Fallacy Socks

Description: The Contextomy Fallacy is committed when someone uses another person's quote out of context to change the intended meaning and support their own argument.

Description: Chronocentrism occurs when someone assumes a specific time period is inherently better or more important than all others.

Description: The Reification Fallacy is committed when someone suggests an abstract concept is real and has intent or agency.

Description: The Tokenism Fallacy is committed when someone makes a minimal gesture and claims it is far more significant than it really is.

Description: Nutpicking is the practise of choosing an extreme view or fringe member of a group and representing it as typical of that group to support an argument or point of view.

Description: The Equivocation fallacy relies on using a word with more than one meaning to set up a misleading argument. Often the word will be used in one sense in the premise, and in the other sense in the conclusion, implying that because the word is the same, the meanings are the same.

Description: The Appeal to Definition Fallacy occurs when someone relies on a specific definition, from a dictionary or other authority, which supports their argument, and ignores the possibility that other definitions are also reasonable.

Description: Invincible Ignorance describes a situation where, no matter how much evidence is presented or how clearly they are wrong, a fallacious arguer simply refuses to waver from their original position.

Description: Hypophora occurs when someone answers their own question without giving anyone else a chance to answer. It can be fallacious if the answer given serves them better than other plausible answers.

Description: When someone supports their argument by making a statement that is significantly more emphatic than can possibly be supported by evidence, they may be committing the Hyperbolic Fallacy.

Description: The Counterfactual fallacy is often committed when someone speculates on the specifics of how things would be different in different circumstances, or in the future if a particular thing happens. Where the arguer purports to have more certainty of the hypothetical situation, or their speculation goes against evidence, they are more likely to be committing the fallacy.

Description: The Hedging Fallacy is committed when someone changes their story or point of view and then acts like nothing has changed and they always thought like that.

Description: When someone claims that the fact that everyone called them crazy means they must be right, because 'they called Galileo crazy' (or some other person who was historically dismissed then turned out to be right), they are committing a fallacy.  They are forgetting that the vast majority of people in history who were called crazy weren't misunderstood geniuses, they were, in fact, crazy.

Description: The Appeal to Probability Fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because something is possible or probable then it will definitely happen.

Description: The Base Rate Fallacy is committed when someone offers a statistic as evidence without considering (or including) the prior probability of one or more of the factors involved.

Description: The Hot Hand Fallacy is committed when someone confuses dependent and independent events and claims that because particular outcome has been happening recently, it will continue to happen.

Description: The Complex Question Fallacy is committed when someone asks a question which includes the answer they are expecting or only allows people to answer in one way.

Description: The Insignificant Cause Fallacy occurs when someone claims an outcome is due to something which may be a minor factor, but is certainly not the main cause.

Description: The Just World Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that if something bad happens to you, it's probably because you're a bad person.

Description: The Incomplete Comparison fallacy is committed when someone suggests a thing is better or worse, without specifying what it is better or worse than.

Description: The Conflating Views Fallacy is committed when someone conflates the opinions or actions of multiple people within a group and suggests if those views conflict that the group is hypocritical.

Description: The Definist Fallacy occurs when someone deliberately redefines a term in a way that's favorable to their own argument (and is probably a stretch of the real definition)

Description: The Didactic Fallacy occurs when someone attempts to apply a historical analogy to a current situation but takes the wrong lesson from history or applies it to an inappropriate modern problem.

Description: A clean, typography-focused design for software developers, coders, and computer science nerds who appreciate clean code and dark humor.

Description: The Appeal to Fiction Fallacy is committed when someone tries to use something that happened in a work of fiction to back up their claim about the real world.

Description: False Uniqueness occurs when someone overestimates how rare their positive traits, abilities, or experience are.

Description: A straw man fallacy is the logical error of distorting a claim or argument to make it easier to refute. Help to spread the word about this logical fallacy

Description: The I'm Entitled to my Opinion Fallacy occurs when someone invokes this supposed right in the face of opposing evidence which they can't argue against. Subscribe to the podcast at http://fallacioustrump.com

Description: The Argument to Moderation Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that true or most reasonable answer is a compromise between two given answers (when in fact one of the given answers may be right)

Description: The Fault as Virtue Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously reframes a flaw in themselves or a situation as a good thing to support their argument.

Description: The Fallacy of Worse Evil is committed when someone acts like something is not a problem because worse problems exist or can be imagined.

Description: The Appeal to Pity Fallacy occurs when someone tries to convince others by making them feel sympathetic instead of using evidence.

Description: Whataboutism occurs when someone who is accused of something tries to distract and derail the conversation by talking about something somebody else did, which is implied to be equivalent.

Description: The Courtier's Reply occurs when someone dismisses their opponent's opinion by claiming they lack sufficient expertise on the subject to be allowed to opine.

Description: The Appeal to Accomplishment Fallacy is committed when someone refers to their abilities or achievements as a reason to believe them rather than using arguments.

Description: The Appeal to Freedom Fallacy is committed when someone claims that they should be entitled to something because any restraint of personal freedom for any reason is unacceptable.