The risk of you killing someone while driving is always more than 0%, killing someone is bad, therefore driving is immoral.

The risk of your offspring being dissatisfied with life is always more than 0%, being dissatisfied with life is bad, therefore procreation is immoral. (Hey, Schop!) — Πετροκότσυφας

On the other hand, the person you ran over probably regretted being born, anyway, so really -- justified homicide.

just for pleasure — Ronin3000

Your making the assumption that "casual sex" produces meaningless pleasure. You will hear it here first: There is no such thing as meaningless sex. People engage in sex -- married sex, unmarried sex, straight sex, gay sex, casual sex, serious sex -- because they seek pleasurable and meaningful experiences with other people, and casual sex can and does provide meaningful experiences, just like all the other kinds of sex.

Yes pregnancy might happen. Sometimes a pregnancy is a disaster, but it's a problem that isn't hard to master. Plan B and early abortion solves the problem. Yes, I hear you -- you object to abortion. You think laws on abortion are gynocentric. Since pregnancy is a gynocentric situation, that makes sense. If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament.

I think the safest thing for you to do is avoid sex on any and all occasions except in a marriage which you are certain will last long enough to properly raise the child you father. Otherwise... no sex for you.

"There was a young guy who lived in a shoe.
He fathered so many children he didn't know what to do.
Evidently."

It isn't as if our casual sexers have no options to prevent a child from being conceived. Among those options: birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, vasectomies, tubal ligation, contraceptive foams, IUDs, not to overlook just having excellent, high quality sex with other guys--that has yet to result in a pregnancy.

After all, what kind of good mother would have casual sex? — Ronin3000

A perfectly normal one. Your mother, quite possibly.

Having the golden goose and not being tempted to open it up to find even more treasure. — 0 thru 9

And then the mysterious old woman who evidently had great magical powers said, "You can do any thing you want to do, except for one thing: Leave the golden-egg laying goose alone. DO NOT," she said--looking me dead in the eye, "I repeat, DO NOT harass, interrogate (enhanced or otherwise), annoy, x-ray, PET scan, MRI, ultra-sound, palpate, or cut into the golden-egg laying goose. The penalties will be most SEVERE!" And then she disappeared. — Fractured Fairy Tales...

Worldviews are silenced simply because they don't make "sense" to the "sane". The tyranny of sanity is the tyranny of a certain perspective that is more prevalent than others. — darthbarracuda

Do you really believe that?

Disregarding the opinion of a "raving madman" because he is a raving madman dismisses this individual's perspective as irrelevant. — darthbarracuda

That's right, and rightly so. Someone walking down the street babbling a word salad is diagnosable (by the way, "raving madman" is not a diagnosis, these days) and as such what they are babbling about can be ignored. Someone who takes off their clothes and attempts to jump off a freeway bridge into traffic does not have a unique perspective, they have a psychological crisis. Someone who is so depressed they are catatonic is not more aware than everybody else, they are sicker than everybody else.

Mental illness is real. I assume you accept that. The policies and behaviors of political figures can be so extremely off-putting to the opposition that we are inclined to reach for psychiatric terms. 99% of the time when we do that, we will be wrong. Calling a politician crazy is essential a "mental health insult" -- having nothing to do with psychiatry.

Likewise, calling President Trump a "moron" is not an assessment of his actual intelligence. It's a way of saying how much you dislike him.

Calling the legitimate concepts of mental illness into question with "it's not abnormal, it's a unique perspective" is extremely lame.

I would think that the really crazy people get spotted out before they can get into office or implode under the pressure. — Posty McPostface

In the "good old days" of the "smoke-filled back room" where the party leaders got together and decided things in private, there was more control over who would be trotted out to be nominated for the top office. The pros knew who had skeletons in their closets, and how they got there. And they could better control information.

As parties became more open and democratic, this kind of control broke down. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern's VP running mate, was revealed to have been a mental hospital patient, diagnosed with manic depression, and had received electroshock therapy. I don't remember all the details of how this was revealed, but it was the kiss of death for his candidacy.

I thoroughly loath and detest Donald Trump and I would enjoy reading his obituary next week, BUT I don't think he is crazy. "Paranoid; check. Aggressive and mean; check. In a noticeable way? He's the Prez -- whatever he does is going to be noticeable. Erratic? Maybe. Outrageous; check. Concerning? How about morally appalling. Narcissistic? Double-check. A megalomaniac? Some of these characteristics are minimum requirements to run for the office. Check!

