What kind of logical fallacy is this?

[Ace101]

Basically, it's when someone makes a statement which is false, but claims it shouldn't matter because it doesn't change the point they were trying to make. Here's an example:

Person A:. "Hitler raped kittens".

Person B: "That's false, Hitler never raped kittens".

Person A: "Who cares? Hitler was still a terrible person. You're saying Hitler was a nice guy?"

[Baruch]

Organize ...

1. If you are Hitler, you raped kittens

2. Statement #1 is false ...

3. Conclusion ... If you are Hitler, you did something other than rape kittens

So actually nobody can conclude on this evidence that Hitler was bad, or even if there was someone other than Hitler who raped kittens.  Additional evidence is required.

A good syllogism is ...

1. All men are mortal

2. Socrates is a man

3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

[TomFoolery]

Basically, it's when someone makes a statement which is false, but claims it shouldn't matter because it doesn't change the point they were trying to make.

As far as informal logical fallacies go, there are several red herring fallacies that would encompass such a specific example, such as a genetic fallacy or appeals to emotion.

Formally, it seems like it wants to go down the rabbit hole as a case of an improper transposition. But it turns into an argument from fallacy, since you have stated it is false that Hitler raped kittens.

As funny as it sounds, there's actually a logical fallacy called argumentum ad Hitlerum in which someone would compare an opponent's views with those held by Nazis: basically a guilt by association logical fallacy.

[Baruch]

Not all fallacies are fallacious .. it can depend on usage.  For example, the fallacy of historicism, is an appeal to the origins of some idea ... a negative case, like dumping all of philosophy because it is just about dead White men.  On the other hand, for example understanding politics, historical context is crucial.  Basically one can argue any way one likes, and it is only a fallacy in most cases (even ad hominem) only if it is abused.  I have no reason to have anything good to say about Hitler, but of course not everything today can be blamed on him ... Stalin helped too.

[Hydra009]

I have a similar question.  There was a Vigilant Christian (fundie Christian, believes in some sort of satanic Illuminati conspiracy) video where he said something along these lines:

"Of course there's a government conspiracy.  Do you think the government cares about you?  Do you really think they have your best interests at heart?"

It reminded me of a similar 9/11 Truther argument:

"All I'm saying is I doubt the official story.  Do you think the government never tells lies or never does false flag operations?  Are you really that naive?"


I'm leaning towards strawman and false dichotomy, but I'm not 100% sure.

[SGOS]

I've been watching this thread, because I can't identify the name of the fallacy.  It's not even a coherent argument.  I'm not sure what he's arguing.

Hitler raped kittens.  Is that the argument?

or is it

You cannot defend Hitler, even if he never did what I say he did.

He's reframing his own debate to avoid being called on a false accusation.

I don't know if that's a fallacy or just a pointless bucket of verbal glop.

Moving the Goalpost?

[SGOS]

Just because a name for false argument can't be found on a list of fallacies, doesn't mean it's not a fallacious argument.  There are probably an infinite number of ways to say something stupid.

[josephpalazzo]

Syllogisms are about facts. The first statement, the premise, is not true therefore the whole argument falls apart. The second statement is unrelated to the first. The syllogism is invalid.

[Jobey]

Hey Ace,

This caught my eye..

Basically, it's when someone makes a statement which is false, but claims it shouldn't matter because it doesn't change the point they were trying to make. Here's an example:

Person A:. "Hitler raped kittens".

Person B: "That's false, Hitler never raped kittens".

Person A: "Who cares? Hitler was still a terrible person. You're saying Hitler was a nice guy?"

I would say to person B that I care, because person B is simply lying about Hitler.  I don't care what sort of fallacy that is (although it is relevant).  It's bullshit and, in my view, it's just a lot simpler to call crap.. crap.. and dismiss it.

If it were down to me to formalise which fallacy this was, I'd simply call this a Red Herring.


J :)

[peacewithoutgod]

Basically, it's when someone makes a statement which is false, but claims it shouldn't matter because it doesn't change the point they were trying to make. Here's an example:

Person A:. "Hitler raped kittens".

Person B: "That's false, Hitler never raped kittens".

Person A: "Who cares? Hitler was still a terrible person. You're saying Hitler was a nice guy?"

I believe that should be called a red-herring flavored straw-man. What Hitler did (or did not do) with kittens is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and the straw-man is in the last sentence.

[Termin]

Argument from immaturity ?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Appeal to emotion, specifically disgust. For whatever reason, A is trying to play on your emotions of the visceral disgust of thinking of a helpless, cute animal being abused as a substitute for a sound argument, as if what Hitler actually did wasn't bad enough.

[JBCuzISaidSo]

Tu quoque is responding to criticism with criticism.

A made a dumb statement that might as well be true according to A, B went OCD and made a true statement, A threw a hissy fit for B not getting their point, and responded to the perceived critic with criticism.

Not really a logical fallacy, just A (hopefully temporarily) sick of B's OCD corrections even though it was true. That's how I read it, anyhow.

[peacewithoutgod]

Tu quoque is responding to criticism with criticism.

A made a dumb statement that might as well be true according to A, B went OCD and made a true statement, A threw a hissy fit for B not getting their point, and responded to the perceived critic with criticism.

Not really a logical fallacy, just A (hopefully temporarily) sick of B's OCD corrections even though it was true. That's how I read it, anyhow.

It's a hypothetical, for those interested in deconstructing fallacious arguments of more significant nature. If you can properly name the fallacy, then you have the upper hand.