Pikazilla

Logical Fallacies

If logic uses facts to reach conclusions, then a logical fallacy distorts facts or has flawed arguments.

Genetic Fallacy

Supporting or opposing a statement or argument primarily or exclusively based on the source of the argument.

This is less about confirming authenticity and more about assuming if the statement or argument is even valid based on the professionalism or bias of the source.

• Examples:
  • Ignoring everything from CNN or Fox News since they have shown bias and have been caught lying in the past.

Faulty Appeal to Authority

Using the opinion/position of an authority figure to substitute an actual argument.

The opinion of authority figures is not automatically valid, especially on debatable topics or topics that the authority figure is not experienced in. Authority figures are expected to have the intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge to exert their authority; however, this is not always the case for every scenario.

This also applies to celebrities or famous individuals, including those of the past. Authority figures can still have their own biases, especially those who did not live in the present day.

No True Scotsman Fallacy

Assuming that an argument is accurate because it is from a group that is assumed to be righteous or pure, and that critics of the argument should be dismissed for being unjust or indecent.

• Examples:
  • Assuming that groups traditionally viewed as righteous (clerics, police, superheroes, firefighters) are automatically more valid or more accurate than other groups or their critics.
  • Assuming that a protester is being traitorous or is not protesting correctly and thus should be dismissed. This includes several protest movements like flag burners or anthem kneeling.

Either-Or Fallacy (Black-And-White)

Assuming that what you arguing must have an answer that is either absolutely yes or absolutely no; there is no neutral, moderate, or centralist answer.

This is to force or coerce people into choosing one of the two extremes and is normally set up so that the extreme that is more favorable matches the views of the arguer.

Realistically, it is common for more than two options or answers to exist.

Middle Ground Fallacy

Arguing that the best answer is one that is in the middle of two extremes.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Insinuating that if A would happen, then B would happen, meaning that we should make certain that A never happens in order to prevent B. Normally, B would be a worse-case scenario.

• Examples
  • If we ban fully automatic firearms, then there will also be a ban on all guns, which would require a ban on the 2nd Amendment, which would require a ban on American liberty. So we cannot allow any restrictions on firearms, unless we want our nation to become a new Nazi Germany.
  • If we legalize automatic firearms, then we will eventually legalize explosives, which would legalize nuclear weapons, which would result in nuclear terrorism. So we cannot allow any new expansion of gun rights, unless we want to destroy ourselves.

False Cause Fallacy

Assuming that two things are directly related to each other without evidence suggesting that. Assuming that a coincidence is proof.

• Examples:
  • The opening of Timurid's tomb at Gur-e-Amir caused the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. There is no scientific evidence linking the events other than assuming that magic was involved and citing the date and the exhumation was done by a Soviet anthropologist. By that logic, many other random coincidences could be used as proof as well.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

An overgeneralization of something based on a small or poor sample/evidence.

It is quite common for humans to overgeneralize topics to make them easier to understand. However, this kind of generalization is also useful for propaganda.

Part-To-Whole Fallacy

When someone is looking at a small fraction of something and assuming that most or all of that thing is similar to or exactly the same as the small part. In other words: a trait applying to a small part is assumed to apply to all of it.

This can be a form of cherrypicking as it glorifies or denounces specific traits so that the audience is oblivious to the general picture.

• Examples:
  • Assuming that a kingdom is wealthy because the royal palaces are wealthy.
  • Assuming that high crime in a city means that the entire nation has high crime.
  • Assuming that there is a shark infestation because one beach had two shark attacks within 1 year.

Anecdotal Fallacy

Assuming that your personal experience or an isolated incident is proof that substitutes an argument.

It favors potential outliers over general evidence.

Examples:

• Stating that the assassination of Shinzo Abe is proof that Japan has rampant gun violence; the fact is that Japan has some of the lowest gun crimes and violence in the world.
• Someone stating that muggings are rampant in their town because they were a victim of a mugging. This doesn't provide an objective statistic beyond confirming that a single case occurred.

