by Big eggd December 5, 2024
Get the Heavenly rex fallacy mug.Pointing out a certain contraband or prohibited action alike which only implies said person pointing it out also knows or is involved in said prohibition.
Though it doesnt have to be immoral, it could just be akward or embarrassing.
Though it doesnt have to be immoral, it could just be akward or embarrassing.
P-hub intro plays
B : hey, you cant watch that here are you crazy?
A : watch what? What am i watching?
B : thats obviously p-hub
A : you know what the intro sounds like??
C : you just proved the p-hub fallacy B
/
B : how do you- yknow, do it with your fingers?
A : oh, 5 inch in the curl
A : i mean, thats what they said! I dont know myself i havent tried anything like that yet.
B : ? Did you just excecute the p-hub fallacy
B : hey, you cant watch that here are you crazy?
A : watch what? What am i watching?
B : thats obviously p-hub
A : you know what the intro sounds like??
C : you just proved the p-hub fallacy B
/
B : how do you- yknow, do it with your fingers?
A : oh, 5 inch in the curl
A : i mean, thats what they said! I dont know myself i havent tried anything like that yet.
B : ? Did you just excecute the p-hub fallacy
by Anoneeneemus December 12, 2024
Get the P-hub fallacy mug.Fault-to-Ratio Fallacy
A phrase created by John R. Williams III in early 2024.
The fault-to-ratio fallacy refers to the mistaken reasoning where someone dismisses an individual’s entire set of beliefs or arguments simply because they hold one or a few demonstrably false or flawed views. This fallacy ignores the "ratio" of truths to faults, assuming that one error invalidates all other ideas or arguments, even if some of them are inherently correct or well-founded.
A phrase created by John R. Williams III in early 2024.
The fault-to-ratio fallacy refers to the mistaken reasoning where someone dismisses an individual’s entire set of beliefs or arguments simply because they hold one or a few demonstrably false or flawed views. This fallacy ignores the "ratio" of truths to faults, assuming that one error invalidates all other ideas or arguments, even if some of them are inherently correct or well-founded.
Example:
Person A: "I believe the Earth is flat, but I also believe that 2+2=4."
Person B: "Since you believe the Earth is flat, everything you say must be wrong."
Here, Person B commits the fault-to-ratio fallacy by rejecting Person A’s correct belief (2+2=4) because of their incorrect belief about the shape of the Earth. Instead of evaluating each idea on its own merit, they discredit all ideas based on one fault
Person A: "I believe the Earth is flat, but I also believe that 2+2=4."
Person B: "Since you believe the Earth is flat, everything you say must be wrong."
Here, Person B commits the fault-to-ratio fallacy by rejecting Person A’s correct belief (2+2=4) because of their incorrect belief about the shape of the Earth. Instead of evaluating each idea on its own merit, they discredit all ideas based on one fault
by TheMightyRaccoon December 27, 2024
Get the Fault-to-Ratio Fallacy mug.When someone decides a joke is “not funny” just because they took it literally or didn’t realize it was a joke, even though it was meant humorously and others understood it that way
Person 1: “I’d rather eat dogs than this shit.”
Person 2: “HAHA!”
Person 3: “LOL!”
Person 4: “No you would not.”
Person 1: It was a joke chill.”
Person 4: “Jokes are supposed to be funny.”
Person 1: “That’s a Literal Joke Fallacy.”
Person 2: “HAHA!”
Person 3: “LOL!”
Person 4: “No you would not.”
Person 1: It was a joke chill.”
Person 4: “Jokes are supposed to be funny.”
Person 1: “That’s a Literal Joke Fallacy.”
by Dogoraga January 23, 2026
Get the Literal Joke Fallacy mug.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
Get the Hard Problem of Logical Fallacies mug.The broader epistemic dilemma that human reasoning is inherently and ubiquitously fallible. We are not logic machines; we use heuristics, emotions, and social biases to navigate the world. The "hard problem" is that if we strictly applied formal logical standards, almost all everyday reasoning, political discourse, and even scientific hypothesis generation would be riddled with fallacies (appeals to probability, anecdotal reasoning, appeals to intuition). This creates a paradox: to demand pure logical form is to paralyze human thought and communication, yet to ignore fallacies is to descend into irrationality. Navigating this requires pragmatic wisdom, not just a textbook of errors.
Example: A scientist has a "hunch" about an experiment based on a single weird result (anecdotal fallacy). This illogical leap leads them to a groundbreaking discovery. The hard problem: The fallacy was a crucial creative step. If a logic purist had stopped them, saying "That's statistically insignificant, you're committing a fallacy," progress would have halted. This shows that fallacies aren't just bugs in our thinking; they're sometimes features of our exploratory, pattern-seeking minds. The challenge is knowing when to tolerate them as scaffolding and when to demolish them as faulty structures. Hard Problem of Fallacies.
by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026
Get the Hard Problem of Fallacies mug.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
Get the Hard Problem of Logical Fallacy Fallacies mug.