Was Richard Nixon paranoid, aggressive, vicious, erratic, megalomanic, narcissistic, outrageous, morally appalling; check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check. He was found to be in violation of the constitution, not in violation of the DSM. He was an awful person; but except for a little criminal behavior (Watergate and the Watergate Cover Up)--meh -- well within the operational standards of Washington.

Look, putting aside the fine rhetoric about democracy and all that, Congress and the Presidency are institutional shit holes of graft and corruption. Swamp? It's more of a sewage lagoon. It pretty much stays the same regardless of who is in office: DT, BO, GB II, WC, GB I, RR, JC, GF, RN, LBJ, JFK...

Why is Washington so bad? It's because it spends a lot of money (much of it appropriately) and money attracts the greedy and corrupt--like lobbyists, for instance, and lucre-minded politicians.

The claim that the president can not obstruct justice is total bullshit. The claim amounts to a bid to put the office above the law -- an infinitely bad idea.

Explaining the god(s) is an essential task of all believers, because the gods are our creation and as such are subject to continuous re-interpretation. If one believes the gods are real, they are always (and of necessity) inscrutable. So... explanations are in order.

For clarification purposes, are you Christian? My question/statement was still not addressed. It blatantly clear that the old testament endorses slavery, such as in Exodus 21. And the new testament doesn't seem to have any problem with slavery as well. So as a general idea, the Bible condones/endorses slavery. Correct? — chatterbears

For clarification purposes...

I was raised as a Christian, inherited the value system of mainline Calvinist Protestantism, have been at times active in the church as a believer, but since the mid 1980s have maintained an atheist POV. I have had plenty of quarrels with Christianity. As an old man contemplating his limited future, I don't expect to find any sort of hereafter.

The problem I have with your question hinges on the words "condones/endorses" slavery. If we look at the OT as a product, it reflects the practices of the Jewish community which produced it. In that sense: Yes, the Bible condones/endorses slavery--and a good many other practices which we find extremely objectionable. The Greeks and Romans, South Asians, East Asians, Amerindians --everybody -- has similar problems in their ancient religions. They did -- and approved of -- things that we find utterly unacceptable. For instance, a classical Greek family which went bankrupt generally became slaves as part of the settlement. Very bad practice.

The authors of the OT and NT were, as one would expect, captives of their time and place, as much as we are captives of our time and place. For NT writers (and Jesus, and everybody mentioned in the NT) the Roman Empire was a fact on the ground. When Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." he wasn't condoning/endorsing Caesar, he was simply acknowledging a fact: the Romans were running things in Israel, like it or not.

What is true of Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible is true of Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and every other religion: They were all contrived in a time and place, and reflect the prevailing values of that time, and of the principle founders, if there was one. They generally incorporated -- condoned/endorsed -- prevailing values of their time and place into their religion.

Believers in ancient religions frequently find themselves in serious tension between what the ancient religion hatched out, and what modern people find acceptable. Fundamentalists of several religions are having a lot of problems with this. Fundamentalist Christians, Moslems, and Hindus are seriously out of sync with the values and norms of the modern world.

So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. Stone throwing Moslems are in the same boat: They can't use the Koran to justify stoning adulterers or throwing homosexuals off a tall building.

OK?

I believe we can know our somatic sphere of reality. — praxis

Yes, in as much as our perceptual capacity can not immerse itself in the direct nature of the world beyond our skulls, this has to be conceded. Even if we are plunged into cold water, our brain only has proprioception, pressure, and temperature receptors to go on. However, this second hand representation of reality seems fairly consistent and reliable.

I don’t believe there’s objective meaning or morality. — praxis

I wouldn't go that far (I'm not a nihilist, I guess). However, we do find it difficult to be objective: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral... about much of anything. This isn't a fault -- it's a feature. We have evolved to have emotional responses to perceptions, and it is our emotional responses that help keep us alive. Else we would be annihilated by all sorts of things that we didn't fear and loathe sufficiently.

For the first item on the list, it’s a popular belief that things like religion offer meaning, or perhaps the pursuit of the American dream, or having children. — praxis

Religion, politics, nihilism, accumulation of cargo, reproduction, etc. provide meaning to people IF and WHEN people derive meaning from it. If it's all subjective, then how can we say it doesn't provide those things? Are you able to objectively say that the meaningfulness of the American Way doesn't exist?

