"When one tries to ask a question or make an observation and another party immediately accuses them of being part of an unrelated discredited group."
"Hey, I think the government might be cloud-seeding."
"Are you a flat-Earther too?"
"Don't hit me with that Sidecar Fallacy BS... I've seen the patents!"
"Are you a flat-Earther too?"
"Don't hit me with that Sidecar Fallacy BS... I've seen the patents!"
by TooLateBlue July 10, 2023
Similar to Ken Wilber's "Pre/trans fallacy", which is about conflating pre-rational views with trans-rational views, the Relative/absolute fallacy is about conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective. This is the main source of confusion in the forms of spirituality that deal with the implications of non-duality (Oneness).
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
You're conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective ("The Relative/Absolute Fallacy").
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
by Carich99 December 24, 2020
The color red is the best because the Internet said so.
That line of thinking is just a Kevin fallacy!
That line of thinking is just a Kevin fallacy!
by Vihörs February 25, 2024
The common mistaken belief that all people who drive Subarus are gay, just because all lesbians drive Subarus.
Christie: Hey Joe, you're a flaming homosexual because of those navy blue briefs! Steve: No way. I'm an expert on men's underwear. Like Rick from Pawn Stars calls me when he has questions. This js just a classic example of The Subaru Fallacy!
by C Chaotic November 08, 2020
Christie: hey Joe you're clearly a flaming homosexual because of those burnt orange briefs. Steve: No way! I'm an expert on men's underwear. Like Rick from Pawn Stars calls me when he has questions. This is a classic example of the Subaru Fallacy!
by C Chaotic November 08, 2020
Nobel Savage Fallacy (not to be confused with the Noble Savage Myth) is an error in reasoning by which incidental commonalities between modern scientific theory/technology and ancient cultural expressions are claimed to support a conclusion that the ancients must have had access to modern knowledge.
The fallacy is usually committed by those with an at best shallow understanding of either modern science, ancient cultures, or - frequently - both.
It is commonly committed by those seeking to bolster the foundations of their modern cultural hegemony by arguing that the purported central tenets of its ancient precursors were rationally developed, and any deviations from those traditional norms are movement away from the ostensibly scientific ideal.
It is also frequently deployed by charlatans attempting to sell products or services derived from ancient techniques, who wish to gain a veneer of scientific plausibility for their offerings - that they in no way deserve.
The fallacy is usually committed by those with an at best shallow understanding of either modern science, ancient cultures, or - frequently - both.
It is commonly committed by those seeking to bolster the foundations of their modern cultural hegemony by arguing that the purported central tenets of its ancient precursors were rationally developed, and any deviations from those traditional norms are movement away from the ostensibly scientific ideal.
It is also frequently deployed by charlatans attempting to sell products or services derived from ancient techniques, who wish to gain a veneer of scientific plausibility for their offerings - that they in no way deserve.
"No, dude, those symbols do not mean they had spaceships, even if they look a little bit like that rocket Bezos made - mistaking what is obviously a poorly-drawn penis for a spacecraft is just the Nobel Savage Fallacy!"
"Babe, Gwenyth can say whatever she likes - but stuffing that crystal up your coochie is not gonna cure anything, even if the Biddelonians have been doing it for centuries... yes, I've heard of phototherapy, but that crystal isn't gonna refract any light up there, it's just another Nobel Savage Fallacy!"
"Babe, Gwenyth can say whatever she likes - but stuffing that crystal up your coochie is not gonna cure anything, even if the Biddelonians have been doing it for centuries... yes, I've heard of phototherapy, but that crystal isn't gonna refract any light up there, it's just another Nobel Savage Fallacy!"
by Umlimo April 19, 2022
When someone in an argument argues the semantics of a word/phrase, rather than making a retort against the other person's argument.
Person 1: No lolis aren't children, they're actually young-looking women.
Person 2: Nice Vaush-Goblin Fallacy loser
Person 2: Nice Vaush-Goblin Fallacy loser
by goblinski May 08, 2024