Loaded Question

Asking a question that has an assumption in it.

Since questions are expected to be answered, the person responding to the question is expected to accept the assumption within the loaded question; it baits with the assumption of guilt.

It can be perceived as having two questions in one.

• Examples:
  • We know that The Crusades were radical and brutal. What made the Christians escalate that brutality?
    • This insinuates that Christians were uniquely radical and brutal and doesn't debate that; instead, the question asks why The Crusades started out brutal but intensified. It paints The Crusades and Christians as being only brutal and violent and doesn't offer the option to debate that assumption.
    • A better way to format this question is to ask: "were The Crusades relatively brutal for the time period; did the Christians support or oppose this brutality; and how did The Crusades progress overtime?"
  • Why did you take that cookie?
    • This is essentially asking "Did you take that cookie" and "Why?", but it skips over the former question to immediately insinuate that the answer is 'yes' in order to proceed with the accusation.

Strawman Fallacy

Rewording, rewriting, or altering the argument of another to make it easier to attack.

A strawman is a fake person that is artificially created with whatever traits the creator wants or who said something that the creator wanted them to say, and then the creator of the strawman can assault it without repercussions since it is not the real person. However, since the strawman can resemble a real person, it can damage that person's reputation by being a dehumanized imitation.

• Examples:
  • Assuming that someone who advocates for gun safety reform is advocating Nazism because Nazis did historically crackdown on gun ownership. This is completely ignoring the actual reasoning of the advocate by comparing it to something extreme.
  • Assuming that whoever advocates against assault rifle bans is also ignoring gun violence. It is still possible for this advocate to want other kinds of gun or crime reforms, but this insinuation assumes otherwise.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Attacking your opponent's character, even if you are not challenging their argument.

• Examples:
  • The assumption that Claudius' attempts to integrate recently annexed regions into Roman citizenship should have been dismissed due to Claudius' poor health.

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Assuming that someone who is inconsistent or hypocritical is automatically wrong about everything.

While it is true that manipulative hypocrites exist, nobody is perfect. Assuming that someone has been wrong or hypocritical multiple times doesn't mean that it's the case every time. It does negatively impact their credibility, but this isn't the same as having everything they say to be absolutely false.

• Examples:
  • Someone texts on their phone "Capitalism is bad because it can cause rampant inequality if left unchecked".
    • It is hypocritical for this anti-capitalist to be using a phone, something provided to them as a result of a capitalist market, to denounce capitalism. However, their argument that capitalism causes inequality and that inequality is an issue can still be a valid argument that should not be entirely dismissed.

Bandwagon Fallacy

Assuming that popular ideas are automatically better than ideas that are unpopular (including taboos or controversial actions).

Whataboutism

Ignoring the original argument/criticism with another argument/criticism.

Appeal To Fallacy

Appeal To Fear

Attempting to create support for an idea by creating fear, including implying or stating that not supporting that idea or finding an alternative would be dangerous or harmful.

Appeal To Pity

To convince someone to support or oppose something out of pity.

• Examples:
  • During the 19th century, it was common for pro-slavery advocates to argue that slavery was necessary to civilize those who become enslaved, and not doing so would leave these people to remain as poverty stricken barbarians.

Appeal To Tradition

Arguing that something that contradicts tradition must be rejected or that anything ingrained in tradition is always the better option.

Appeal To Nature

Assuming that something that is natural is the better option compared to something artificial. Nature good; man bad.

False Equivalence Fallacy

Implying or stating that two different things are equivalent to each other even when they are not, even if they do actually share one or a few traits; this is like saying apples and oranges are the same.

• Examples:
  • Implying that protests, riots, coup riots, and revolts are similar or identical since they each involve crowds engaged in public discourse.
  • Implying that a sports team denying a player is a form of discrimination identical to what is seen in voter suppression, police brutality, ect...

