This is the fallacy that a sad man might pull himself out of sadness by going on Tinder/Bumble/etc. The thinking normally follows the idea that mathematically if he swipes right on enough profiles he is bound to find someone with whom to talk. this is false. He will be alone.
"Yeah the 'rona has me bored af. im gonna download tinder, swipe right on everyone and maybe meet some people and waste some time."
'Thats the Sad Man's Fallacy man, theyre not gonna swipe right either way bro. You need to focus on yourself because this is only gonna hurt'
'Thats the Sad Man's Fallacy man, theyre not gonna swipe right either way bro. You need to focus on yourself because this is only gonna hurt'
by Vegitomofo August 20, 2020
"i think i'm always right" - tyler noack
"the classic tyler noack fallacy" - everybody who knows him
"the classic tyler noack fallacy" - everybody who knows him
by tylernoack69 January 15, 2023
One-sided coin fallacy occurs when a person only looks at one side of things, hence ¨one-sided coin fallacy¨. It occurs when someone argues that an action can exist while being completely oblivious that said action must have an opposite reaction.
Person A: Why are governments so stupid man? They can just raise the minimum wage to get rid of poverty.
Person B: Lol, that´s a one-sided coin fallacy. You can´t only look at the minimum wage going up, you also need to realize that companies paying more on wages will just make all their products more expensive.
Person B: Lol, that´s a one-sided coin fallacy. You can´t only look at the minimum wage going up, you also need to realize that companies paying more on wages will just make all their products more expensive.
by @Junes December 4, 2022
I was with this guy last night who listed "well endowed" on his Tinder profile. Maybe if he was comparing it to his pinkie finger. Girl, that dude is experiencing a phallusy fallacy.
by keywest4life March 11, 2020
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
Also known as non causa pro causa (non cause for cause/not a cause for a cause) or false cause fallacy
A logical fallacy in which a cause is wrongly defined
A logical fallacy in which a cause is wrongly defined
Here's the exhaustive list of Questionable Cause Fallacy:
1. Post ergo propter hoc
2. Correlation means causation
3. Texas Sharpshooter
4. Circular cause and consequence
5. Singular cause fallacy
6. Regression fallacy
7. Jumping into conclusions
8. Association fallacy (guilt/honor by association, such as reductio ad Hitlerum/Godwin's Law, reductio ad Stalinum/red-tag/red-bait) {Association Fallacy is an illegitimate child between ad hominem and questionable cause fallacy/false cause fallacy/non causa pro causa}
1. Post ergo propter hoc
2. Correlation means causation
3. Texas Sharpshooter
4. Circular cause and consequence
5. Singular cause fallacy
6. Regression fallacy
7. Jumping into conclusions
8. Association fallacy (guilt/honor by association, such as reductio ad Hitlerum/Godwin's Law, reductio ad Stalinum/red-tag/red-bait) {Association Fallacy is an illegitimate child between ad hominem and questionable cause fallacy/false cause fallacy/non causa pro causa}
by Sir. B November 5, 2021
You are always right. They are always wrong. No matter the situation as long as you pull out the ReeveWho Fallacy, everyone else is wrong and you are in the right. THERE IS NO beating this fallacy as it is the best.
by ReeveWho Fallacy January 7, 2023