Click to confirm you are 18+

Logical Fallacies XII

Scott CunninghamDec 3, 2018, 9:59:34 AM

Hey hey! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part 12 of my series on here. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.

Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on...

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYEwUrE0ei2BAGc/giphy.gif

Gaslighting

This is a very interesting one as it's something you've probably dealt with. It is a very common form of emotional manipulation today where you deny someone's knowledge and or experience by changing known facts or evidence to confuse and take advantage of someone. An example of this could be your partner cheats on you. They might say you drove them to it or that it was a mistake and that it wasn't their fault or something similar and then they become upset with you and you need to apologize or comfort them in their upset state even though you were the victim. There are probably better examples, but there are so many ways to gaslight. You know it when you see it.

Emotional Invalidation Fallacy

This is very similar to gaslighting except the main difference here is you are specifically invalidating emotions or the validity of someone's affective state. This is best described via an example similar to the previous. A partner cheats on their spouse and says it wasn't really them who did it, but rather it was their hormones betraying them and forcing them to do such atrocities. This is a way to invalidate their emotions of guilt etc. and disregard their partners feelings of broken trust, anger, jealousy, etc. by telling them they have no right to be upset.

Guilt By Association Fallacy

This is happening a lot these days. This is where you try to refute some claim or that person's actions etc. based on who the speaker is identified with or of a group, party, religion, or race which they fit into. It is a type of ad hominem. Lately you see people saying things like "Don't listen to them, they're a republican and they are all racist." It's also a generalization typically, but this fallacy is very irritating as it's used in many debates in attempt to delegitimize the speaker without providing a real rebuttal. Similar to this is the fallacy from Machiavelli "For my enemies, nothing" where you perceive your opponents as always wrong no matter they say and blindly condemn them.

The Half Truth Fallacy

This is very similar to confirmation bias and is the fallacy where you only seek out evidence to support your own claim and then purposefully minimize or try to omit information from the other side in order to support a false conclusion you have proposed. The main difference between this and confirmation bias is the false conclusion being supported by the claims and omission of evidence.

The Hero-Busting Fallacy

This is the fallacy of trying to attack someone's character under the assumption that no one is perfect. What we see today is people going through everything someone has ever said, written, or done since birth trying to find one thing to highlight in order to condemn them. Typically people look for anything salacious.