Name that fallacy...

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name. I imagine that there exists a formal name for it, but if not I guess we must provide one. I am tempted to borrow from the Greek myth of Cassandra who was gifted with special insight, but cursed to be never believed but that's an overused example so let's at least try and do better than that.

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

These complaints explain why nobody subscribes to the Morality-Proper-FSK. Why the whole world thinks Eggnog7 and Advocate are a pair of dumb motherfuckers, not the ultimate geniuses each sees in the mirror. And of course everything there is to know about Kenneth.




So is there already a name for this situation of unique genius that nobody can understand which so many of our more mentally supercharged yet somehow challenged forumites live under?

[Impenitent]

autumn happens every year right after summer, but some change the name and we get the fall-acy

-Imp

[Age]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name. I imagine that there exists a formal name for it, but if not I guess we must provide one. I am tempted to borrow from the Greek myth of Cassandra who was gifted with special insight, but cursed to be never believed but that's an overused example so let's at least try and do better than that.

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

BUT there is absolutely NO one making ANY CLAIMS about 'it' being wiser than 'those of you', in the past.

WHY would 'you' SAY such A 'thing' "flashdangerpants"?

These complaints explain why nobody subscribes to the Morality-Proper-FSK. Why the whole world thinks Eggnog7 and Advocate are a pair of dumb motherfuckers, not the ultimate geniuses each sees in the mirror. And of course everything there is to know about Kenneth.

And WHO is "kenneth", "flashdangerpants"?

So is there already a name for this situation of unique genius that nobody can understand

WHY do 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'things' like, 'nobody can understand' and/or 'the whole world thinks'?

OBVIOUSLY, 'these' ARE NOT true 'things' AT ALL.

Why, supposedly, seek out A NAME FOR a 'fallacy' WHILE USING 'fallacy/ies', "yourself"?

which so many of our more mentally supercharged yet somehow challenged forumites live under?

WHY can 'you' NOT seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, IS A CONTINUALLY EVOLVING 'thing'?

OBVIOUSLY, what 'you', posters, here, in the days when this is being written, have NOT YET LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD, what "others" WILL, and HAVE ALREADY, COME-TO-LEARN, and UNDERSTAND.

Or, can 'you' STILL NOT COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this ACTUAL Fact, and IRREFUTABLE Truth?

[Age]

What is A name for A group who 'try to' 'band together' in order to just 'try to' mock, humiliate, or ridicule "another", especially in the hope of getting 'that one' to just STOP expressing and sharing 'their, unexpected, new, and/or not liked views and ideas' ?

'you' know like when 'the one' who was just expressing and sharing 'its' views and ideas about how, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun and NOT the other way around, was getting teased, bullied, and/or 'tried to' be segregated and separated, BY A group of "others". Which the phenomena of has been going on and on for countless centuries whenever NEW views or ideas are introduced to an unsuspecting or unwilling TO CHANGE 'group of people'.

Also, is there A name for the 'fallacy' when people CLAIM, 'That is NOT possible', when 'they' are not even OPEN to 'it'.

In fact is there A name for the 'fallacy' when one is BELIEVING something is true, or even not true, when there is absolutely NO ACTUAL proof for said BELIEF?

[Iwannaplato]

all I see is strawmen

It's a claim. I haven't seen this one, but for a while one poster was calling everything a strawman.
He seemed to be conflating strawman with instances where some points out what is entailed by a position.
In other words, yes, you didn't assert that. My argument was that your position or argument entails X, which I don't think you will like.
Obviously they didn't directly assert the latter.
But the primary problem with this person's strawman accusation was that he did not justify it.

[Atla]

Can we suggest new names?
Misunderstood Narcflakeism Fallacy?

[Iwannaplato]

Can we suggest new names?
Misunderstood Narcflakeism Fallacy?

I think in certain cases, the fallacy should include the name of its creator. Some are not rare (here): for ex, the greatest philosopher claim or implicit claim. But others are more rare. Kudos can be conveyed in the name.