Personal Incredulity Fallacy

When someone states that something is untrue simply because they do not know what it is or because it is difficult for them to understand.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy

Arguing that something is true because it has not been proven to be false (or vise versa), at least to the person arguing. If the person is ignorant to a better solution, even if they admit their ignorance, they will still call their main argument to be valid.

Begging The Question Fallacy

When a question/argument has the "answer"/conclusion included in the premise in order to convince others to accept that conclusion.

• Example
  • You can stop violence by not being violent.
    • This ignores why the violence is occurring to begin with.

Fallacy Fallacy

Saying that a poorly made claim or argument should be rejected due to its imperfection, regardless of if there is still some merit to it.

Special Pleading Fallacy

When the argument is challenged, the person uses a (or another) fallacy to compensate.

You Can't Get Snakes from Chicken Eggs

An oversimplistic statement that rejects relatively complex opposing arguments or counter-arguments simply by claiming that the simpler argument automatically is the correct one. This is common among conspiracy theories since the fictitious or absurd argument is easier to understand regardless of how unscientific it is.

This phrase is a common creationist argument that tries to shut down any and all talk about evolution by oversimplifying evolution theory to such a small and simplistic sentence that it is laughably irrational, not mentioning the complex details necessary to explain the evolutionary relationship between snakes and birds.

Occam's Razor

The philosophical principle created by William of Ockham states that if two different theories exist to explain the same phenomenon, then the simpler theory or the one with fewer assumptions should be preferred. This is assuming that the assumptions have at least some valid scientific understanding of the topic. Occam's Razor doesn't actually decide which of the two competing theories are true, since it is aware that both theories have at least some level of assumptions and speculations.

Cognitive Dissonance

A psychological conflict where someone has to choose between two opposing viewpoints or beliefs. This can be resolved by choosing facts instead of bias, but the opposite is also an option.

Confirmation Bias

When someone accepts information as fact because of their bias, even without confirming if the information is factual.

It is very common for extremist and false conspiracy theories to be set in a manner to denounce someone whom believers of the theory already despise, or to use conjecture in a way that can make sense regardless of whether any evidence exists or not. Many theorists simply want to believe that they are right or that they made a revolutionary achievement that would somehow bring justice to the world, and when their wishes are not fulfilled they might further lash out.

Examples:

• The USA 2020 election has many conspiracy theories insinuating that Biden rigged the election, but many of these theories are created by and believed by those who already oppose Biden. These same theories justify themselves by claiming that the lack of evidence is confirmation of an effective coverup, despite this still being weak conjecture that still got rejected legally.
• Lyndon B. Johnson is often cited by conspiracy theorists as the true mastermind behind the JFK Assassination since it was the event that allowed him to become president of the USA. While this can make sense (because LBJ did benefit from the event), the evidence of this theory is lacking. It's assuming that someone who is benefiting from a tragedy must have conducted the tragedy when the reality is that people indirectly or effortlessly benefit from unpredictable or random events all the time.

Motivational Bias

When someone does an action because they are motivated to do so, instead of doing something because it would logically benefit them.

Dog Whistle

The use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition.

Example:

• You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-----, N-----, N-----." By 1968, you can't say "N-----" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. - Lee Atwater describing Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy

Baiting

Hinting at but not directly depicting a specific group in a negative manner. This is frequently done in media and entertainment, but can also be done politically.

Examples

• Queerbaiting: A negative or villainous character with queer stereotypes but not officially queer.
  • Several Tim Curry characters like Frank from Rock Horror Picture Show or Hexxus have been accused of being queerbaiting. Like many other examples, there is no definitive evidence to confirm or deny this.
• Space Jews: Inhuman characters, animals, or monsters that embody stereotypical aspects of real-world groups. The Phantom Menace has been accused of doing this with many of its new characters.

