on trip, or away in faculty, or overseas) one may freely commit immoral, selfish, unfavorable or evil acts at will with out anticipating any of the normal penalties or punishment . Author Joseph Conrad graphically describes this form of moral degradation within the character of Kurtz in his basic novel, Heart of Darkness. Name-Calling: Quite a lot of the "Ad Hominem" argument. The harmful fallacy that, simply due to who one is or is alleged to be, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections towards one's standpoint or actions are robotically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My stand on abortion is the only appropriate one. To disagree with me, argue wit