A place to promote what we love instead of bash what we hate, and debunk the woofuckery others create!
Appeal To Nature
Fallacy: Appeal To Nature
Definition: You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.
Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.
Nature is good, therefor "natural" things from nature are also good.
The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of 'artificial' medicines such as antibiotics.
Burden Of Proof
Fallacy: Burden Of Proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.
However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
Person 1 makes a factual claim, person 2 requests evidence. Person 1 must provide appropriate evidence for the claim.
Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.
No True Scotsman
Fallacy: No True Scotsman
Definition: You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.
In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.
Person 1 deflects all criticism from the argument by stating the criticism is not an accurate criticism of the argument.
Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.
Fallacy: Red Herring
Definition: You introduced an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from the original issue.
Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
Argument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.
Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that? Ken: But what is morality exactly? Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures. Ken: But who creates this code?...
Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.