I'm looking for the names or references to a couple of logical fallacies that I've run into recently (not on this forum, BTW ) Can anyone help me out? Fallacy #1 "I won't accept this truth because that truth could be abused." Example: "You can't say that cars can kill people, because people may get the idea to use cars as weapons." Reply: "Abuse of the truth, does not change the truth." This is slightly different than the slippery slope argument, but It's often used by the same people. The basic idea is that since the person doesn't like the implications of a certain fact, the fact itself is rejected. Fallacy #2 "Since x reports this fact, and y reports a contradictory fact, both x and y must be false." Example: "Time reported that 30 people were killed in the bombing, and Newsweek reported that 33 were killed. That proves you can't believe either one." Sometimes this is even taken to the extreme that since the two parties can't agree on the details, the original event must not have happened at all! "I think the whole bombing was a ruse to get us to vote for higher taxes." Conspiracy theorists seem to like this one. The key to this one is that both sources must be wrong, there is no option given that one is correct, and the other wrong. Also, the parties are separate, this is different than the argument of self-contradiction. Any help would be appreciated -- also, if anybody else has any more questions, go ahead and put them here!