Hym "What the entire conservative position has become over the last for years. The slippery slope fallacy. We can't do this because THEN they'll want THAT! And then pretty soon we'll be holding our kids butthole open for the pedophiles!"
by Hym Iam March 15, 2024
The truth will have no conceivable defence, where as a fictional narrative can always be confirmed as fallacy.
John: I believe that we can grow our gross revenue 10% over the next six years using this marketing strategy.
Harvey: Well, facts are friendly. until then, fiction is fallacy.
The definition of fact being an absolute truth, where as to define fallacy is to holding a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
Facts are friendly, fiction is fallacy - would be defined as until you have evidence you are unable to make a case against the fallacy of your argument.
Harvey: Well, facts are friendly. until then, fiction is fallacy.
The definition of fact being an absolute truth, where as to define fallacy is to holding a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
Facts are friendly, fiction is fallacy - would be defined as until you have evidence you are unable to make a case against the fallacy of your argument.
by Harrison T French October 20, 2018
Where you think you're more awesome than everyone else, and that your opinions are so right, they don't require justification and everyone else is stupid for thinking differently.
Person 1: "I disagree with you, I think the Beatles is a boy band because some of their early stuff shows especially the commercialism aspect of boy bands."
Jack: "That's wrong, obviously the Beatles isn't a boy band."
Person 1: "That's actually the Jack Fallacy, not a real argument."
Jack: "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is an idiot, there's obviously a God."
Person 2: "the Jack Fallacy."
Jack: "That's wrong, obviously the Beatles isn't a boy band."
Person 1: "That's actually the Jack Fallacy, not a real argument."
Jack: "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is an idiot, there's obviously a God."
Person 2: "the Jack Fallacy."
by TessaSalem November 16, 2012
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 mistaken belief that the truth lies somewhere in between to opposing propositions.
Man "It's the women!"
Woman "It's the men!"
Sophist "Well... *Insert middle-ground fallacy*"
Hym "Wrong! I can prove it! By asking a simple question: What is the selection criteria? If it is 6ft tall (14.5%), Six figure salary (17%), 6 inch+ dick (16%) and we omit overlap and assume women are willing to settle for 1 out of the 3, we have only 47% of men who can meet the selection criteria. If THAT is what constitutes 'The best man available' (in the context of hypergamy) AND if we assume that Jordan is correct in saying that they should all just get married and start a family, What are the OTHER 53% of women supposed to do? For that to work, over HALF the women STILL have to CHANGE THEIR SELECTION CRITERIA. What then? How is that supposed to work? The women don't WANT to do it and are TOLD NOT TO BY PARENTS WHO WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BEST PARTNER AVAILABLE. The men who have overlapping qualities don't have to do it so their opinions are unlimited. And here we are...
Man "It's the women!"
Woman "It's the men!"
Sophist "Well... *Insert middle-ground fallacy*"
Hym "Wrong! I can prove it! By asking a simple question: What is the selection criteria? If it is 6ft tall (14.5%), Six figure salary (17%), 6 inch+ dick (16%) and we omit overlap and assume women are willing to settle for 1 out of the 3, we have only 47% of men who can meet the selection criteria. If THAT is what constitutes 'The best man available' (in the context of hypergamy) AND if we assume that Jordan is correct in saying that they should all just get married and start a family, What are the OTHER 53% of women supposed to do? For that to work, over HALF the women STILL have to CHANGE THEIR SELECTION CRITERIA. What then? How is that supposed to work? The women don't WANT to do it and are TOLD NOT TO BY PARENTS WHO WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BEST PARTNER AVAILABLE. The men who have overlapping qualities don't have to do it so their opinions are unlimited. And here we are...
What can men do about any of that? 'Try your best!'? 'Strife nobly into the dawn!'?Only 17% of the men CAN have jobs that pay 6 figures or more because THERE ARE A FINITE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT PAY THAT MUCH. What, do you expect them to increase the pay rate of a broader number of job to 6 figures? McDonald's cashier 100,000 a year. Then you can finally get a girlfriend. The other 2 are a roll of the dice. How is it at all men's fault? What is the selection criteria? Broadly? And that middle-ground fallacy applies to the schizophrenia thing too! It's not a matter of 'well, maybe it's a little of both'. At this point it's 'yeah, they're doing the thing they are doing and they have been doing it for years, and now I'm hyper-vigilant about it so I'm looking for it everywhere!' I don't claim to be right all of the time about it. And as a thought experiment I respond to things as though they were said to or about me. But that's not the same!"
by Hym Iam February 27, 2023
"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