# New logical fallacy I'm sick of **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800 "2011-05-13T17:26:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/41 "2011-05-17T20:08:15Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Rather, I was joining a conversation already in progress, and was attempting to respond to a position that I found to be overly absolutist, that being that there could not possibly be a connection between a woman’s attire and her risk of rape, and that even if there was it was somehow taboo to discuss it without being patriarchal. I think that’s because it’s sort of like saying, “Don’t hold these political opinions, if you don’t want to get your house burned down by an angry mob.” It kind of negates the entire concept of individual liberty. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/42 "2011-05-17T23:45:20Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > I think that’s because it’s sort of like saying, “Don’t hold these political opinions, if you don’t want to get your house burned down by an angry mob.” It kind of negates the entire concept of individual liberty. Unless it’s actually illegal to have those conversations, “individual liberty” doesn’t play in. It’s just a matter of people having an opinion of you based on your opinions, which, like it or not, (a) they will, and (b) they are entitled to. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/43 "2011-05-18T00:49:10Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > I think that’s because it’s sort of like saying, “Don’t hold these political opinions, if you don’t want to get your house burned down by an angry mob.” It kind of negates the entire concept of individual liberty. Sorry, what is kind of like that? Please elaborate, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/44 "2011-05-18T11:10:04Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > A major way to win internet arguments is not to win at logic, but rather to make your opponents do a lot of pointless work. In that way, saying something slightly dumb - and making your opponents cover a lot of tedious, obvious rhetorical ground, can be a better strategy than coming up with a counterargument. And the counter-strategy to that is to not be rigorous. The more detail and the more cites you put in a post, the more openings you give to this sort of opponent to find some niggling point to zero in on and derail the conservation or obscure the larger point. That’s why these kinds of tactics destroy the quality of internet discussions and reduce everyone to just shouting epithets or platitudes. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/45 "2011-05-18T13:33:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And the counter-strategy to that is to not be rigorous. The more detail and the more cites you put in a post, the more openings you give to this sort of opponent to find some niggling point to zero in on and derail the conservation or obscure the larger point. > > That’s why these kinds of tactics destroy the quality of internet discussions and reduce everyone to just shouting epithets or platitudes. I think the next time I post any cites I will make sure the last one is a completely random just to see if they even read it. 😃 Heck, maybe that will be the second one; the point they zero in on always seems to be from the very first cite. I am happy to say that the majority of the time the discussions here aren’t just shouting epithets or platitudes. Hooray for Straight Dope! :)🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/46 "2011-05-19T01:00:38Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > I’ve driven in 3 out of your 4 counterexample cities, and I’ve driven in Calgary. I can state, with anecdotal certainty, that traffic in Calgary can be as bad as any I’ve encountered in New York, Boston or Toronto. Tell those people that you have it on the authority of some random anonymous guy on the internet that they are full of shit. > > Then you will be committing the fallacy of “Argument from a Worthless Authority”… 😃 Unless in my future arguments, you are some kind of expert on driving in cities in North America. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/47 "2011-05-19T15:50:58Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > A major way to win internet arguments is not to win at logic, but rather to make your opponents do a lot of pointless work. In that way, saying something slightly dumb - and making your opponents cover a lot of tedious, obvious rhetorical ground, can be a better strategy than coming up with a counterargument. Isn’t that, more or less, the definition of trolling? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/48 "2011-05-19T15:51:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Sorry, what is kind of like that? Please elaborate, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Sorry, I was talking about the argument that dressing provocatively leads to rape. The reason it’s not going to get a fair hearing is because the problem isn’t that women are dressing provocatively. ---
**Author:** ![Spit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spit)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/49 "2011-05-19T16:15:06Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There’s a type of argument that seems generally fallacious that I’ve seen a bunch recently, and I’m sick of it. You have been here since 2000, and you think this is a “recent” phenomena? ---
**Author:** ![phantom\_lamb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@phantom\_lamb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phantom_lamb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/50 "2011-05-20T11:13:26Z")
Yep, that’s my pet peeve fallacy. Ever so present in all the race threads lately. Hypothetical person A: “I like girls with long hair” Hypothetical person B: “I’m sorry but this term “long hair”, it’s completely useless. Just how do you even define it? Everyone has their own definition of what “long hair” is. Where is the line between medium and long? It doesn’t exist. It’s made-up, therefore I will completely pretend to not understand at all what you mean by “long hair”. Please do not ever use this term in any discussion, it offends my intelligence. What about people whose hair is “short” but very curly at the same time? You _do_ realize that if you were to _straighten_ their curly hair it could actually be considered “long” by some people, right? Not so smart now, are you.” ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/51 "2011-05-20T14:01:25Z")