Poisoning the Well

Attempting to dehumanize a person or group before they attempt to speak out so that when they do get that chance to speak, their audience is already motivated to not trust them.

Examples

• "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail"

Euphemism

Substituting a word to make it more appealing.

Examples

• Contraceptives = Family Planning
• Pro-Abortion = Pro-Choice

Doublespeak

Watering down the intensity of a word to prevent backlash or criticism.

This originates from the novel 1984, where the totalitarian government alters the English language to make it harder for its citizens to comprehend or communicate negative anti-government thoughts.

Examples

• A company announces that it is downsizing instead of announcing that it is enacting massive layoffs.

Political Posturing (Grandstanding)

Committing to or claiming to commit to a political viewpoint or policy that you might not actually be interested in or that you know is hollow or pointless in order to get more support or to align with the philosophy of your own faction.

• Barack Obama in the 2000s publicly opposed gay marriage multiple times, but his presidential administration became responsible for passing various laws legalizing gay practices or supporting the gay community.
• Napoleon's support of French Republicanism was reversed when he overthrew France and attempted to establish a new defacto monarchy in France and other countries.

Political Hustling

Using political propaganda, fraud, or deceitful unscrupulous methods for profit or gains.

Loaded Language

Using words based on their cultural reception rather than their actual meaning, normally out of ignorance or to provoke emotion from a general audience.

Examples

• Using Fascism to describe a government that is cartoonishly evil and tyrannical, without even acknowledging or knowing the actual philosophy or history of Fascism.

Clickbait

Something that is desperately getting attention using extreme or deceptive tactics. This is commonly done with advertisements, entertainment, or news articles that overexaggerate in order to get attention (even when they make their audience upset as a result).

Snake Oil Salesman (False Promise)

Claiming that you can provide your customers or audience with something that you most likely or certainly cannot guarantee. Originates from real historical practices of conmen selling exotic supposedly magical items, like snake oil.

Catfishing

Someone using a false identity in order to get attention. Frequently done for trolling or scamming.

Dead Cat Tactic

Making a shocking or eye-catching announcement in order to distract the public from a controversy.

Reaching

When someone over-exaggerates facts to validate their own opinion.

Windowdressing

A normally deceptive political act to make one look more appealing to potential supporters, regardless of if the act has any merit or commitment.

Echo Chamber

When news or social media follow a political ideology that matches or supports the viewer's preexisting biases, beliefs, ideology, or political party. Even when the audience has the option to go to other news or social media outlets, they might stay with what they are more comfortable with instead of hearing different and opposing views. This can lead to partisan intolerance and obliviousness.

Defamation

The act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person (Character Assassination), place, or thing that results in damage to its reputation.

Fabrication

Creating something that didn't exist before or is a lie.

Smear Campaign

An attempt to use propaganda to dehumanize a political opponent to increase your own chances of success. This is commonly within democracy elections, but not exclusively.

False Accusation

A hostile accusation with little or no actual evidence backing it up.

False Flag

An act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party. Can be used to justify attacking the person or thing being targeted.

Rumor and Gossip

A circulating story that normally lacks evidence. Can be eye-catching, which causes it to snowball rapidly.

Blind Item

A rumor that technically does not mention the actions in full detail or doesn't mention the individual. Some Blind Items do hint at what or who is being discussed, but doesn't go all in on the rumor either because they lack evidence or to avoid legal retaliation.

Hate Speech

Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as (but not limited to) race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. This can include false accusations and conspiracy theories that attempt to dehumanize the targeted group.

Legal/Court Terms

Heresy

Hersey is testimony when someone claims that another person said or wrote something, without having the evidence to back it up.

If the person cited is not involved in the court or case or cannot be summoned to testify, then it would classify as an unsworn statement (where the statement cannot be punished for perjury if false). Courts don't want to rely on statements made without clarification, as it could lead to misinterpretation.

