I hate logical fallacies, and too often people unknowingly use them to make an argument. Sometimes I understand them, like a slippery slope argument, but the rationale is more emotional than logical. Here is a directory of logical fallacies, all of which should be banned.
Ad Antiquitatem – (Appeal to Tradition) Maintaining the status quo for it’s own sake.
Ad Baculum – (Appeal to Force/Fear) A threat of violence or similar punishment, like jail time, to prove a point.
Ad Hominem – (Appeal to Person) Attacking the person rather than the argument.
Ad Ignorantium – (Appeal to Ignorance) A lack of evidence against something is proof of something.
Ad Populum – (Appeal to Common Belief) If most people believe it, it must be true.
Ad Verecundiam – (Appeal to Authority) An expert says it’s true, therefore it’s true. This is especially problematic when the expert is an expert in an unrelated field.
Appeal to Emotion – If it feels good, it must be true.
Appeal to Nature – If it’s natural, it must be good.
Begging the Question – (Circular Reasoning) The conclusion is identical to the premise. It begs the question: Where did this logical path originate?
Composition – Properties of an object’s individual elements transfer to the object itself.
Division – An object’s individual elements posses the properties of the original object.
Equivocation – One word with two definitions is used without differentiating between the two definitions.
False Dilemma/Dichotomy – There are only two choices when, in reality, there are more than two choices.
Faulty Analogy – If two things are like each other in some aspects, they are like each other in all aspects.
Genetic – To say something’s origins determine it’s nature. The most common of which is Godwin’s law.
Hasty Generalization – Assuming a small sample size is indicative of all cases.
No True Scotsman – The redefinition of a word to fit an argument.
Red Herring – A rapid and subtle shift to an irrelevant topic.
Slippery Slope – Saying that one thing will progress to another, more extreme step.
Straw Man – Oversimplifying the argument, then attacking that instead of the original argument.
Gambler’s Fallacy – Related to probability, the idea that previous outcomes of a truly random event influences future outcomes. Comes in many forms, such as thinking numbers are due, or hot.
Atkinson Fallacy – The views of those who actually care about the issue all lean in one direction, therefore they should be ignored.
Freudian Fallacy – The idea that the way one thinks is shared among all people.
Hipster’s Fallacy – If something/idea is not very popular, it must be good/true.
Appeal to God – God never intended this to happen, therefore it shouldn’t. God can be interchangeable with any divinity, including Mother Nature.
“I hate logical fallacies…therefore I use them” – That’s a logical fallacy right there. Based on your long, TL;DR posts on ponies – cartoon ponies, mind you – are completely irrelevant.
Plus, you used Godwin’s Law and like to use the idea that Christians are bad for everything in this world. Argumentum ad ignoratum. I don’t see anything on Muslims or other religious groups. It seems Christians are the only things you know.
“All of these arguments should be banned” – That’s a logical fallacy right there. And you’re also using the logical fallacy of appealing to the masses in the terms of you supporting irrational and – rather disgusting – sexual deviancy. You whine about cartoon ponies which have nothing to do with reality.
Now, as regards to the “Slippery slope” – more often than not they happen. It’s a matter of causation, timing, and logical organization. For example: interracial marriage was legalized based on faulty reasoning – it’s all about love/we’re all the same/ and then it lead to same-sex marriage, and then it will lead to other forms of sexual deviancy. Call that a red-herring or whatever you like, but if anything, this entire post proves you’re a hypocrite.
And genetics – that’s a scientific arguments. Genes cannot lie. Personality, intelligence, your physical appearance is all based on genes. That is not a logical fallacy; that IS logic.
Most of these fallacies literally have nothing to do with actual fallacies in regards to argumentation. In short: I highly suggest you learn basic logic and premises and their conclusions before claiming the Holier than Thou statement.
Wow, that’s so stupid it’s not even worth rebutting.