It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
high rated
Giveaway Over

Thanks everyone for entering and indulging my fondness for logical fallacies :D

The winner is: Malv0isin!

***************************************************************************************

I'm excited about the rumoured completion of the Wing Commander series on GOG. To celebrate I want to giveaway one of my favourite games of all time - <span class="bold">Wing Commander: Privateer</span>!

To enter you must:
- have 50+ rep
- have joined July 2013 or earlier
- write me a sentence using a [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Logic]fallacy followed by the name of that fallacy

Example: Church attendence is on the decline and global warming is increasing. Therefore, people need to go back to church to stop global warming. - Correlation does not imply causation

Your entry will be worth 4 entries if you quote and link a recent article, tweet, blog, etc. by a famous politician, celebrity, etc, that exemplifies the fallacy.

The giveaway will end when I remember to end it ;)
Post edited September 22, 2013 by Dzsono
Not in but +1
Already got every wing commander beside academy, so not in but +1.
Not in, but thanks for the giveaway Dzsono.
Not in but thanks for the giveaway!
I'd participate, but unfortunately my logic is tethered.

Not in, but +1
Another "not in", just saying thanks for the giveaway. :)
I'm in. +1 for the giveaway.

A: "Smoking is bad for your health."
B: "But you just had a smoke a few minutes ago! How can you say that smoking is bad for your health?!"

- Tu Quoque, also known as the You Too fallacy or the appeal to hypocrisy. This is one of my (least) favourite fallacies, since it appears very frequently. Basically, A made a statement, whereupon B accused A that his/her past actions and/or statements aren't consistent with his/her current statement and that, therefore, his/her statement must be false. The reason this is a fallacy is because, even if the accusation is true, that doesn't inherently mean that the original statement is false.

For bonus points, here is a famous example from the CNN interview with Osama Bin Laden from March 1997:
Now, the United States government says that you are still funding military training camps here in Afganistan for militant, Islamic fighters and that you are a sponser of international terrorism; but others describe you as the new hero of the Arab-Islamic world. Are these accusations true? How do you describe yourself?

BIN LADIN: After the collapse of the Soviet Union in which the US has no mentionable role, but rather the credit goes to God, Praise and Glory be to Him, and the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, this collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant and it has started to look at itself as a Master of this world and established what it calls the new world order. It wanted to delude people that it can do whatever it wants, but it can't do this. It leveled against me and others as many accusations as it desired and wished. It is these (accusations) that you mentioned. The US today as a result of the arrogant atmosphere has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed and wants us to agree on all these. If we refuse to do so, it will say you are terrorists. With a simple look at the US behaviors, we find that it judges the behavior of the poor Palestinian children whose country was occupied: if they throw stones against the Israeli occupation, it says they are terrorists whereas when the Israeli pilots bombed the United Nations building in Qana, Lebanon while was full of children and women, the US stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at the White House as a political leader , while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine. So, there is no base for what the US says and this saying does not affect us, because we, by the grace of God, are dependent on Him, Praise and Glory be to Him, getting help from Him against the US. As for the last part of your question, we are fulfilling a duty which God, Praise and Glory be to Him, decreed for us. We look upon those heroes, those men who undertook to kill the American occupiers in Riyadh and Khobar (Dhahran). We describe those as heroes and describe them as men. They have pulled down the disgrace and submissiveness off the forehead of their nation. We ask Allah, Praise and Glory be to Him, to accept them as martyrs.
Source: Transcript of Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett
here's 1 I found that's REALLY good!

Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

no bashing for the religion example please,it was just an example :)

in! thanks & +1! :D
Post edited September 16, 2013 by Sorapak
Not in, as I already have it (thanks, K_1269!), but thanks for your generosity, Dzsono!

One of my favorite ones, continually used for all of us to judge the reliability of other people: "Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus"

"Latin phrase which, roughly translated, means "false in one thing, false in everything", is fallacious in so far as someone found to be wrong about one thing, is presumed to be wrong about some other thing entirely. Arising in Roman courts, this principle meant that if a witness was proved false in some parts of his testimony, any further statements were also regarded as false unless they were independently corroborated. Falsum is thus a fallacy of logic. The description that an initial false statement is a prelude to the making of more false statements is false; however, even one false premise will suffice to disprove an argument. This is a special case of the associatory fallacy."

"Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus status as a fallacy is independent of whether it is wise or unwise to use as a legal rule, with witnesses testifying in courts being held for perjury if part of their statements are false."

(from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)
Post edited September 16, 2013 by Thespian*
A lot of people die in bed, therefore sleeping must be very dangerous ;-)
Post edited September 16, 2013 by DeMignon
Thanks for the giveaway!

I think this is what you're looking for.
For more correlation=/=causation, look no further than Dihydrogen Monoxide, the most addictive of substances. Once used, withdrawal has a 100% fatality rate. Dihydrogen Monoxide is found in many (if not all) industrial factories and even in Nuclear facilities, yet is often commonly found in the kitchens and bathrooms of the everyday house. It's estimated that around 7 billion people have already come in contact with Dihydrogen Monoxide, and all of them will die.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

For those who don't get the joke, it's water. xD
Not in.

No True Scotsman:

Person 1: Games are things where you win or lose.
Person 2: But you don't win games like Sim City or Animal Crossing, and others like Braid or Gone Home you can win but you don't lose.
Person 1: Well, real games are things where you win or lose.
Totally in!

For a bird to be a crow it must be black.
A black bird must therefore be a crow.


All mothers are women.
Therefore all women are mothers

Converting a conditional is what it is called.