Least Significant Nibble

Survey data is well known to be an imperfect measure of the truth. The many pitfalls of survey data mean that the numbers must be taken with some healthy skepticism. Evidence-free assertions that black people are three times more dishonest than white people in answering surveys about drug use do not a healthy skepticism make. @voxdotcom These figures based on self-reported drug use are notoriously unreliable. I thought it was your job to report "context"? — Billy Chav (@billy_chav) February 5, 2015

The simplest possible Even Prime Fallacy is shown below: Salviati : Most prime numbers are odd. Simplicio : Two is even! Your argument completely falls apart. We may express this idea more formally: Salviati : p is sometimes true. Simplicio : Yes, but p is sometimes false! Your argument completely falls apart. Simplicio has failed to disprove Salviati, not because Simplicio's rebuttal is illogical or irrelevant, but because it is literally the exact same argument as the one Salviati made! " p is sometimes false" is an inevitable logical consequence of " p is sometimes true." Someone who invokes an even prime fallacy probably thinks of an argument as "words you say in response to words someone else says," rather than as an exercise in logic.

Alan Dershowitz : I would bet anything that 99 percent of the people who are demanding that [Salaita] be restored tenure would be on the exact opposite side of this if he’d been making pro-Israel but equally uncivil statements. Hypocrisy about free speech is universal. Even among Supreme Court justices, who are supposed to be non-ideological, Epstein, Parker, and Segal found a strong tendency to support the free speech rights of their ideological brethren and oppose the free speech rights of their ideological opponents. No doubt your average Joe is even less principled than Scalia, Ginsburg, or Kennedy. If free speech hypocrisy is so banal, why make so much of it? The argument goes something like this: Supporters of X 's right to say p claim they care about free speech rights. Were X saying ¬ p , X 's current supporters would not defend his free speech rights. Therefore, censorship is good! P.S., I am not a crackpot.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that every old dude who has ever complained about kids fiddling with iPhones spends about 88% of his time fiddling with his iPhone.

If you do not accept the theory of evolution, I will probably not change your mind. However, I hope I can convince you not to offer this as an anti-evolution argument: We have the perfect number of teeth to fit in our mouths. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our faces evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.

Salviati: Most prime numbers are odd. Simplicio: Two is even! Your argument completely falls apart.

You should be able to choose how you get around, as long as you choose to drive a car.

Washington County Chairman Andy Duyck : We expect a doubling of the population (in the next 50 years), but yet what we identified as urban reserves only accounted for an 11 percent increase in the urban growth boundary. It means much higher density. It means than in about 15 to 20 years, there will be no new single-family homes being built in this region (…) There are some people that don’t want you to have a choice, I think that’s what this election is really all about. You should be able to make any choice you want, as long as you choose to live in a single-family home.

It is ironic that "it was just a few bad apples" is so often proffered as an excuse, when the full aphorism is " A few bad apples spoil the bunch ."

On social engineering, I must defer to Aimai 's eloquent definition : It's “social engineering” to try to get people to share but it's just nature to let the free market reign. It's “social engineering” to try to stop bullying but it's just nature to let the jocks and the high status people bully the gays and the outcasts. It's social engineering to institute Title 9 and affirmative action policies but it's not social engineering to have legacy acceptance criteria for private schools or for there to be all male organizations.

Women are biologically different than men. They are not as large or as strong. Due to their lower testosterone levels, they are more risk-averse. In the past, women were unfortunately barred from many professions due to rank sexism. Thankfully, the sexism has faded away. Women are now able to choose whatever job they like. Yes, there are still many jobs where a gender disparity exists, but only in proportion to women's legitimate desire to avoid those jobs.

Hyperbole is not a blank check to say stupid shit.

The rhetorical bestiary is an ongoing collection of stupid arguments that just won't die. The rhetoric: "My goodness, people are so entitled today. I work for a mid-size office company, and I've had a hard time filling my last few job listings. Everyone I interview has unreasonable expectations about pay and benefits." In a market economy, all the actors try to get the best possible price for the goods or services they are selling. Widget makers sell widgets at the highest price the market will bear. Exxon sells gasoline at the highest price the market will bear. Workers sell their labor at the highest price the market will bear. The rhetorician wishes to purchase labor below the prevailing market price. When a below-market price fails to attract any workers, he blames anyone but himself.