Megan-logically challenged

Megan-logically challenged: n. A statement or opinion uttered by Megan, characterised by a high degree of inaccuracy and a tendency to defy logic and common sense. Often accompanied by a look of unwavering confidence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Trying to explain basic valorant techniques to Megan can be a frustrating experience, given her Megan-logically challenged approach to the subject.

by Dupe-seption December 26, 2024

concept by logical

Concept by Logical Means that anything Logical makes is absolutely fye no questions asked it also means that marston is still a virgin

Concept by logical is too fye bro

by astroboymcsuckurnan August 30, 2018

Hard Problem of Logical Fallacies

The frustrating reality that identifying a logical fallacy in someone's argument does not automatically prove their conclusion wrong, nor does it validate your own. Fallacies are flaws in reasoning, not truth detectors. The "hard problem" is the temptation to use fallacy labels (e.g., "that's just an ad hominem!") as a rhetorical knockout punch, ending the discussion while providing zero substantive counter-argument. This reduces critical thinking to a game of fallacy bingo, where the goal is to spot errors rather than collaboratively pursue truth. A conclusion reached via fallacious reasoning can still be accidentally true, and a logically pristine argument can lead to a false conclusion if its premises are wrong.

Example: Person A: "We should fix the bridge. The engineer who designed it is a known liar!" Person B: "Ad hominem fallacy! Invalid argument, the bridge is fine." B has correctly spotted a fallacy (attacking the person, not the bridge's condition), but has done nothing to assess the actual safety of the bridge. The hard problem: Winning the logical battle doesn't win the factual war. The bridge might still be crumbling, but the conversation is now dead, replaced by a smug scorecard of who used logic correctly. Hard Problem of Logical Fallacies.

by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026

Hard Problem of Logical Fallacy Fallacies

Also known as the Fallacy Fallacy Problem: The self-defeating mistake of dismissing an argument solely because it contains a logical fallacy. This is the meta-error where calling out a fallacy becomes a fallacy itself (argument from fallacy). It assumes that if the reasoning is flawed, the conclusion must be false. This creates a logical trap where any critique can be infinitely regressed: "You used a fallacy to point out my fallacy, so your critique is invalid!" It turns discourse into a hall of mirrors where the act of policing logic destroys the possibility of communication.

Example: Alex: "Climate change is real because 99% of scientists say so, and you're a oil shill for denying it!" (This commits an appeal to authority and an ad hominem). Blake: "Ha! You used two fallacies! Therefore, climate change isn't real!" Blake has committed the fallacy fallacy. Alex's conclusion (climate change is real) is supported by massive evidence independent of their flawed reasoning. Dismissing the conclusion because of the poor argument is a critical failure. The hard problem: Spotting fallacies is easy; knowing what to do with that information without committing a greater error is the real intellectual work. Hard Problem of Logical Fallacy Fallacies.

by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026

Fallacy Fallacy (Argumentum ad Logicam)

The formal meta-fallacy of concluding that a proposition is false simply because the argument presented for it contains a logical fallacy. This is a critical thinking fail state: you correctly spot flawed reasoning (e.g., an appeal to emotion, a post hoc correlation) but then incorrectly assume the conclusion is therefore untrue. A bad argument for a claim doesn't automatically make the claim wrong; it just means you're still waiting for a good argument.

Fallacy Fallacy (Argumentum ad Logicam) Example: "He argues we should help the poor because it makes us feel good. That's just an appeal to emotion, a fallacy. Therefore, we should not help the poor." This commits the Fallacy Fallacy. The poor might still desperately need help; the speaker has just shot down one weak justification, not disproven the need for the action itself.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Theory of Logical Social Control

This theory dissects how the language and prestige of formal logic are used as a social weapon to enforce conformity and dismiss dissent. It argues that appeals to "logic" and "rationality" are often culturally loaded and deployed to pathologize alternative viewpoints—especially emotional, intuitive, or culturally specific ones—as "illogical" or "irrational," thereby excluding them from serious discourse and legitimizing the status quo.

Theory of Logical Social Control Example: In a corporate meeting, a woman's proposal is dismissed by a male colleague who says, "Let's stick to the logical facts, not feelings," after she raised concerns about team morale. This is logical social control. He weaponizes a narrow, hyper-formal definition of "logic" to delegitimize her valid, experience-based argument, framing his position as objectively superior and reinforcing a gendered hierarchy of discourse.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 7, 2026

Moving the Logicpost

When, after an opponent successfully engages within a prescribed logical framework, the arguer changes the rules of what constitutes “valid logic.” This can mean switching logical systems (from deductive to inductive), redefining fallacies on the fly, or declaring that a formally valid syllogism is now invalid because it’s “based on a false premise” they previously accepted.

Moving the Logicpost Example:
You use their preferred deductive logic to build a sound argument.
They respond: “Deduction is limited. Real-world problems require fuzzy logic, which your binary reasoning fails. Your point is logically simplistic.”
They’ve moved the logicpost from formal deduction to an amorphous alternative to evade your conclusion.

by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026