What are your logical fallacies?

[Scruff Bunch]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

What logical fallacies do you use when having a disagreement, confrontation, debate, or arguement with someone?

[Cardiganwearer]

Most people are unaware of them and use them all the time. You can look clever by deconstructing them to win an argument. If you're really dishonest (mea culpa) you can incorporate them into your own arguments for the win. Because it's all about winning these days.

If pressed for a favourite I would go for the Divine Fallacy because it's simply... well it's used a lot.

[Scruff Bunch]

You can look clever by deconstructing them to win an argument.

I think that undermines the importance of seeking truth or resolution in a matter. It is not about looking clever. It is about self-awareness and understanding your position, whether you are the one using the fallacies or the other person is.

[ChadCoxRox]

You can look clever by deconstructing them to win an argument.

I think that undermines the importance of seeking truth or resolution in a matter. It is not about looking clever. It is about self-awareness and understanding your position, whether you are the one using the fallacies or the other person is.

Emotional maturity can allow ploy for the purpose of whim or levity or it can insist on a more rigid exercise and become more than simply argumentative. Some folk can disagree and argue in constructive ways, which I find attractive and healthy; but, if it is about a pattern of being right or wrong, the dogma feels laborious.

[Scruff Bunch]

You can look clever by deconstructing them to win an argument.

I think that undermines the importance of seeking truth or resolution in a matter. It is not about looking clever. It is about self-awareness and understanding your position, whether you are the one using the fallacies or the other person is.

Emotional maturity can allow ploy for the purpose of whim or levity or it can insist on a more rigid exercise and become more than simply argumentative. Some folk can disagree and argue in constructive ways, which I find attractive and healthy; but, if it is about a pattern of being right or wrong, the dogma feels laborious.

Yes but some arguments are literally right or wrong - or indeed, true or false - and in some cases there is no wiggle room for nonsense, only room for understanding and progression. Some shit just needs to be shut down, primarily if it is putting others at risk.

And, whether you find someone's method of argument attractive really is the least important thing. Sometimes arguments are laborious, because their subject matter is laborious. But that does not address or negate their necessity.

Highlighting a logical fallacy and deconstructing it provides opportunities for awareness and enlightenment, further discussion, and the removal of false ideas or beliefs.

Aaaaaaanyway, I posted this to ask for people's examples of times they may have used (or experienced others using) logical fallacies.

Here is one of mine.

During the pandemic, my dad refused to practice basic hygiene. He used handkerchiefs (germ collectors) and refused to wash his hands. My mum was already at extra risk from the virus because of being on anti-cancer treatment, and he was putting her at extra risk. One such defense he had was, "Lots of people use handkerchiefs." That is the appeal to popularity, or the argumentum ad populum, or the bandwagon fallacy. In other words, a thing must be right, good, just or true because "lots" of people think it or do it. Lots of people believed (and still believe) that the Earth is flat.

[Cardiganwearer]

I'm not sure that argument however sincere or well informed is really a reliable route to truth in most circumstances. Evidence is, or should be. Much of what people believe is not established by argument and won't be changed by argument or even documented facts in most circumstances. In cases like these possibly your best chance is looking clever, appeal to authority can be quite powerful. Religion relies on it.

Since you're looking for examples, here's one about my dad. He has always maintained that Lennon & McCartney's songs were written by someone else and bought as a job lot. His evidence? A bloke in a pub told him so years ago. The appeal to him is purely emotional, he can't get his head around anyone being good at something and getting rich as a result coupled with a notion that value is never created just sequestered by those in a position to do so. Thus Lennon & McCartney's good fortune must be someone else's loss. No amount of argument will shift that mindset. I suppose I should be thankful for small mercies that it's not a matter of public health.

[Scruff Bunch]

I'm not sure that argument however sincere or well informed is really a reliable route to truth in most circumstances. Evidence is, or should be.

Absolutely. It is not the argument itself that is the route to truth, but the evidence. But when a person has no evidence or reasoning, and all they have is logical fallacies, then it is useful to be able to at least identify them, and maybe even deconstruct them.

Much of what people believe is not established by argument and won't be changed by argument or even documented facts in most circumstances.

Sadly, that is true.

In cases like these possibly your best chance is looking clever, appeal to authority can be quite powerful. Religion relies on it.

Beliiiiiieeeeve me, I tried that. I appealed to science (or the scientists), telling us to wash our hands. My father's response?: "Oh they dunno what they're talking about. They don't always get it right."

He will appeal to others (other people who use handkerchiefs) when it suits him, but when it does not suit him, he will dismiss it; such as with me appealing to others (scientists). Basically, anything that does not suit him, he will dismiss. Anything to keep a hold of his position, which, in this case, is laziness, lack of care, and lack of hygiene.

Since you're looking for examples, here's one about my dad. He has always maintained that Lennon & McCartney's songs were written by someone else and bought as a job lot. His evidence? A bloke in a pub told him so years ago. The appeal to him is purely emotional, he can't get his head around anyone being good at something and getting rich as a result coupled with a notion that value is never created just sequestered by those in a position to do so. Thus Lennon & McCartney's good fortune must be someone else's loss. No amount of argument will shift that mindset.

Haha. Wow. Is this some variation of the furtive fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furtive_fallacy

I suppose I should be thankful for small mercies that it's not a matter of public health.

Other than maybe your head is at risk of you banging it against a brick wall.