Hey there! 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 19 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…
A non sequitur fallacy is where a conclusion is made irrelevant to the previous statement and has no logical connection. For example, “it’s raining so that must mean that stock market will go up today.” This can be used to argue more absurd points in a debate somewhat like a red herring fallacy.
This fallacy claims that there are no new concepts and that new concepts should be dismissed and shouldn’t be warranted a discussion. This is a somewhat rarer fallacy, but it’s still possible to see someone argue this. The problem is how far back can you go and how far back should you go before denying new concepts? The answer should be there is no place and time where new ideas should be shut down and thus this is a very corrupt argument from logos.
This fallacy takes on the idea that someone’s credibility is based on their odor, hygiene, or imagined or perceived filth or disease. For example, “we can’t trust a thing those activists say because they smell awful and should take a bath before we have to take them seriously.”
In this fallacy, someone will bring up some important piece of information to sensationalize the issue at the end of a decisive debate, or argument taking place to damage their opponent and present some sort of damning information. Then soon after when it they still lose, they say oops I guess that last piece of information wasn’t important, sorry. This is very common in political debates given people tend to remember the beginning and end the most.
This is extremely common today by using a discriminatory argument where claims of evidence and facts are disregarded because the opposition “doesn’t think the way we do.” You see this all the time with the mainstream regressive leftists that refuse to converse with or acknowledge the views of the other side and happens occasionally with regular politicians and they do so because they “are not like us” and then go on to claim that the other side is racist and promoting segregation and discrimination.
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!
You can support me via: