Current Events > What is the name of this fallacy

(+) Yeah! (+)

When someone dismisses an entire argument because of one error made by the person making the argument, of which the argument doesn't fundamentally depend on.

Often used as a rhetorical trick to distract and change the subject.

E.g.

Person A: "I saw John leaving the building last night wearing some blue jeans"
Person B: "Actually John was wearing blue chinos that day, therefore you didn't see him leave the apartment"

You see this a lot with arguing online, e.g. "All 300 scientists agree on this issue so it's reasonable to believe it is true" and the next person says "actually there were only 280 scientists in total so your argument makes no sense"
---

Being a jackass
---

Being a CEman
---

Looking for a more official fallacy name here guys, e.g. reductio ad absurdum or whatever
---

nerdum abracadabra
---

red herring.
---

Seems like a variant on an Either/Or Fallacy; it's acting as if EVERYTHING is right or EVERYTHING is wrong.
---

We'll all get a lot better at conversing when people stop worrying about what logical fallicies apply to what

Internet discussion is like if you replaced all the cards with Rooks.
---

People do this to me alot. It's very frustrating when I'm trying to get my point across.
---

You see this shit with statistics all the time. Something can work the majority of the time, but if it doesn't work a single time, then it doesn't work at all.
---

monkmith posted...

red herring.

Yeah.
---

"Nitpicking" seems to fall under red herring, even though I don't know if that really conveys the idea.
---

Squall28 posted...

You see this shit with statistics all the time. Something can work the majority of the time, but if it doesn't work a single time, then it doesn't work at all.

Well depending on what it is, it makes sense.

Obviously it's a big deal if 1 in 100 of a certain model commercial airliner spontaneously falls out of the sky.

But yeah, I get what you're saying. Not everything is that drastic.
---

50Blessings posted...

Being a CEman

---

Squall28 posted...

You see this shit with statistics all the time. Something can work the majority of the time, but if it doesn't work a single time, then it doesn't work at all.

Republicans argue like that alot
---

Is it really just a red herring? Ironically, I thought that was too obvious and dismissed it.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Is it really just a red herring? Ironically, I thought that was too obvious and dismissed it.

its a broad category. your example is a clear one though.

DevsBro posted...

We'll all get a lot better at conversing when people stop worrying about what logical fallicies apply to what

Internet discussion is like if you replaced all the cards with Rooks.

recognizing false/intentionally misleading arguments can only help a discussion.
---

monkmith posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Is it really just a red herring? Ironically, I thought that was too obvious and dismissed it.

its a broad category. your example is a clear one though.

DevsBro posted...

We'll all get a lot better at conversing when people stop worrying about what logical fallicies apply to what

Internet discussion is like if you replaced all the cards with Rooks.

recognizing false/intentionally misleading arguments can only help a discussion.

He only says that because he makes a lot of them
---

I like how CE users act like they do this
---

@pinky0926

The fallacy fallacy. You can look it up on Wikipedia, if you want to know more.

---

Sunhawk posted...

@pinky0926

The fallacy fallacy. You can look it up on Wikipedia, if you want to know more.

Getting the facts wrong isn't a logical fallacy though. That's a faulty premise.

So fallacy fallacy really doesn't apply here.
---

dishonest people have many dishonest habits that wander into the territory of bitchassness.

those who want to dismiss you are going to try to find any excuse to invalidate your argument to avoid engaging you intelligently. especially when their argument is inherently anti intellectual.
---

Jehovahs witnesses do this a lot. For instance, they'll see a news article about how there are child abuse problems in their churches, but then go "look they called them churches instead of kingdom halls! This is all hogwash."
---

monkmith posted...

DevsBro posted...

We'll all get a lot better at conversing when people stop worrying about what logical fallicies apply to what

Internet discussion is like if you replaced all the cards with Rooks.

recognizing false/intentionally misleading arguments can only help a discussion.

I mean, if you actually learn about them and stuff, sure.

But this is the Internet. People pretend they know what they're talking about when they don't, they cry fallacy as if it's checkmate and half the time it doesn't even apply. Unable to resist the urge to look smart, now both parties are instead arguing about whether it's argument from ignorance or no true scotsman.
---

UnfairRepresent
---

DevsBro posted...

monkmith posted...

DevsBro posted...

We'll all get a lot better at conversing when people stop worrying about what logical fallicies apply to what

Internet discussion is like if you replaced all the cards with Rooks.

recognizing false/intentionally misleading arguments can only help a discussion.

I mean, if you actually learn about them and stuff, sure.

But this is the Internet. People pretend they know what they're talking about when they don't, they cry fallacy as if it's checkmate and half the time it doesn't even apply. Unable to resist the urge to look smart, now both parties are instead arguing about whether it's argument from ignorance or no true scotsman.

just hold yourself accountable for the things you say, man.

if you hold yourself to a high enough standard to where you won't present disingenuous arguments or shut down when you're hit with facts that damage your argument, other people will gradually notice and be more likely to engage you in a meaningful way.

nobody wants their time wasted.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Sunhawk posted...

@pinky0926

The fallacy fallacy. You can look it up on Wikipedia, if you want to know more.

Getting the facts wrong isn't a logical fallacy though. That's a faulty premise.

So fallacy fallacy really doesn't apply here.

Actually it kinda sounds right to me - if your contention with the argument is that the fact is off by a number and would still apply had the person argued or spoken better
---

pinky0926 posted...

When someone dismisses an entire argument because of one error made by the person making the argument, of which the argument doesn't fundamentally depend on.

Often used as a rhetorical trick to distract and change the subject.

E.g.

Person A: "I saw John leaving the building last night wearing some blue jeans"
Person B: "Actually John was wearing blue chinos that day, therefore you didn't see him leave the apartment"

You see this a lot with arguing online, e.g. "All 300 scientists agree on this issue so it's reasonable to believe it is true" and the next person says "actually there were only 280 scientists in total so your argument makes no sense"

That would be called a "Technicality"
---

Continuum fallacy
---

Splitting hairs
---