I'm A Thief...
I came across the following at http://www.blogigo.co.uk/majere where it was written from a lib-left perspective. Having said that though, once the liberalism is stripped away it gives a great overview of debate and how to look at the arguments put forth by an opponent.
In the name of balance (or personal bias), I've put a more conservative slant to the writing:
When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a moonbat who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypothesis that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that gay marriage will cause problems, therefore, it must be a good thing. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
appeal to faith: (e.g., There's no evidence that healing crystals work, but I have faith) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
appeal to tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy) (e.g., astrology, homosexuality, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, or a practice has historical roots, says nothing about its viability.
argument from authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., The American Psych. Assn. believes that pedophilia doesn't harm children.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.
argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty.
argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't vote Liberal, medicare will be destroyed.)
argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance. (e.g., Kyoto will solve global warming)
argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. (e.g., Look at the cute little seals, they don't need to be hunted)
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., modern liberalism / soft socialism.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
begging the question: (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must impliment affirmative action programs to increase the standard of living for minorities.) But does affirmative action really improve the position of minorities?
circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.)
composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)
confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of affirmative action, the believer will notice the few successfull individuals while ignoring the majority of failures (which would indicate that affirmative action has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect at best).
confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning"
excluded middle: (or false dichotomy) considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."
half truths: (suppressed evidence) An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."
misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin
non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?
observational selection: (similar to confirmation bias) pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur. If this argument is used, it must be accompanied by trend-data.
special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)
statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Conservatives are all religious whingnuts.) Most conservatives believe in the structure and order organized religion affords but not all attend church regularly and for that matter, not all consider themselves religious. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Now, those are well and good but they're a little too pretentious for my taste. I prefer plain spoken "dinner table english". As such, here are some of my favorites as written by Scott Adams:
1. AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY
Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.
2. FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT
Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat.
3. I AM THE WORLD
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.
4. IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN
Example: People choose to be obese/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle.
5. THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE
Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.
6. GENERALIZING FROM SELF
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.
7. ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION
Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.
8. TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.
9. JUDGING THINGS WITHOUT COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES
Example: I don't invest in U.S. Treasury Bills. There's too much risk.
10. ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO
Example: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?
11. IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS
Example: I'm putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.
12. IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK
Example: I know that bugee jumping could kill me, but it's three seconds of great fun!
13. SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE
Example: Remember, "All things come to those who wait." So don't bother looking for a job.
14. IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS
Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferari.
15. CIRCULAR REASONING
Example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.
16. INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF DEFECT
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.
17. IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON
Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldn't ride a bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.
18. FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS
Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me!
19. REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION
Example: The car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.
20. FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION
Example: His six last wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.
21. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT'S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!
22. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS
Example: We've spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can't stop investing now or it will all be wasted.
23. OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM'S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY RIGHT)
Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.
24. IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it's not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can't tell if they cause hives.
25. INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.
26. JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS
Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.
27. BLINDING FLASHED OF THE OBVIOUS
Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.
28. BLAMING THE TOOL
Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I'm still stupid. This encyclopedia must be defective.
29. HALLUCINATIONS OF REALITY
Example: I got my facts from a talking tree.
30. TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping off your limbs!
31. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON'T HAVE EXCEPTIONS
Example: It should be legal to shoplift, as long as you don't take enough to hurt the company's earnings.
32. PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE
Example: I've never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people
It should be noted that using this information to de-construct MoonBat arguments will generally result in said MoonBat calling you a bigot.
In the name of balance (or personal bias), I've put a more conservative slant to the writing:
When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a moonbat who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypothesis that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that gay marriage will cause problems, therefore, it must be a good thing. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
appeal to faith: (e.g., There's no evidence that healing crystals work, but I have faith) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
appeal to tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy) (e.g., astrology, homosexuality, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, or a practice has historical roots, says nothing about its viability.
argument from authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., The American Psych. Assn. believes that pedophilia doesn't harm children.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.
argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty.
argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't vote Liberal, medicare will be destroyed.)
argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance. (e.g., Kyoto will solve global warming)
argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. (e.g., Look at the cute little seals, they don't need to be hunted)
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., modern liberalism / soft socialism.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
begging the question: (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must impliment affirmative action programs to increase the standard of living for minorities.) But does affirmative action really improve the position of minorities?
circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.)
composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)
confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of affirmative action, the believer will notice the few successfull individuals while ignoring the majority of failures (which would indicate that affirmative action has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect at best).
confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning"
excluded middle: (or false dichotomy) considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."
half truths: (suppressed evidence) An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."
misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin
non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?
observational selection: (similar to confirmation bias) pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur. If this argument is used, it must be accompanied by trend-data.
special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)
statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Conservatives are all religious whingnuts.) Most conservatives believe in the structure and order organized religion affords but not all attend church regularly and for that matter, not all consider themselves religious. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Now, those are well and good but they're a little too pretentious for my taste. I prefer plain spoken "dinner table english". As such, here are some of my favorites as written by Scott Adams:
1. AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY
Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.
2. FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT
Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat.
3. I AM THE WORLD
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.
4. IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN
Example: People choose to be obese/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle.
5. THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE
Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.
6. GENERALIZING FROM SELF
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.
7. ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION
Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.
8. TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.
9. JUDGING THINGS WITHOUT COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES
Example: I don't invest in U.S. Treasury Bills. There's too much risk.
10. ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO
Example: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?
11. IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS
Example: I'm putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.
12. IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK
Example: I know that bugee jumping could kill me, but it's three seconds of great fun!
13. SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE
Example: Remember, "All things come to those who wait." So don't bother looking for a job.
14. IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS
Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferari.
15. CIRCULAR REASONING
Example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.
16. INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF DEFECT
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.
17. IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON
Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldn't ride a bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.
18. FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS
Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me!
19. REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION
Example: The car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.
20. FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION
Example: His six last wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.
21. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT'S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!
22. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS
Example: We've spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can't stop investing now or it will all be wasted.
23. OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM'S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY RIGHT)
Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.
24. IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it's not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can't tell if they cause hives.
25. INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.
26. JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS
Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.
27. BLINDING FLASHED OF THE OBVIOUS
Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.
28. BLAMING THE TOOL
Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I'm still stupid. This encyclopedia must be defective.
29. HALLUCINATIONS OF REALITY
Example: I got my facts from a talking tree.
30. TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping off your limbs!
31. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON'T HAVE EXCEPTIONS
Example: It should be legal to shoplift, as long as you don't take enough to hurt the company's earnings.
32. PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE
Example: I've never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people
It should be noted that using this information to de-construct MoonBat arguments will generally result in said MoonBat calling you a bigot.
posted by Richard at 09:43
<< Home