@ Bryan - If you tried to improve clarity, you failed. I've read it at least 5 times and I'm still trying to wrap my head around some of your sentence construction…--Kyle Sparks, Facebook Comment, December 23, 2010, 3:22 p.m.
Keeping the above Facebook comment in mind, recently in my research I came upon a “fallacy” not encountered before, called proof by verbosity or intimidation.
Argumentum verbosium is also known as Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.
This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”
And then there’s this, by none other than Ayn Rand, written in her 1964 essay "The Virtue of Selfishness:" Emphasis is added to the sentence that's "the whole show":
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.
This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."
But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."
