A totally made up thing by big dictionary because they forgot the exemption of rose because she is always 100% right about everything and oh so swag
by Joe… June 8, 2024
Get the Just because fallacymug. When you are mid nut and suddenly hit with regret that the nut isn’t worth it but you already committed to it so you must go through with it.
I was halfway through a cringe hookup when I realized I wasn’t into it, but I’d already Ubered there and taken my socks off—sunk nut fallacy at its finest.
by Attic Tards April 5, 2025
Get the Sunk Nut Fallacymug. An Appeal to Kaffir Fallacy is when someone (usually a Muslim) appeals to a disbeliever as a source instead of citing their own.
Guy Named Retirement: You cannot kill children in Islam
Guy Named Kay: What's the source?
Guy Named Retirement: Wally knows the source
Guy Named Kay" Aye! That's an Appeal to Kaffir Fallacy!
Guy Named Kay: What's the source?
Guy Named Retirement: Wally knows the source
Guy Named Kay" Aye! That's an Appeal to Kaffir Fallacy!
by wallacewest October 19, 2025
Get the Appeal to Kaffir Fallacymug. Tucker is also using ad pop as his justification believing that God created humans and that there is a spiritual battle between good and evil.
Tucker "EvErYoNe BeLiEvEd It! Everyone has ALWAYS believed it! Dattebayo!"
Hym "Heheheheheh Dattebayo... No, hey, that's the 'Ad Populum Fallacy.' A large number of people believing something (even historically) is not evidence for the truth of the claim."
Hym "Heheheheheh Dattebayo... No, hey, that's the 'Ad Populum Fallacy.' A large number of people believing something (even historically) is not evidence for the truth of the claim."
by Hym Iam April 23, 2024
Get the Ad Populum Fallacymug. A word that is used by people who don't have answers or don't have the energy to answer logically feasible questions.
by LogicMan86 August 14, 2020
Get the Fallacymug. 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 23, 2020
Get the The Relative/absolute fallacymug. by Jake433 October 10, 2021
Get the Fallacy limitmug.