True enough that nihilism isn't about popularity. Value what you will.

The human mind is not very rational. It's driven by emotion, delusion, and devotion to a great extent. — Steve555

It is true that the human mind is not very rational. But rationality is still one aspect of the mind.

Therefore, we are not entirely responsible for our behavior. — Steve555

How responsible are you? 86%? 23%? 50%?

If you become angry and kill somebody, who--besides yourself--could be responsible? You probably want to be held responsible for the good things you do, right? Well, if you can be held responsible for the good things you do, then you can also be held responsible for the bad things you do.

If you have done bad things to other people (let's say they were merely hurtful acts which were not actual crimes where the state intervened) is there anything you can do about it? Yes, there is. In a nut shell, a) repair the damage you did to other people (as well as you can) and b) go and sin no more.

Are you a Nihilist? Maybe.

Varieties of nihilism argue...

--the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life
--life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value
--there is no inherent morality; accepted moral values are abstractly contrived
--knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist

Do you hold all of these principles to be valid? Some parts? Being a nihilist doesn't require you to be unhappy, live without goals, or be unpleasant toward everyone. Nihilists, as much as anyone else, desire love, pleasure, safety, food, warmth, and other good things. Cooperation, pleasantness, tenderness, openness, clear thinking, and so forth help one obtain the good things in life. Abiding by the prevailing morality is at least useful to the individual. Whether life has any intrinsic meaning, purpose or value or not, it can definitely be better and it can be a hell of a lot worse--depending on how one behaves.

Nihilism isn't anomie which is the general mood of despair in situations where there are no norms, rules, or laws found in situations of social collapse.

As Txastopher noted, a most ill-informed post. Maybe not of all time, but still...

If you read the old Testament, you don't find anything written, similar, about lesbians. The reason is, this was not a main highway to serious diseases, that could then spread to the community. — wellwisher

Ancient Jews did not have a vector model of disease (like, mosquitos being a vector or carrier of malaria). That people were a vector of disease was, likewise, not part of their world view. Being "unclean" or having a very vaguely defined 'leprosy' was as much a spiritual matter as it was a physical matter. Some ancient Greek and Roman physicians had a slightly better understanding of disease, but not much.

We have a specific definition of leprosy. Ancient people had no good way to distinguish between all the various kinds of skin rashes and infections. Real leprosy did exist at the time, and was a serious disease then as now, but lots of other things were counted as leprosy too.

People would not have a clear understanding of disease causation, disease transmission, and cure for another 1700 years, at least. Robert Koch tied up the loose ends of infection as recently as 1875.

The Jewish lawmakers of the millennium prior to the common era were concerned about the social and spiritual health of the community. Strange acts (a man lying with men as with women, etc.) violated social and spiritual norms. Of course, 'homosexuals by our definition' existed in all times, but homosexual behavior didn't have a defined role in Jewish society the way it did in Greek or Roman society.

Which sexually transmitted diseases were prevalent among ancient Jews isn't clear. AIDS certainly was not, syphilis was most likely not; gonorrhea--maybe, warts, yes. Gonorrhea and warts are both diseases whose visible presence can disappear after the acute stage. For that matter, so can syphilis' acute symptoms. Any sequelae would be counted as another disease. Not only would be counted as another disease, would have to be counted as another disease, because they had no way to connect early symptoms to symptoms several months or years later.

Read more history of the ancient world; investigate ancient ideas of disease. Get an understanding of the difference between "spiritual and community health" and "physical health".

Either way, the New Testament condones slavery. Correct? — chatterbears

The New Testament was written a certain time and in a certain place, and the New Testament writers were restricted in their thinking by the reality that they knew. As it happens, 21st century philosophy bloggers blog in a certain time and a certain place, and are restricted in their thinking to what they know. Just as what we natter on about here should not be taken as the foundation of all future thought, the New Testament is not the foundation of all future thought, either. Slavery disappeared in much of the Roman Empire (as it collapsed) because it no longer made economic sense. It didn't make any difference to Christians whether Paul accepted or condoned slavery, or not.

Similarly with respect to homosexuality. "Homosexuality" as such is a modern (mid-19th century) concept. Men desiring and having sex with other men has been in existence for a long time--long before, and long after, the New Testament was written. Paul had his view; at other times, in other places, (not just in the present) sex amongst men was was viewed more tolerantly than at other times.

in my own life, the official public attitude towards sex amongst men has changed greatly since the 1950s. Westerners have moved from viewing it very negatively to viewing it with at least slightly positive connotations. Many heterosexual people now accept it as normal and healthy. There have been previous episodes of relative acceptance (and condemnation) between Roman times and the present.

What applies to the issue of slavery and homosexuality (both peripheral issues in the NT) doesn't apply to the NT as a foundational document of the faith. The church was already in existence when the NT was composed, and the church had a hand it composing and editing it. It doesn't matter what anybody in the New Testament thought about peripheral issues like slavery, prostitution, adultery, eating pork and shellfish, temple worship, or lots of other stuff. What mattered to the New Testament writers is that Jesus was the risen Christ, and that the job of the church was to continue the ministry of the Apostles. Period.

I put my soul up for auction and was disappointed that the highest bid was still below the minimum.

Telling slaves to obey their masters, which seems to be an indirect condoning of slavery. If he did not condone it, he would have said, "Masters, free all of your slaves" — chatterbears

Maybe you are think of Paul: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5

Jesus, what kind of people are you working with? Are you working in a sheltered workshop for autistic literalists, or something? Are these people not native English speakers (or even competent English speakers)?

I have noticed that some people seem to lose the ability to interpret figurative language (like "This place is a ghost town"), metaphors, puns, similes, and so on as they age. Is it an early sign of dementia? I sometimes wonder.

There are also people who seem to have had all imaginative ability washed out of their brains, and anything that isn't obviously literal disturbs them.

Or maybe they just don't like you.

"Simplifying" and "dumbing down" aren't the same thing. Dumbing down applies to situations where complex abstractions (like 'hermeneutics' or 'quantum mechanics') are recast in terms so basic most of the meaning is lost. Simplification of instructions involves careful organization of steps, word choices that are appropriate to the audience and the situation, and clear delivery. Plus, the person on the other end needs to be receptive, paying attention, and interested.

Clarity can be difficult to achieve in an unplanned (ad lib) situation. It may not be anyone's fault.

Most newspapers were, at one time, written at a 6th-grade to 8th grade level. Newspapers need to be accessible to as many readers as possible (for revenue purposes) without making it so simple complicated issues can't be discussed. Leading national newspapers like the New York Times are likely to be pitched at a higher reading level (maybe 10th to 12th grade) than the West Cupcake Weekly Advertiser.

Your thread, "When You Sold Your Soul To The Devil" -- your OP, Hanover's response, and 1 paragraph of 0-9's quoted text from Oscar Wilde -- reads at the 8th grade level according to the Fry/Ragor readability formula.

Matt Powell [the so-called Christian preacher] is hardly the first Christian moralizer to bring to the fore passages from Leviticus (and elsewhere) and propose that they be put into effect. He has heathen brothers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and elsewhere who have similar ideas.

Gay Christians found there were satisfactory methods of disposing of scriptures like this without rejecting the whole Bible. There are, in fact, quite a few passages in the Bible--various authoritative pronouncements--which very few people feel obligated to consider.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them? — chatterbears

A Christian ought to know that God, in the second person of the Trinity, did clarify what he meant: "Love one another as I have loved you." Agape.

I'm pretty sure that the creator of the universe fully understood what the likelihood was that humankind would get and keep any message straight, so to speak: close to nil. Look, if the Jesus couldn't adequately clarify things, (and Jesus was God)... well, there you have it.

I'm not quite sure why Mr. Powell's problem is. He could be self-hating, or maybe he is just a hateful bastard looking for targets.

A clearer route to dealing with God's information management problems would be to recognize that God is our creation, not the other way around, and no one should ever be surprised that we are inconsistent. As Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever constructed with the crooked timber of mankind."

This must be what it's like when dogs eat from garbage bins, spontaneously regurgitate its humors soaked contents onto the floor, and then feel compelled to re-consume it. — VagabondSpectre

It's a scriptural situation: "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Proverbs 26:11. It's such a visceral scriptural quote. So from this we can derive two insights: 1) For millennia dogs have been throwing up on the floor and then perusing the disgusting pile with interest. 2) Fools have been returning to their folly for about the same length of time.

Fortunately, neither this scripture nor the insights refers to present company.

I don't see a problem here either. One can be an atheist and accept ideas that arose in theistic or non-theistic religion. One can be an atheist without being a nihilist. Of course, I wasn't brought up as an atheist, nor was I an 'early adapter'. I carried many theistic ideas into atheism.

Physics would seem to pose at least as much of a threat to old-time philosophy as the philosopher Nietzsche did. Now we have a universe with a beginning that didn't involve a god. We know we are creatures on a continuum with all other creatures. We now know that our future may be foreshortened by our own efforts (global heating beyond the tolerance of our natural support systems). What was once explained by the intervention of the gods is now explainable (much more often than not) by physics, chemistry, biology, or cultural knowledge.

In a different sense, nothing controls you, not even you. I mean to say that you live your life being you(rself), not controlling you(rself). — Pattern-chaser

That is a good way of putting it.

It's all a bunch of bullshit — T Clark

I very much wanted to post this great folksong, "It All Sounds Like Bullshit To Me". It's on Apple Tunes, but not on YouTube. It's sources is too esoteric, I guess--a Canadian Caver group -- people interested in spelunking, karst, and such. The performers are Dangerous Dick and the Duckbusters on the album "IN TOO DEEP". Good solid Canadian folk song.

Here's a sample:

IT ALL SOUNDS LIKE BULLSHIT TO ME

There’s a cave around here (though I’ll never tell where!)
That makes all the others look small
We dropped the first pitch on the fourteenth of March
We never got back ‘till the Fall!
The halls are so big and the crawls are so long
To believe it, you’ve just got to see
And to make the trip finer, there’s an exit in China
So we stopped off for egg rolls and tea!

Chorus
So let’s hear yer stories of past caving glories
Tell a tale that’s as tall as can be!!
I’ll not be the one to deny that it’s fun
Though it all sounds like bullshit to me!!

My first thought when I saw your new icon was trepanation. My second was that the bit seemed a bit large. — T Clark

Yeah, well, sure: trepanation. Why not?

One needs a big drill bit to get through thick skulls.

Nobody is going to read this because it is too long, but I'm quoting it just because it is long.

Formal fallacies[edit]
Main article: Formal fallacy
A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.[4] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Appeal to probability – a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[5][6]
Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – assumption that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[7]
Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[8]
Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[9]
Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[10]
Propositional fallacies[edit]
A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of propositional fallacies:

Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[11]
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[11]
Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.[11]
Quantification fallacies[edit]
A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:

Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.[12]
Formal syllogistic fallacies[edit]
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.[12]
Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.[12]
Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.[13]
Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.[12]
Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.[12]
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.[12]
Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.[14]
Modal fallacy – confusing possibility with necessity.[15]
Informal fallacies[edit]




Main article: Informal fallacy
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.[16]

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.[17]
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[18]
Correlative-based fallacies
Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[19]
Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so incredible/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.[20]
Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[21]
Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.[22]
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.[1]
Motte-and-bailey fallacy – The arguer conflates two similar positions, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[23]
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[24]
Etymological fallacy – reasoning that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[25]
Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it's left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.[26]
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[27]
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy, quote mining) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[28]
False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options when in reality there are more.[29]
False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[30] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
Historical fallacy – a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result.[31]
Homunculus fallacy – a "middle-man" is used for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).[32]
Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[33]
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Incomplete comparison – insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Inconsistent comparison – different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.)[34]
Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.[dubious – discuss]
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[35]
McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making a decision based only on quantitative observations, discounting all other considerations.
Mind projection fallacy – one's subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception of that object.
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[36] in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[37] (anti-naturalistic fallacy)[38] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is
P
∨
¬
P
P \lor \neg P does imply ought
P
∨
¬
P
P \lor \neg P for any proposition
P
P, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. Also known as shifting the burden of proof.
Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam)
Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
Proving too much – using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, undesirable conclusion.
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
Referential fallacy[39] – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
Reification (concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.
Special pleading – a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
Improper premise[edit]
Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.[40][41][42][43]
Loaded label – while not inherently fallacious, use of evocative terms to support a conclusion is a type of begging the question fallacy. When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion. For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives." Use of the term "unhealthy additives" is used as support for the idea that the product is safe.[44]
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Faulty generalizations[edit]
Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.[45]
No true Scotsman – makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.[46]
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[47]
Survivorship bias – a small number of survivors of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.[48]
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample or the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so.[49]
Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.[50]
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliché—not a point.
Questionable cause[edit]
Questionable cause

