Logically Fallacious¶
Bennett, B. (2012). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- No True Scotsman
- In religious and ideological self-defense, "no true Christian, Marxist, liberal, or conservative would say or do that" insulates a tradition from counterevidence supplied by its own members.
This sourceCatalogs the No-True-Scotsman (appeal-to-purity) move — post-hoc redefinition of the subject term to exclude a counterexample — with stock examples across religious, ideological, political-identity, and standards arguments, and the in-advance-criterion diagnostic.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The Logically Fallacious entry shows the move with a 'not a true Christian' example and group-member denunciation; it has no Marxist, liberal or conservative cases.
“Every time one group member denounces another group member for doing or saying something”
- In religious and ideological self-defense, "no true Christian, Marxist, liberal, or conservative would say or do that" insulates a tradition from counterevidence supplied by its own members.
Domain-specific¶
- Appeal to probability
- If-by-Whiskey
- If-by-whiskey is a rhetorical pattern — named for Mississippi state representative Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat Jr.'s 1952 speech on whiskey prohibition
This sourceThe two-conditional whiskey speech that gives if-by-whiskey its structure, opposing whiskey as 'the devil's brew' and endorsing it as 'the oil of conversation'. The placement of if-by-whiskey in a catalogue of informal-logic fallacies alongside entries such as Gish Gallop and False Dilemma. The 1952 Sweat whiskey speech, delivered on whether Mississippi should continue to prohibit alcohol. Noah Sweat's whiskey speech as reproduced by Bo Bennett, including its closing 'This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.'.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“A response to a question that is contingent on the questioner’s opinions and makes use of words with strong connotations.”
- If-by-whiskey is a rhetorical pattern — named for Mississippi state representative Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat Jr.'s 1952 speech on whiskey prohibition
- Relative Privation
- The fallacy belongs to the relevance-fallacy family alongside red herring and ad hominem — it deflects argumentative pressure off the original claim onto unrelated material — but its distinguishing signature is the severity comparison: where red herring introduces tangentially related material and ad hominem attacks the speaker, relative privation specifically introduces a more extreme instance of the same type of problem to discharge discussion of the lesser one.
This sourceThe most citable catalogue entry for the label itself, defining relative privation as making a scenario appear better or worse by comparison with a best- or worst-case alternative; it is a popular fallacy collection, and the family placement and severity-comparison signature are the entry's own analysis.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The fallacy belongs to the relevance-fallacy family alongside red herring and ad hominem — it deflects argumentative pressure off the original claim onto unrelated material — but its distinguishing signature is the severity comparison: where red herring introduces tangentially related material and ad hominem attacks the speaker, relative privation specifically introduces a more extreme instance of the same type of problem to discharge discussion of the lesser one.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 3 of 4 citations: 3 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:031cdb8050f9 · see in the full table