(February 23, 2014 at 9:33 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic....#p18815712
An example of the "And your lynching negroes" fallacy. Basically you claim that what your side has done is basically justified because the other side is just as bad.

That's generally phrased as either the tu quoque fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

(February 23, 2014 at 9:59 pm)rasetsu Wrote: That's generally phrased as either the tu quoque fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

Yup. This one gets sticky though because there is some debate as to whether tu quoque is always fallacious or not.

Classic non sequiter
Statistics show 98% of those convicted of violent crimes have at some time in their lives eaten at least one pickle. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that eating pickles leads to violent behavior.

Pickles can put one in mind of something else too . . .

I have cactii vorlon. Interested?

Also, NECROPOST. Too tired to get a meme image.

This whole thread is one giant fallacy fallacy.

The mind is mental which is by definition the opposite of physical, therefore thoughts and emotions must be seperate to the brain which is physical. Atheists fail to conceptualize this so they lack intelligence and emotions. Emotions come from God clearly as they make no sense under an atheistic world view. [A Christian who is supposed to be a highly intelligent and expert debater actually used this fallacy on these forums a few years back. When I pointed out his equivocation I still ended up with less kudos than him.]

Imaginary is by definition the opposite of real and existent, therefore imagination cannot exist and so no one can imagine anything.

If you have mental problems the problem is literally in your head. Therefore it is "all in your head" and not a real problem.

(May 22, 2013 at 11:53 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 22, 2013 at 11:32 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Here's a free pdf book which explains 42 fallacies, written by a professor of philosophy so you know it's excellent and correct.

Argument from authority.

No.  The argument from authority may be fallacious when the authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.  A professor of philosophy holding forth on logic is likely within his or her wheelhouse.

(March 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm)H.sapiens Wrote:

(May 22, 2013 at 11:53 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Argument from authority.

No.  The argument from authority may be fallacious when the authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.  A professor of philosophy holding forth on logic is likely within his or her wheelhouse.

Hello. 

I not sure if this guy is around to respond. This thread is 3 years old.
You may want to read the forum rules, particularly those regarding necroposting. 
http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

This thread could be possibly considered an exception to the necroposting rule by a moderator. I don't know; I'm just a regular forum member. It's good to be aware of the rules for future reference, though.

Welcome, btw!

I miss Rayaan. He is like the best muslim evar.