> [@phantom\_lamb](#): > > Yep, that’s my pet peeve fallacy. Ever so present in all the race threads lately. > > Hypothetical person A: “I like girls with long hair” > > Hypothetical person B: “I’m sorry but this term “long hair”, it’s completely useless. Just how do you even define it? Everyone has their own definition of what “long hair” is. Where is the line between medium and long? It doesn’t exist. It’s made-up, therefore I will completely pretend to not understand at all what you mean by “long hair”. Please do not ever use this term in any discussion, it offends my intelligence. What about people whose hair is “short” but very curly at the same time? You _do_ realize that if you were to _straighten_ their curly hair it could actually be considered “long” by some people, right? Not so smart now, are you.” By the same token, HPA: “Girls should grow long hair.” HPB: “Hair is a continuum, and there are many definitions of ‘long’. Can you give us some better guidance as to what you specifically might be talking about?” HPA: “No, but I know it when I see it.” is both more annoying and more similar to what the OP (HPA in this scenario) is trying to complain about. Look, if you’re going to use a term as part of a suggestion/rule, then the onus is on you to define it. If that term defies definition, then it’s absolutely useless as a descriptor. Neither of those statements is a fallacy. Going back to the OP, without a definition (especially of a word with as broad a range of meanings in common usage as “slutty”) it’d be just as useful and comprehensible for you to say “Girls shouldn’t wear \*flarny \*clothes”. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/52 "2011-05-20T17:02:33Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Going back to the OP, without a definition (especially of a word with as broad a range of meanings in common usage as “slutty”) it’d be just as useful and comprehensible for you to say “Girls shouldn’t wear \*flarny \*clothes”. Hang on, are you saying that this: A: Girls should not wear slutty clothing, it makes it more likely they will be raped B: Please precisely define slutty clothing A: I know it when I see it and this A: Girls should not wear flarny clothing are equally meaningless? Because while I agree that the first little example is not the most productive thing ever (and I will disclaim yet again that it is NOT what I was saying at all), it’s vastly more useful than the second. “Slutty” does have meaning with respect to clothing, by which I mean that if you take photos of 100 outfits and ask 100 different people (in the same general culture) to sort them from most to least slutty, there will be some (albeit not perfect) correspondence between their orderings, whereas if you ask them to sort them from most to least flarny there will not be. ---
**Author:** ![Winston\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@Winston\_Smith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winston_Smith)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/53 "2011-05-20T17:08:46Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There’s a type of argument that seems generally fallacious that I’ve seen a bunch recently, and I’m sick of it. > > It goes like this: > A: I think that when people do X, there’s a tendency for Y to happen > B: Wait but can you precisely define exactly what is and is not X? Here are a bunch of examples, please categorize each of them precisely as X or not-X. If you can’t, then X has no meaning, and your whole claim is groundless. > > [Here’s a recent example.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13796493&postcount=116) > What’s so irritating about this is that there’s almost no meaningful concept in the human experience which is so rigorously defined that you can’t come up with borderline cases. “I don’t want to live next to a thief” “But what about someone who stole bread to feed his starving family? Is he a thief or not?”. > > If we can’t ever discuss anything without being able to fully and 100% accurately define all our base terms down to being able to instantly categorize every possible example, we’ll never discuss anything. > There are certain types of discussions in which in fact it is quite reasonable to discuss how rigorously definable and sortable certain terms are. For instance, if a white separatist wants to pass a law saying no black people can live in his town, then the burden of proof is on him to come up with a rigorous definition that can be applied to potential residents (plus of course he’s racist). But that doesn’t mean that any discussion anyone ever has about race can instantly be ended by pointing out that not everyone fits neatly into “black, white, Asian or Latino”. I was taking Rad Hat training for my job a few weeks ago, and there was a guy in class that was constantly challenging the instructor with “Well, what about this…” scenarios, which were all more or less designed to disprove any sort of absolutes. After the second day, the rest of us were thinking about giving him a blanket party. He wasted so much time that one of my classmates complained to the instructor and the pain-in-the-ass guy was told to cut the shit. He got all butthurt and called Red Hat Training Corporate and complained, but I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about, and this chowderhead came to mind instantly. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/54 "2011-05-20T18:13:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > \ > A: Girls should not wear flarny clothing.\ {Sadly packs up all her flarny clothing to take to a charity.} ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/55 "2011-05-20T18:34:21Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Because while I agree that the first little example is not the most productive thing ever (and I will disclaim yet again that it is NOT what I was saying at all), it’s vastly more useful than the second. “Slutty” does have meaning with respect to clothing, by which I mean that if you take photos of 100 outfits and ask 100 different people (in the same general culture) to sort them from most to least slutty, there will be some (albeit not perfect) correspondence between their orderings, whereas if you ask them to sort them from most to least flarny there will not be. See, I don’t disagree with your assessment (that “slutty” will (very) generally be rated on similar continuums by people from the same culture), but I don’t think the same can be said to apply to the act of artificially analytically dividing that same continuum into slutty and not-slutty. I don’t think the second result will be NEARLY as consistent as the first (or for that matter, consistent much at all), and it’s the second one that’s relevant to the advice given IMHO. So yeah, saying they’re EQUALLY meaningless would be probably hyperbolic, but they’re both still pretty damn meaningless, especially in a debate context. Also, **Winston** , I think there’s a difference between logically valid but annoying-ass behavior in the wrong context and logically valid behavior in a debate. =P > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > {Sadly packs up all her flarny clothing to take to a charity.