Irritating Game - Game.
The 1. 1 most irritating logical fallacies | News. If you spend much time online — which, clearly, you do — then it should come as no surprise that the internet is littered with people saying stupid stuff. Whenever someone says something dumb, it’s frustrating, but it becomes absolutely insufferable when what they’re saying isn’t just wrong, but also built upon some seriously shaky logical foundations.
Any logical fallacy is irritating, but collected below are the 1. Got one that makes you want to tear your hair out even more than these? Tell us about it in the comments!
Straw man. To make a strawman argument is to go to town on an argument that your opponent didn’t make. Sometimes this is the result of one person not fully understanding their opponent’s argument, or perhaps it’s the fault of the person making the argument not being clear enough. With distressing frequency, however, it’s a tactic used in order to avoid engaging with the actual argument, instead choosing to focus. В in on a weaker, less defensible or outright toxic argument that bears some superficial similarities. False cause. Correlation is when two things occur together.
With all due respect: strike these insincere aphorisms from your lexicon, or you'll be sorry at the end of the day. Thanks in advance! These are the 11 logical fallacies that we find most irritating, but there are more. So many more. We're getting irritated just thinking about it.
Causation is when one thing causes another thing. To commit the false cause fallacy is to mistake correlation for causation.
When A and B occur together, it’s certainly possible that A caused B, but it’s also possible that B caused A. Or that they were both caused by something else. Or that it’s a total coincidence that both A and B have been occurring together. Slippery slope. The slippery slope fallacy comes up distressingly often — usually with people even calling it by its name, not realizing that it’s an unsound bit of logic.
The slippery slope argument goes that by allowing one thing, other — usually extreme and/or absurd — things will later become allowed as well, justifying why the first thing should not be allowed. While it’s certainly possible that one might lead to another, simply claiming that it will leaves out a ton.
В of necessary logical proof, while also appealing to an audience’s fear of an extreme that may very well not occur. Ad hominem and genetic. Ad hominem and genetic attacks are actually two different types of logical fallacies, but they share many similarities as both choose to attack the source of an argument instead of its actual validity. In an ad hominem attack, attempts are made to chip away at an argument through attacks on the character of the person making it. Similarly, a genetic logical fallacy neglects the contents of an actual argument in favor of attacking where it came from.
- PewDiePie Channel Trailer Most Viewed Video Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg (born October 24, 1989.
- Our lowest rated of the 25 Most Annoying Video Game Characters takes this slots because he was written to be annoying. Claptrap from Borderlands is an example of.
Both ad hominem and genetic attacks are illogical because of the myriad times when a terrible person or organization, despite being awful, still said something true. Tu quoque. While ad hominem and genetic attacks attempt to create a spurious connection between an argument and its source, a tu quoque fallacy avoids talking about the argument altogether. It’s actually a fascinating bit of rhetorical sleight of hand, as one individual attempts to deflect criticism by turning it back upon the person who first levied it.
It literally translates as “You too!” and is about as logically robust as someone pointing at you and screaming exactly that. Burden of proof. This one’s pretty simple: the burden of proof should fall on the shoulders of a person making a claim, which means that if you say something is true, it’s on you to prove it. If you expect someone else to prove that your claim is false, hoping that their failure will prove your claim correct, you’re making a burden of proof fallacy.
This error is commonly seen in believers proudly declaring that atheists can’t prove gods don’t. В exist, as well as in all manner of witch hunts, both figurative and literal. Ambiguities. Natural languages aren’t perfect, and that doesn’t even take into account the fact that natural languages are also constantly evolving, with many words that mean different things to different groups of people. It’s not a logical fallacy to be ambiguous, but it is a fallacy to use ambiguity to buffer an argument, as is done when a person solicits agreement based on one reading of a word, term or phrase, and then turns around and promotes another reading. В This is seen most frequently in political speeches.
Bandwagon. Democracies are really great at a lot of different things, but one area where they fall down in a very big way is determining the truth of any situation. History is littered with examples of vast numbers of people who believed things that we now know to be outright false. That’s because the amount of people who agree with an idea or thought has no connection to whether it’s accurate or not. If it did, there would have been a not inconsiderable period of time during which the sun rotated around the Earth. False dilemma. This is the “you’re either with us or against us” argument, that reasons that if you don’t choose one possibility, you have, by default, chosen another. While there are certainly some cases where this might be true, it’s far from universal, and people who make the false dilemma fallacy attempt to apply it in situations where it’s not true.
Oftentimes, arguments don’t have merely two possibilities and things aren’t always black and white — sometimes they’re shades of grey or even other colors entirely. Appeal to nature. An appeal to nature sees an individual attempt to justify something by saying that it occurs in nature, or possibly, to prohibit something because it does not occur in nature. The problem with both arguments is that they make a massive assumption: that nature is meant to be emulated.
Anyone who has ever watched a nature documentary, however, knows that this isn’t the case, as no one wants to get mauled by a predator or live next door to someone who eats their young. Anecdotal. It’s incredibly easy to fall into the trap of using anecdotal evidence — facts that are based on personal experiences or limited examples — to justify an argument.
If your friend was fine. В after diving out of a moving car, it might seem like you’d be all right afterward too, but a single instance of something is far from compelling proof.
Anecdotal evidence is also used in an attempt to chip away at more legitimate data, such as when someone points at a freak snowstorm as proof that global warming isn’t occurring. These are the 1. 1 logical fallacies that we find most irritating, but there are more.
A lot more. So many more. We’re getting irritated just thinking about it. Aubrey Sitterson tries and fails to explain why things are illogical in 1. Twitter. He also writes and performs the sword & sorcery serial SKALD and hosts the professional wrestling talk show STRAIGHT SHOOT. Find out more on his website.