Generally prohibited in court with some exceptions. When allowed, is generally viewed as weak evidence, even if perjury doesn't exist or cannot be proven. It is still possible to win a case on heresy alone, but such cases are rare and normally controversial.

Defendant statements are non-heresy, even if the defendant doesn't testify in response to it (including when they Plead The Fifth). The jury determines legitimacy and witness credibility.

Conjecture

An idea or notion founded on probability, but lacking any physical evidence to confirm if it happened.

Legal cases relying on or resolving primarily or exclusively because of conjecture have been highly controversial since it is such weak evidence, which is why there are strict rules on how they can be applied in court.

Perjury

When a witness or declarant makes an intentionally false statement while under oath (both in court or to an officer of the law). A court normally needs to confirm, with facts, that perjury was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maximum sentence: 5 years in prison.

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

https://www.colorado-violent-assault-crimes-criminal-lawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/COLORADO-LEVELS-OF-BURDENS-OF-PROOF.jpg

Contempt of Court

When the court punishes bad behavior during a court case.

This can also classify if a defendant refuses to follow the judge's instructions to sign a deed or legal order. The defendant can defend their defiance by challenging the judge's decision.

Maximum Sentence: 6 months in jail or $1,000 fine. Can also be jailed until the defendant complies with the order.

Witness Tampering and Intimidation

When a defendant (normally with wealth, criminal connections, or political influence) attempts to pressure witnesses with bribes or threats in order to get a favorable verdict.

Maximum Sentence: 20 Years.

Legal Defenses (Valid)

Sovereign Immunity

When a sovereign (monarch) or a state is immune from prosecution.

Qualified Immunity

When a political leader is entirely or mostly immune from prosecution, normally with some exceptions.

Mistake (criminal_law) or Mistake of Fact

A defendant can be not guilty of a crime if they were oblivious to the fact that they committed a crime but they are not oblivious to the law.

Example: If someone doesn't pay for a shirt because the cashier didn't properly scan the shirt, then it was a mistake made; it's not theft as there was no dishonesty or criminal intent.

Advise of Counsel

When a defendant argues that they committed a crime because someone with legal authority (like a lawyer or law enforcement) incorrectly told them that the aforementioned action was not a crime.

https://www.sdtriallaw.com/blog/2018/12/understanding-the-advice-of-counsel-defense/

Necessity (criminal law)

When a defendant commits a crime to protect themself or someone else.

Coercion

When a threatened defendant commits a crime because not committing a crime risked being harmed. This is commonly seen in bullying victims, but can be any scenario where someone who abuses their high status or power towards those they see as inferior.

There are some controversies and limitations to this defense, most noticeably with war criminals arguing that they would be punished by their superiors if they didn't follow their orders.

Entrapment

When law enforcement uses coercion.

Legal Defenses (Poor)

Ignorantia juris non excusat

The concept that a crime was committed because the defendant was ignorant of a law (or the details of that law) is not a legal excuse to dismiss the charges. Being oblivious is not a legal defense.

Zero Tolerance

When a pre-determined punishment is sentenced against a crime, regardless of the severity or context of the infraction. This is intended to eliminate discretion, favoritism, and discrimination in order to maximize deterrence (including with excessive force).

Provocation (legal)

The concept is that a crime was committed because the defendant was provoked into doing so. A common example is someone who violently lashes out against someone who is annoying them.

While rarely an excuse to dismiss all charges, it can justify a reduced sentencing.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

The argument is that two similar statistical results are not necessarily related to each other. This could be based on coincidences or other factors that don't tie the two together.

• Examples
  • While the USA does have both a high rate of crime and high rate of videogame players, there is evidence to reject the idea that crime is created by videogames; high crime exists in undeveloped nations with few videogame players & nations like Japan and South Korea have low crime despite being famous for their high rate of videogame players.
  • Ice cream sales and homicide rates are high in the summer and cold in the winter. This doesn't mean ice cream creates homicides, but that the warmth of the climate coincidentally affects both metrics.