} Don’t listen to him, baby, I LOVE it when you dress all flarny. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/56 "2011-05-20T18:43:27Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > By the same token, > > HPA: “Girls should grow long hair.” > HPB: “Hair is a continuum, and there are many definitions of ‘long’. Can you give us some better guidance as to what you specifically might be talking about?” > HPA: “No, but I know it when I see it.” > > is both more annoying and more similar to what the OP (HPA in this scenario) is trying to complain about. > > Look, if you’re going to use a term as part of a suggestion/rule, then the onus is on you to define it. If that term defies definition, then it’s absolutely useless as a descriptor. Neither of those statements is a fallacy. > > Going back to the OP, without a definition (especially of a word with as broad a range of meanings in common usage as “slutty”) it’d be just as useful and comprehensible for you to say “Girls shouldn’t wear \*flarny \*clothes”. The problem is that the person demanding a definition has no intention of accepting any definition, no matter how reasonable, and is perfectly willing to argue about it for dozens of posts. And in any case, when you use an ordinary word in an ordinary way, you have no obligation to provide a definition. It would be the responsibility of anyone questioning its use to provide specific reasons as to why the word has been misused or is essentially meaningless. If you claim not to know what an ordinary word means, consult a dictionary, don’t pester others with needless demands for definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/57 "2011-05-20T19:06:03Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > The problem is that the person demanding a definition has no intention of accepting any definition, no matter how reasonable, and is perfectly willing to argue about it for dozens of posts. Then you’ve won the debate, because that mythical person you’re describing has started acting like a moron. Except that never happened. > [@](#): > > And in any case, when you use an ordinary word in an ordinary way, you have no obligation to provide a definition. It would be the responsibility of anyone questioning its use to provide specific reasons as to why the word has been misused or is essentially meaningless. I disagree with you wholeheartedly regarding responsibility to define words. Regarding meaninglessness, we are discussing a phrase (“dressing like a slut”) that has NO meaning that is not determined by the culture and relative prudishness of the individual observer. A Saudi will say you’re dressing like a slut if you’re not covering your hair and all limbs to the wrist/ankles. A Frenchwoman on a topless beach wouldn’t even say you were dressing like a slut if all you were wearing was a pair of bikini bottoms. Such a range is so broad as to be absolutely useless. Even within the United States, you have viewpoints ranging from “College students at Miami Beach” to “Amish patriarchs in Lancaster, PA”. The term is proven meaningless unless defined. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/58 "2011-05-21T02:09:26Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > See, I don’t disagree with your assessment (that “slutty” will (very) generally be rated on similar continuums by people from the same culture), but I don’t think the same can be said to apply to the act of artificially analytically dividing that same continuum into slutty and not-slutty. Which in no way makes “don’t dress like a slut” meaningless advice. If I say “if you’re going to work around a lot of spinning fans with sharp blades, you should not wear frilly clothing with lots of bits dangling off” I’m not dividing the world of clothing into two kinds, frilly and non frilly, and claiming there’s a dividing line. I’m saying “the more frilly your clothes are, the more your risk of them getting caught in a fan”. As long as you and I can have some agreement on the ordering of a continuum of clothing from non-frilly to extremely-frilly, then my advice will be meaningful and potentially useful, even without some dividing line. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/59 "2011-05-21T02:36:31Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > The term is proven meaningless unless defined. That’s not how language works. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800/60 "2011-05-21T02:40:07Z")
And if you couldn’t explain in any sense what it is about clothing that made it “frilly” and thus dangerous - namely, that it had parts that might get caught in a fan because that’s how things work - you’d have no leg to stand on. Except in that example, you could. In that example, if somebody said “Wait. I don’t understand what risk you’re talking about. What is ‘frilly,’ and how is it related to getting caught in anything?”, then you’d have a pretty straightforward response to that question. And if they didn’t like it and insisted that “frilliness” was meaningless because you weren’t drawing a bright enough line to demarcate it, then you could start an entirely new thread to bitch about how illogical they were and how sick you were of it, if you wanted, and that would be, well, if not reasonable at least internet-reasonable. In this case, you’re just being asked repeatedly what in god’s name is provocative clothing, and what is the relationship between provocative clothing and rape, since everybody dresses _some_ way and who is to say what’s going to be sexy to the operative dangerous character at any given moment, and if you don’t know that there is a meaningful relationship and aren’t trying to actually answer those kinds of questions, why you’re arguing about it as if you do. And you don’t have a “frilly bits get caught in fans” response in this case. You aren’t explaining just exactly how your “advice,” which is only advice when you’re talking about it in the abstract because you don’t actually intend to give useful advice, could be put to any effect. That’s the problem - not that you aren’t distinguishing the edge-case “slutty” from the edge-case “non-slutty,” but that you aren’t even distinguishing nothing from something. And pointing out that you haven’t established that you’re talking about something, and not nothing, is not a fallacy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-logical-fallacy-im-sick-of/581800.md?page=4)