Narcissistic Logical Fallacy

A "Narcissistic Logical Fallacy" is a fallacy commonly used by narcissists to gaslight their victims.

"Omg, like I dumped my boyfriend because he tried to tell me 'there's never been any evidence to suggest that evidence you're suggesting' -to the evidence of how he was cheating! That's a Narcissistic Logical Fallacy! He's such a narcissist."

by Biggie Dawg January 29, 2021

Logical fallacies

A useful set of 'refutational tools' whose usage is mainly seen in random internet arguments but can also equally be applied in the IRL realm too, such as against your wife or your boss. The former scenario is where people often abuse logical fallacies to the point of committing a fallacy fallacy, so be wise and use them sparingly and only as a supplement to your argument.

Also related to non sequitur.

1) Jim called out his boss by using logical fallacies to poke holes in his ridiculous decisions.
2) Tommy used logical fallacies to his advantage in order to expose the inconsistencies in his girlfriend's reasoning with regards to how he should spend his money.

by Mary Mary Quite The Contrarian October 2, 2022

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

Law of Absolute and Relative Logical Fallacies

The principle that fallacies operate in two modes: absolute fallacies (errors that are fallacious in all logical systems, by any reasonable standard) and relative fallacies (errors that are fallacious in some systems but may be acceptable in others). The law acknowledges that some errors are universally wrong—affirming the consequent is a mistake in any logic that cares about validity. Other errors are system-dependent—what counts as a fallacy in formal logic may be perfectly acceptable in rhetorical argument. The law of absolute and relative fallacies reconciles these by recognizing that fallaciousness has both universal and context-dependent dimensions.

Law of Absolute and Relative Logical Fallacies Example: "He accused her of ad hominem, claiming it was an absolute fallacy. She pointed out that in political debate, attacking character is sometimes relevant and not always fallacious. The law of absolute and relative fallacies said: in formal logic, absolutely fallacious; in political rhetoric, context-dependent. Both were right, which is why fallacies are complicated."

by Abzugal February 16, 2026

Law of Spectral Logical Fallacies

The principle that logical fallacies exist on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, a claim isn't simply fallacious or not fallacious—it's fallacious to some degree, in some contexts, under some interpretations, for some purposes. The law of spectral fallacies recognizes that what counts as a fallacy depends on standards of reasoning that themselves vary across domains, cultures, and purposes. An argument that's clearly fallacious in a philosophy seminar might be perfectly acceptable in a political speech; a move that's invalid in formal logic might be persuasive in everyday conversation. The spectral view allows for nuanced evaluation rather than binary dismissal.

Law of Spectral Logical Fallacies Example: "She analyzed his argument using spectral fallacies, mapping it across dimensions: formal logical fallacies (present but weak), rhetorical effectiveness (high), contextual appropriateness (depends on audience), cultural reasoning norms (acceptable in his tradition). The spectral coordinates explained why some listeners were convinced and others were appalled. She stopped calling it simply fallacious and started understanding its complex effects."

by Abzugal February 16, 2026

Perfect Logic Fallacy

The mistaken belief that arguments must be logically perfect to be valid—that any logical flaw, no matter how minor or irrelevant, invalidates the entire conclusion. This fallacy ignores that most real-world arguments are not formally perfect, yet still convey truth, persuade audiences, and guide action. The perfect logic fallacy is beloved of internet pedants who delight in pointing out irrelevant formal errors while ignoring the substantive point. It's the logic of "you committed a fallacy, therefore you're wrong," which confuses form with content. The cure is recognizing that logic is a tool, not a tyrant—useful for clarifying thought, not for dismissing it.

Perfect Logic Fallacy Example: "She made an argument about economic inequality. He pounced on a minor logical slip—irrelevant to her main point—and declared her entire argument invalid. The perfect logic fallacy had done its work: avoiding substance by seizing on form. She stopped engaging, which was probably what he wanted."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026