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this"; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.[51]
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"; temporal sequence implies causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[52]
Wrong direction (reverse causation) – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[53] The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Ignoring a common cause
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[54]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.[55]
Inverse gambler's fallacy
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
Relevance fallacies[edit]
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[56]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[57]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[58]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more;[59][60] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.[61][62]
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[63]
Red herring fallacies[edit]
A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[64][65][66]

Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.[67] Argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[68]
Abusive fallacy – verbally abusing the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.[69]
Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
Kafka-trapping – A sophistical and unfalsifiable form of argument that attempts to overcome an opponent by inducing a sense of guilt and using the opponent's denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt.[70][71]
Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[72][73]
Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.[74]
Courtier's Reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[75]
Appeal to emotion – an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.[76]
Appeal to fear – an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side[77][78]
Appeal to flattery – an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.[79]
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.[80]
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.[81][82]
Appeal to spite – an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.[83]
Wishful thinking – a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[84]
Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.[85] (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name)
Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[86]
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)[87]
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[88]
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[89] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[90]
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because majority or many people believe it to be so.[91]
Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.[92]
Bare assertion fallacy, also known as ipse dixit – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.[93][94]
Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.[33]
Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.[95][96]
Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.
Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.[97]
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
Moralistic fallacy (the inverse of naturalistic fallacy) – statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be.
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy,[98] naturalistic fallacy[99]) – claims about what ought to be, on the basis of statements about what is.
Pooh-pooh – dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration.[100]
Straw man fallacy – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[101]
Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.[102]
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue, Whataboutism) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[103]
Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, an "equal but opposite" wrong will cancel it out.[104]
Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form of claiming that no A in B has C, when there are no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room at all.
Conditional or questionable fallacies[edit]
Broken window fallacy – an argument that disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.
Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.[105]
Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties, sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature.[85]
Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. It is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy.[106]

This is golden — Posty McPostface

Yes, T Clark gave you good advice.

If you disagree with another persons argument, you have to be able to express that disagreement in plain language without using labels or catch words. — T Clark

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

BTW, I don't think you have a big problem in this area. When you set out to express yourself clearly, you are clear.

A) Just how long is the list of logical fallacies? Is there a finite number? Do people make up new logical fallacies?

You may not have stumbled on a logical fallacy, but you could still be dead wrong. Is outright lying a logical fallacy? What about revealing truth that seems logically flawed?

Perhaps — VagabondSpectre

But then again, perhaps not.

How about Ten Nights in a Barroom and What I Saw There by Timothy Shay Arthur. Never read it myself, but hey, you never know, might have something to do with power.

The Will to Power by F. Nietzsche -- definitely.

Kafka - The Trial

many people think money is the root of all evil — GreenPhilosophy

The Latin proverb is "Radix malorum est cupiditas" -- The love of money is the root of evil, not money itself.

Currency is dirty, for sure (literally filthy lucre) but that isn't a huge problem. Sure, money can carry flu viruses, traces of drugs, and bacteria -- but as far as I know, NO EPIDEMIC has been laid on the doorstep of currency.

"What about a robotic AI workforce capable of building more AI robots? People would never have to work again." — GreenPhilosophy

What about it? Whether we have a robotic workforce or not (and don't hold your breath waiting for it) people still have desires to interact, cooperate, share, and do all those primate-group things we like to do. Besides, the idea that robots will insure plenty for all is strictly pie-in-the-sky. What is more likely to happen is that robotic factories will make goods for the small ruling class and the rest of the population can drop dead.

Capitalism it it's current form is certainly not just. And Communism isn't the answer either because it doesn't adequately motivate people to help others. — GreenPhilosophy

Capitalism isn't just, true, and it isn't the political economic system we have (communism, capitalism) that motivates people to cooperate. People cooperate under all circumstances because they like to cooperate (do stuff together) and because it is necessary to cooperate (else we'd all starve). As a species we've been cooperating hundreds of thousands of years.

people are free to reveal more of themselves, their deeper angry insecure selves. — Marcus de Brun

The "deeper angry insecure self" gets more response from attacks than agreement. People like to get responses. What do you say to somebody who says they agree with you? Not too much. What do you say to someone who disagrees with you, and perhaps in a disagreeable way? Plenty.

Waiting for Godot — Marcus de Brun

Waiting for Godot?

Power doesn't exist as a disembodied entity. Power comes from wealth, the control of wealth, force of arms, or the threat of using force of arms. Think of Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg, banks, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Israel, or the United States. The facts of how power works reveals the philosophy of power. Less important is what power people imagine they have, or imagine other people having.

