explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Logical Fallacies Part VII

Scott CunninghamSep 13, 2018, 6:13:01 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 7 of my series on Minds. 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...



This is where you taken a stance on something like a decision or a certain process of events which leads you to defend that position irrationally even when proven wrong which is also very similar to cognitive dissonance but in a much more minor way. For example you might say "even though all of these terrible things supposedly happened during a president's presidency and they are a thief and a liar etc. they are still the best choice!" They are directly responsible and irrationally dismiss proof otherwise or the vice versa situation. This is very similar to confirmation bias as well.

Deliberate Ignorance

This is fairly similar to the previous fallacy in which someone refuses to hear any other facts, proofs, or information about an opposing view. This can be anything from "you are trying to confuse me with facts" to "I don't want to hear it."

Diminished Responsibility

This is rooted in the misunderstanding between punishment and consequences. The idea here is where someone believes a punishment should be lessened if their judgement was impaired. An example would be "I was drunk, so I'm not responsible for my actions." This also commonly applies to the panic fallacy where you might argue that because you were panicked, you aren't responsible for your actions.

Disciplinary/Denominational Blinders

The blinders fallacy is where because of some belief or claim held, you ignore all relevant and true information presented against your belief. For disciplinary it typically refers to academic related ignorance where someone might claim that because they are studying a certain field, they hold some sort of authority with no actual claims being made other than to trust their authority. The same goes for denominational blinders but in regards to faith, religion, morality, etc.

Dog-Whistle Politics

This is where someone uses a trigger word that they know will cause a dog-whistle reaction which gives them the "foaming-at-the-mouth" effect where they will pounce on any rebuttal with fury and irrational responses while claiming it's justified due to the claims. It's basically affixed to any controversial topic like: abortion, the 1%, communism, or 9/11. Anything that can be used a scapegoat in an argument. You are not supposed to or not allowed to challenge any claims from the other side and both sides end up just engaging in discourse which is essentially what we're seeing in politics right now.


Check out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:



If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.

If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!

Check out part 6 of the logical fallacies series!


> Check out my previous article <

🙌 You can also follow me on:

Twitter - https://twitter.com/Scottcbusiness

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ScottCBusiness

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/scottcbusiness

LinkedIn - https://ca.linkedin.com/in//scottcbusiness

Steemit - https://steemit.com/@scottcbusiness

Minds - https://www.minds.com/scottcbusiness

Discord - ScottCBusiness#5242