Name that fallacy

So.. fallacies. One thing I've learned is that when you're in a debate with someone and they are constantly calling fallacy, it is more than likely because said person doesn't actually have an argument. I've seen it in debates on here.. other forums.. even on YouTube comments. Someone who has an opinion that they can't really justify even though they so desperately feel the need to. Their justification is usually ass backwards.. so instead of trying to reinforce their argument, they just point out fallacies in other people's argument. Thing about fallacies though, they're subjective. No matter what argument you make, there is someone out there who is able to point out a fallacy based off their logic. Since an individual's logic is subjective.. that makes (most) fallacies subjective. You could say ad hom isn't, but that too kind of is because people can feel attacked over some of the simplest things. I guess the point of that rant is, if you find yourself calling out fallacies left and right.. just stop interneting. There is a 99% chance that you calling out fallacies is making you a hypocrite because your argument has fallacies in it.. that you so gracefully ignore.

Anyway.. main reason for this is to find out what kind of fallacy this would be.. because I see it often and usually piggybacks someone who is calling fallacy instead of forming a real argument. It is the idea that just because you don't have to do something means you shouldn't do it. Like an environmentalist might say "you don't have to drive a car.. you can ride a bike or take public transportation, so therefore it is wrong to drive a car". Or a vegan might say "you don't have to eat meat to live.. you can live off of plants, so therefore it is wrong to eat meat". Or an antiabortionist might say "you don't have to get an abortion, you can give the baby up for adoption.. so therefore abortion is wrong".

To me, that mindset is fallacious.. but I can't really pinpoint as to what the fallacy would be. Just curious so the next time I see a fallacy fucker who uses that argument.. I can point out their hypocrisy.

 

So this popped back into my head today.. did some more looking and decided it would considered a moralistic fallacy. Wasn't sure the first go, but then looked at examples and they are pretty much the same as my examples.


So if you're the type to call fallacy often in a debate.. and base your logic off your morals, not only are you being fallacious.. but hypocritical.

 

The whole point wasn't to point fingers at who is making fallacies.. pretty much any argument someone makes, there is someone who will see a fallacy in it based off their logic. Like eating meat for example. If someone eats meat and says they eat meat because they're an omnivorous animal and omnivorous animals eat animals.. someone who is against eating meat would call a naturalistic fallacy. Meanwhile, they're making an argument against eating meat based on their own personal preference and morals.. the meat eater would call that a moralistic fallacy. Pick any hot topic and form an argument for it.. and there will be other people who can say your argument is fallacious.


So pretty much every argument will have a fallacy in it.. seriously, Google "list of fallacies" and you'll like 50+ fallacies. From the numerous amounts of fallacies to be made.. we will always be making them according to others. That is because what is logical is subjective.. and fallacies are based off of logic. Ergo, fallacies are subjective.. and I've personally noticed that those who are constantly calling fallacy in a debate are those who have a weak argument.


By the way.. to some, regurgitating your same argument would be ad nauseam.. a fallacy. So if you call fallacy on someone and then just repeat your same argument, you are being both fallacious and hypocritical.


The whole point is.. if you're in a debate and you take the time to point out all the countless fallacies someone is making, and there are people who will take the time to lay out all the fallacies in an argument practically sentence by sentence.. more time should be spent on your argument instead, cause chances are it's weak.

 

Yeah.. I like the scientific method, but it can't really be used for philosophical debates or debates on morals. Wish it could.. but then people who don't follow it would probably create a new fallacy, the scientific method fallacy.

For the first part though, kind of what I was talking about. It is pointless to call out fallacies.. like literally saying "this is so and so fallacy" cause the other person will probably be able to call fallacy on your opposing argument. Instead of calling out fallacies.. it is best to just falsify their logic, show them how (if) their wrong. I will say that with some things, like morals and the meaning of something, there is no real wrong.. but too many people cop out and call fallacy in a debate and then just present their own fallacy to counter it. Red herrings and ad homs are just about the only fallacies worth calling out in a moralistic/philosophical debate.. to me anyway.