# Is there a term for this type of fallacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 27, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787 "2014-06-27T15:53:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/1 "2014-06-27T15:53:19Z")
Generally, it occurs when somebody starts a thread, drops a key word or two, and assumes everybody knows what they’re talking about. They imply some sort of disapproval, but nobody who reads the thread has been given enough reference or context to frame a discussion. [Like this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=726984) from the Pit. The OP titles it “Koskinen” and posts “It’s obvious. I’m probably the 10th person to start a thread like this.” And that’s it. The OP used what he thought was an Axiom, which is considered a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. But his axiom could be false, and the closest I could find to that condition was [ZF¬C](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice#Statements_consistent_with_the_negation_of_AC), which stands for “Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory plus the negation of the axiom of choice.” Much too complex. [Appeal to Consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) also fits, but again, much too complex. The OP didn’t even frame an argument to begin with. Dopers frequently use terms like “ad hominem,” “straw man,” or my favorite, “_Reductio ad Hitlerum_.” But there’s no high-falutin’ term to use as a rejoinder for these types of threads other than “whut” and the confused smiley. There has to be a single term we can use for “We don’t know what you’re talking about, moron. Give us some cites or something.” ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/2 "2014-06-27T16:25:51Z")
Idiocy ---
**Author:** ![EmilyG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/emilyg/32/364_2.png) [@EmilyG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EmilyG)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/3 "2014-06-27T16:31:09Z")
Could possibly be “the curse of knowledge.” This means that if you know something, it’s difficult to imagine anyone else not knowing it. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/4 "2014-06-27T16:32:32Z")
It’s not a fallacy, it’s just Bad Message Board Practice. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/5 "2014-06-27T16:35:30Z")
A fallacy is a failure of logical argument. What you have there in the first OP is a lazy poster. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/6 "2014-06-27T22:35:07Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > The OP didn’t even frame an argument to begin with. _Argumentum ad non argumentum_ ? Or: _Non argumentum ad non argumentum_ ? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/7 "2014-06-27T23:58:52Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > The OP didn’t even frame an argument to begin with. Since no argument was framed, no fallacy can have been committed. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-term-for-this-type-of-fallacy/691787/8 "2014-06-28T20:45:18Z")
In my world I call it a “Slashdot blurb”. I.e., something like: “There’s a beta release of FunnyName 0.8 out. Go over to GitHub and check it out.” Okay. Um, what is FunnyName? OS? IDE? Programming language? Email program? And if I do recognize the name, at least explain the key features over version 0.7. You have to click the link to figure it out (assuming the link actually goes somewhere useful). E.g., imagine trying to understand [this post](http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/06/24/0130216/opera-releases-a-new-version-for-linux) if you didn’t know what Opera was. (I do, I’m using it right now.) But even then the rest is practically gibberish and not really helpful to someone considering taking a chance on installing it.