Logical Fallacies (7).png

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 10 of my series 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...

The Etymological Fallacy

This is where you draw a false conclusion from the origins of a current word or the associations of that word in a different language. The origins can also be long forgotten or the word of mouth. An example of this would be like saying the origins of a word might be offensive so the word shouldn't be allowed to be used even though the current linguistic use of the word is different. This isn't used very often, but definitely something to note.

The Excluded Middle Fallacy

The fallacy that says that because having less is better, none is the best or alternatively because a little more of something is better, all or a lot more would be the best. For example: if a low-carb diet can be good for you, then a no carb diet is the best diet. That is obviously fallacious and untrue because we should have balanced diets and ensure our bodies get what they need. The opposite of this can be the big but fallacy previously described or the middle of the road fallacy.

The Middle Of The Road Fallacy

This is very similar to the black and white fallacy but in this fallacy there are three options: 2 very extreme sides and one very middle and much more reasonable option. This fallacy is claiming that because it is the middle of two unfavorable sides that it is the most balanced and the least unideal where there still may be more options available. For example one could say that because two presidential candidates are very extreme on both sides the most logical answer is to choose the most middle candidate which may not necessarily be the better choice.

Profanity Fallacy

This is where the use of unrelated crude language is made to strengthen or weaken a claim. This is similar to the salacious fallacy which is more specifically about inappropriately sexualizing something. A great example of this is when Trump was running for president the large focus around his previous boasting about groping in order to claim that he isn't fit for candidacy. By the way I'm not condoning it, it's just not a logical argument as it's very similar to ad hominem. One may use a profanity fallacy to silence another or to gain rapport with younger audiences. There are many instances of this and it is in fact, fallacious.

The False Analogy

This is where you incorrectly compere two things in order to come up with a false conclusion. A great example of this could be "Just like a lion needs to hunt, I have to gamble." It might not be the best example, but you'd be surprised what people argue with. Typically people use this as a joke, but some people genuinely argue with as a valid reason. The opposite of this is the Sui Generis fallacy which says no analogy is valid because all things are completing unique and incomparable.