It's not a fallacy because it's not an argument. I would refer that as a "Heads I win, tails you lose" type answer. I don't know if there's a name for that.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 8, 2024, 2:17 pm
Thread Rating:
What is this? Name that fallacy
|
RE: What is this? Name that fallacy
September 7, 2021 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2021 at 12:11 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(September 7, 2021 at 10:48 am)Angrboda Wrote: It's not a fallacy because it's not an argument. I would refer that as a "Heads I win, tails you lose" type answer. I don't know if there's a name for that. There is, and it’s called ‘Morton’s Fork’, a version of a false dilemma. It’s when two different observations are made to lead to the same conclusion. In this case: Observation 1: Person dies. Observation 2: Person lives. Conclusion: Goddidit. Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
RE: What is this? Name that fallacy
September 10, 2021 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2021 at 4:52 pm by Simon Moon.)
It also sounds like question begging as Janjr said.
Aristotle called it "petitio principii”. Or, in English, assuming the initial point, or assuming the conclusion. It also might be construed as a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. In other words, no matter what the outcome, the person can draw a target around the results in order for it to fit their claim. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. (September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: I might be having a brain stall but I was trying to define or label a certain argument and I'm at a loss. Maybe you guys could help me out.I'd simply call it out as being mental gymnastics of the delusional (October 5, 2021 at 3:32 am)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote:(September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: I might be having a brain stall but I was trying to define or label a certain argument and I'm at a loss. Maybe you guys could help me out.I'd simply call it out as being mental gymnastics of the delusional Takes one to know one. Neener neener. Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
(September 6, 2021 at 7:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:(September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: brewer also posted an example of this same thing in the stupid stuff religious people say thread(in fact, it made me remember my trouble defining what this is). I think confirmation bias means that you look at the set of data and you cherry pick parts of the data that supports your view and you dump the rest instead of including the entire data set in your research. This sounds like that texas shooter thing Simon Moon mentioned. It takes the form of: This is the result, therefore, this is evidence that god did it. It also sounds like a tautology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) (A V not A) -> C Person 1 is alive or Person 1 is dead, therefore god exists. When you evaluate the (A V not A) part, it is always TRUE. Under no circumstances it becomes FALSE. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)