PDA

View Full Version : Logical Fallacies Thread



Nominus Experse
04-24-2008, 03:39 AM
ITT: Poast logical fallacies of any kind and calibur

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6563/1209001249675ic6.jpg

rubah
04-24-2008, 03:49 AM
you just wanted to post that image!

Big D
04-24-2008, 03:59 AM
[every argument attempting to define creationist belief as "science"]

Roto13
04-24-2008, 04:00 AM
http://forums.eyesonff.com/members/raistlin.html

Psychotic
04-24-2008, 04:07 AM
"Why not" is a logical fallacy, seeing as I would.

Nominus Experse
04-24-2008, 04:29 AM
you just wanted to post that image!
Yes - any excuse to show that I would readily consume a pathetic dog is a good one.

Namelessfengir
04-24-2008, 04:40 AM
i would eat that dog... provided there was steak sauce and a good beer

Aerith's Knight
04-24-2008, 04:40 AM
hmmm.. puppy *gurgel*

Meow
04-24-2008, 07:20 AM
in before "church" post

Spuuky
04-24-2008, 08:06 AM
I'm not sure if you're aware, but we already have a forum dedicated to logical fallacies right below this one.

My favorite is "____ don't follow the tenets of their faith, so the tenets of their faith are wrong."

Old Manus
04-24-2008, 12:49 PM
The plot of MGS2

Peegee
04-24-2008, 01:07 PM
ITT: Poast logical fallacies of any kind and calibur

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6563/1209001249675ic6.jpg

The logical fallacy is that I'm asian, isn't it.

I don't know if I have a favorite logical fallacy, as they tend to make my brain cry. But just for you, I'll come up with one...um...

Argumentum ad misericordiam. Yeah this one.

Big D
04-24-2008, 02:19 PM
The plot of MGS2Indeed. Some of that stuff is pretty indefensible, really, unless they come up with some damn good explanations in MGS4.

Flying Mullet
04-24-2008, 02:23 PM
Eagles and condors soar high up in the air. Eagles and condors have wings. Ostriches and emus have wings. Thus ostriches and emus soar high up in the air.

Nominus Experse
04-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Eagles and condors soar high up in the air. Eagles and condors have wings. Ostriches and emus have wings. Thus ostriches and emus soar high up in the air.
Duh, man! Adobe would like to convince us that anything is possible, however...

KentaRawr!
04-24-2008, 08:55 PM
Eagles and condors soar high up in the air. Eagles and condors have wings. Ostriches and emus have wings. Thus ostriches and emus soar high up in the air.

But Ostriches and Emus are too heavy for those wings to carry them. :( They're fat!

Peegee
04-24-2008, 09:14 PM
Eagles and condors soar high up in the air. Eagles and condors have wings. Ostriches and emus have wings. Thus ostriches and emus soar high up in the air.

But Ostriches and Emus are too heavy for those wings to carry them. :( They're fat!

Airplanes weigh more. Ergo ostriches can fly. Penguins too.

KentaRawr!
04-24-2008, 10:00 PM
Eagles and condors soar high up in the air. Eagles and condors have wings. Ostriches and emus have wings. Thus ostriches and emus soar high up in the air.

But Ostriches and Emus are too heavy for those wings to carry them. :( They're fat!

Airplanes weigh more. Ergo ostriches can fly. Penguins too.

But Airplanes have bigger wings! :p

Flying Mullet
04-24-2008, 10:02 PM
They also weigh more.

KentaRawr!
04-24-2008, 10:04 PM
Yeah, but they've got more flying power.

For scientific proof, let us look towards Donkey Kong Country. As a computer, naturally, it's never wrong. The Ostrich in that game didn't fly.

Flying Mullet
04-24-2008, 10:05 PM
It had an 800 pound gorilla on it's back.

Old Manus
04-24-2008, 10:22 PM
I think he trumped you there

KentaRawr!
04-24-2008, 10:35 PM
It had an 800 pound gorilla on it's back.

Even when this ape wasn't on top of the Ostrich, it could not fly. Collecting 3 golden ostriches shall show you this. Also, it was unable to fly with a 120 pound monkey on its back as well.

rubah
04-24-2008, 10:43 PM
bumblebees are fat for their wings. They fly. What now?

Tallulah
04-24-2008, 10:54 PM
The new system I am using at work defies all logic and reasoning. All the names for the same things are different, which makes it that much harder to navigate. It's horrible!

Just something to get used to, I guess. Like penguins not flying. Incidentally, the BBC had a brilliant April Fools trailer featuring penguins flying to the rainforest for warmth! :D

KentaRawr!
04-25-2008, 12:28 AM
bumblebees are fat for their wings. They fly. What now?

Obviously, they aren't TOO fat for their wings, otherwise they wouldn't fly.

Earthworm Jim
04-25-2008, 12:59 AM
Dude that dog in the OP looks tasty.

I don't know what kind of PETA crap they're trying to pull but it sure doesn't work on me.

Big D
04-25-2008, 02:11 AM
bumblebees are fat for their wings. They fly. What now?

Obviously, they aren't TOO fat for their wings, otherwise they wouldn't fly.How about Swallows? We all know they can fly, but how about if they're laden with, say, a coconut? Gripped by the husk?

KentaRawr!
04-25-2008, 03:09 AM
bumblebees are fat for their wings. They fly. What now?

Obviously, they aren't TOO fat for their wings, otherwise they wouldn't fly.How about Swallows? We all know they can fly, but how about if they're laden with, say, a coconut? Gripped by the husk?

Then they won't fly, silly. Swallows are unable to carry coconuts because they're too heavy. Unless it's a balloon coconut.

Momiji
04-25-2008, 04:41 AM
bumblebees are fat for their wings. They fly. What now?

Obviously, they aren't TOO fat for their wings, otherwise they wouldn't fly.How about Swallows? We all know they can fly, but how about if they're laden with, say, a coconut? Gripped by the husk?

Would this be a European or African swallow?

~*~Celes~*~
04-25-2008, 04:42 AM
....Allergies don't give you a stuffy nose, itchy/watery eyes, and itchy throat?

I tried ._.

Montoya
04-25-2008, 07:36 AM
I seem to suffer from the gambler fallacy that the more I gamble, the more chances I have of winning. I lost all my change that way. :mad:

Peegee
04-25-2008, 02:44 PM
I seem to suffer from the gambler fallacy that the more I gamble, the more chances I have of winning. I lost all my change that way. :mad:

Gambler fallacy is terrible. We're conditioned to find patterns in reality, and to base continuous patterns as indicative of a trend. Gambler's fallacy doesn't apply because its events are all chance based, rather than subject to trends.

Flying Mullet
04-25-2008, 02:47 PM
I seem to suffer from the gambler fallacy that the more I gamble, the more chances I have of winning. I lost all my change that way. :mad:

Gambler fallacy is terrible. We're conditioned to find patterns in reality, and to base continuous patterns as indicative of a trend. Gambler's fallacy doesn't apply because its events are all chance based, rather than subject to trends.
This is why the history board on the roulette wheel has been such a big money maker. People see that it's been red for five times in a row and think, "Wow, it <i>has</i> to hit black if it's been red so many times!" Then they plunk their money down and it hits red again. A roulette wheel has no memory. Every time is still a 50% chance of black, even if it's hit red two dozen times before that.