Age's hallucinationes de se fallacy: Justify using memories of the future as evidence.
Iambiguous' heus, dixi nescio ideo nihil iustificare habeo fallacy: implicit appeals to incredulity and implicit certainty somehow bear no onus.
The accelafine/Wizard Asserta argumenta sunt, contumeliae iustificatio fallacy: Conflating insults and assertion with arguments. In extreme toxic cases with good arguments.
The megalomania tautologicus fallacy: arguing that given they are the best philosopher in the world their self-evaluations are free of bias.

[Trajk Logik]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name...

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

all I see is strawmen

It's a claim. I haven't seen this one, but for a while one poster was calling everything a strawman.
He seemed to be conflating strawman with instances where some points out what is entailed by a position.
In other words, yes, you didn't assert that. My argument was that your position or argument entails X, which I don't think you will like.
Obviously they didn't directly assert the latter.
But the primary problem with this person's strawman accusation was that he did not justify it.

A straw man argument is the act of misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to falsify. It can be in the form of putting words in someone's mouth or cherry-picking one's argument.

The best way to justify the accusation is to simply say, "go back and read what I wrote". Why should you have to repeat yourself to someone you know is being disingenuous?

[Sculptor]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name. I imagine that there exists a formal name for it, but if not I guess we must provide one. I am tempted to borrow from the Greek myth of Cassandra who was gifted with special insight, but cursed to be never believed but that's an overused example so let's at least try and do better than that.

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

These complaints explain why nobody subscribes to the Morality-Proper-FSK. Why the whole world thinks Eggnog7 and Advocate are a pair of dumb motherfuckers, not the ultimate geniuses each sees in the mirror. And of course everything there is to know about Kenneth.




So is there already a name for this situation of unique genius that nobody can understand which so many of our more mentally supercharged yet somehow challenged forumites live under?

This is called the Veritas is deluded Fallacy.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name...

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

Have you read any of Age's posts? What on Earth makes you think he's accurately calling out fallacies?

[FlashDangerpants]

And WHO is "kenneth", "flashdangerpants"?

That would be you, Ken.

[FlashDangerpants]

all I see is strawmen

It's a claim. I haven't seen this one, but for a while one poster was calling everything a strawman.
He seemed to be conflating strawman with instances where some points out what is entailed by a position.
In other words, yes, you didn't assert that. My argument was that your position or argument entails X, which I don't think you will like.
Obviously they didn't directly assert the latter.
But the primary problem with this person's strawman accusation was that he did not justify it.

Advocate complained yesterday that he is regularly assailed with ad homs and strawmen. The Ad homs of course are that he is a compulsive narcissistic braggart with no mojo, and are in that regards both accurate and relevant. Strawmanning him is unnecessary, his compulsive bullshitting unravels without shenanigans.

VA is an unclear communicator on a good day, and tends not to really bother aligning any two of his thoughts with each other on any day at all. Holding any single one of his argumented positions necessitates invalidating a bunch of others, and in dealing with that, it seems to be the case that he cannot describe his own position without glaring obfuscation, and will not endorse any description of it that uncovers any of the obscured elements, so his case may well never be written with clarity and can only be described at all in the format of straw.

[FlashDangerpants]

The megalomania tautologicus fallacy: arguing that given they are the best philosopher in the world their self-evaluations are free of bias.

That's a prevalant one. We may need subclasses to distinguish Kenneth from Roydop, from Advocate.

[Iwannaplato]

The megalomania tautologicus fallacy: arguing that given they are the best philosopher in the world their self-evaluations are free of bias.

That's a prevalant one. We may need subclasses to distinguish Kenneth from Roydop, from Advocate.

I think you called Age Kenneth. If so, the he is also using...
Age's hallucinationes de se fallacy: Justify using memories of the future as evidence.

Roydop would be using the
Megolomania tautologicus spiritualitas fallacy

Advocate uses the Megolomania tautologicus brevitate caecum fallacy [for his pithy vagueness]

[Trajk Logik]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name...

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

Have you read any of Age's posts? What on Earth makes you think he's accurately calling out fallacies?

Age is one of the people who's post I don't read because I have already interacted with them and found them to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as being intellectually dishonest. I was speaking in general terms that applies to everyone, not just one specific person. Why would you create a thread that is about one person, who doesn't deserve this type of attention? You have to much time on your hands that could be spent doing more productive things.