• The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills
• Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich by G. William Domhoff
• Studying the Power Elite: Fifty Years of Who Rules America? G. William Domhoff
• Class and Power in the New Deal: Corporate Moderates, Southern Democrats, and the Liberal-Labor Coalition by G. William Domhoff (Author), Michael J. Webber (Author)
• The Color of Law: The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein (not about 'power' per se, but an excellent and up-to-date presentation of how power was exercised in congress in the 1930s, and up to the present, to more or less permanently segregate and impoverish blacks.)
• The Rich and the Super Rich by Ferdinand Lundberg

Consider Hitler: in 1922 he was a nobody, in a state that was recovering from the costs of WWI and the terms of the Versailles Treaty. He didn't have any money himself, and initially he had no followers, either. 11 years later, in 1933 he took over the German State. How did he manage that? It was mainly through the threat of force (and some application), the money that conservatives donated to his cause, playing on deep hatreds, and a certain amount of crooked dealings. Plus, quite a few Germans (by no means a majority) deeply resented the terms of the Versailles Treaty, which provided a rallying point around which to organize. Hitler never won a majority of the votes in honest elections. Still, he vas dur fucking fuhrer for way, way, way too long.

So, this is a result of not playing devils advocate with every position or argument you make? — Posty McPostface

Play devil's or angel's advocate as you wish, just don't tie your sense of personal worth to what you wrote. Take the view that someone is attacking what you wrote, not your person.

Why ask if it's a form of paranoia and not a form of love? — Πετροκότσυφας

Chances are it's not love.

To summarize my post, above, we end up having disagreeable fights because too often we act as if a discussion is a contest upon which is riding a judgement of our personal worth. The solution? Write what you will and then let go of it.

how do I know you're not a murderer posting on here — Posty McPostface

You don't -- which is why we don't post our telephone numbers and addresses. About 20% of the membership have intensely psychopathic, murderous, heinous-crime-inclined personalities--a common product of life in modern depersonalizing institutions, like Harvard or Wall Street. If we knew where each other lived, there would be more cases of the Socratic Serial Murderers. (The victims are engaged in lengthy philosophical discussion before they are "banned" as it were.)

or a racist or a manipulative two-faced person — Posty McPostface

Who isn't? Preferring one's own tribe, manipulating others, and kowtowing to the opinions of the dominant chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) in the troop is baseline primate behavior.

What -- do you think we are made in God's own image, or something? The Garden of Eden? Any one of us could play the snake.

But, what about biases and assumptions about other people, you can't entirely remove those can you? How do they manifest into attacks on the person or in a misconstrual of an actual situation? — Posty McPostface

No, you can not eliminate biases or assumptions about other people.

The reason why innocuous discussions of what are fairly esoteric matters become scenes of mayhem is straightforward:

Jack says, "If a tree falls in the forest, it make no noise if nobody hears it" and invests his statement with his personal line of credit. "Because I am saying this, it is important and must not be disrespected."

Mary comes along and says, "Phenomena are not dependent on our perception. Every 6 year old knows that, imbecile!" Mary also invests her statement with her personal line of credit.

Jack responds by calling Mary an asshole because he feels (and was) disrespected. Mary also feels (and was) disrespected, and we're off on another riot in a demitasse cup.

Most of us luxuriate in being part of our own in-group. It feels good. It's comforting, supportive, nourishing. It's probably also in our genes to like being in our own in-group.

Yes, true enough, each in-group results in everybody else being in the out-group. We are all out-group members, even if we are lucky enough to have a comfy in-group.

Class, national origin, race, language group, home-town, olympic league, sexual orientation, and more -- all are fault lines along which we build our in-groups. Being in an in-group doesn't ipso facto mean we hate everybody else. Working class, Turkish speaking, gay guys would have to go out of their way to find reasons to hate middle class, Russian-speaking heterosexuals. They are both out-groups to each other, both in-groups to themselves.

If you wanted to make middle class Russian-speaking heterosexuals and working class turkish gay guys dislike each other, an intensive program of integration, endless sensitivity training, harangues about equal opportunity, and so on directed at each group, would probably be sufficient for each group to finally loathe that out-group that they had never interacted with but were now supposed to be accepting of -- hell, celebrative over.

My dog usually barks on Wednesday — Hanover

If that damn dog doesn't stop barking every Wednesday, it's going to have an unfortunate accident.