Random
Source Code
Random
One in which possession of an object or a shared interest -- e.g., the music of The Eagles or their Greatest Hits album -- fails to indicate any commonality, agreeability, or similar personality between two or more people. As in, just because you have a copy of Eagles' Greatest Hits and someone like Benito Mussolini does too doesn't make you the same type of guy. Coined by a music critic in an interview with VH1.
The Fallacy of The Eagle's Greatest Hits goes like this: Just because you have a copy of Eagles' Greatest Hits and someone like Benito Mussolini does too doesn't make you the same type of guy.
The fallacy of The Eagles' Greatest Hits is like that song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's." Two people have nothing in common but that guy is holding onto a chance with the girl because they both saw Breakfast at Tiffany's and she kinda liked it. Maybe she liked it but that doesn't make you compatible; it means nothing!
"When you say you're in favour of a political thing, and your fandom thing trumps that political belief."
- SBN3, SoBroRadio 1-31-2021
People who like Harry Potter, but aren't transphobic, are suffering from the Fandom Over Freedom Fallacy.
Pro BLM people who like Dragon Ball Z despite the racist depictions of black people.
Feminists who like Star Trek: The Next Generation despite SEVERAL rapey Deanna Troi episodes.
A mistake in logic that people make where they lump all people into two cadagories good guys and bad guys. This mistake is made by police,military and other people who have not learned to think.
In fact there is no one who is all good or all bad.
He's making the good guy bad guy fallacy.
9👍 8👎
If your composite rex your a smelly mf and a femboy
Comp:nigga
Other guy:you got thr composite rex fallacy therefore i automatically win
Pointing out a certain contraband or prohibited action alike which only implies said person pointing it out also knows or is involved in said prohibition.
Though it doesnt have to be immoral, it could just be akward or embarrassing.
P-hub intro plays
B : hey, you cant watch that here are you crazy?
A : watch what? What am i watching?
B : thats obviously p-hub
A : you know what the intro sounds like??
C : you just proved the p-hub fallacy B
/
B : how do you- yknow, do it with your fingers?
A : oh, 5 inch in the curl
A : i mean, thats what they said! I dont know myself i havent tried anything like that yet.
B : ? Did you just excecute the p-hub fallacy
No, you jackass. That's not how it works. What you're doing is what every idiot on the planet does when there's some sort or disagreement. It's the most common modern fallacy. It's not an official fallacy. It's ORIGINAL. UNIQUE. Which is what I do here. ORIGINAL refutations of morden misconceptions.
Hym "Let's call it 'Dismissal from emotion falacy.' Here's how it's works: You use my emotional state or project a negative emotional state (Anger, Jealousy, Fear) on to me for the purposes of dismissing a proposition or statement. It's fallacious (obviously) because my emotional state has has no baring on the truth of my proposition. 2+2=4 regardless of whether or not I'm angery while I tell you that 2+2=4. My emotional state is irrelevant. And by accusing me of 'Jealousy' you're doing the EXACT SAME THING leftist do when they accuse conservatives of being transphobes or homophobes. Protecting 'Fear' on to them for the purpose of dismissing their propositions. There you have it. 'Dismissal from emotion fallacy' that's the thing you're doing. Look for it. You'll see it all the time. People do it all the time."
This is how you win a debate. You call out Nemesis Fallacy and your opponent has to concede. Nemesis Fallacy is anything you want it to be. Use your omnipotence to give it a definition.
"I call Nemesis Fallacy."
"I plead Nemesis Fallacy."