Name of fallacy

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-07-29 01:55am

Is there a logical fallacy in the repetition of false claims, such as Darkstar's famous "you have provided no evidence" or "you have failed to respond to my points" catch-all response to all evidence and rebuttals?

Or must we content ourselves with simply calling it "lying" and "fucktard behaviour"?

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2002-07-29 04:04am

--This appears to lying if you have done what Darkstar denies. If you have not, but his response has no effect on the arguement then it is an implied "Irrelevant Conclusion." Here is a link to many fallacies:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-29 01:43pm

If we can't find a name for such a fallacy, I say we call it the "Broken Record" fallacy.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-07-29 11:33pm

I have a general fallacy name: SDF, Stupid DumbFuck.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-07-30 07:17am

Durandal wrote:If we can't find a name for such a fallacy, I say we call it the "Broken Record" fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Using the definitions on here (which make sense), we've got 4 really broad categories of fallacy:

1. Treating an inductive argument as if it was as bulletproof as a deductive one (we're not talking about mathematical induction here. . .)

2. Factual errors

3. Invalid deductive reasoning (the premises may be true, but the conclusion may still be false)

4. Invalid inductive reasoning (the premises may be true, but they don't lend significant support to the conclusion).

Out and out lying would have to be classed as a malicious factual error, I guess.

If the same lie keeps getting repeated, Broken Record or SDF seem like good options :>

Hmm. . . I guess non sequitir (in the linguistic sense) might come close to covering it - the 'rebuttal' fails to respond to the points made.

The stuff I could find on fallacies seems to assume that people are least trying to _pretend_ they have a valid argument .

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-07-30 07:33am

Found a possible contender: "Invincible Ignorance"

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal ... rance.html

"I'm going to take everything you just said, and pretend you either didn't say it or that it's all irrelevant, or that it doesn't mean what you think it means."

EDIT: A better description of the same thing -
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/ ... ncible.asp

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-08-02 08:40am

Filibustering: Repeating the same lines over and over in order to win by drinving your opponent away through sheer boredom, and desperation. Used in the Senete for a long, long., long. (Well you get the Idea) time