Common Logical Fallacies In Political Arguments

[Uncensored2008]

You frequently use the Appeal to Copy and Paste fallacy.

Calling someone a drug addict is an ad hominem attack. Let me copy and paste, if I may:

"First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making."

Or did you do some lines already today? <-- Ad Hominem, implies you are a drug user and therefore your arguments are wrong based on your unproven drug usage.

Nope, you are simply ignorant.

The fallacies are rhetorical devices. Calling you are drug addict is merely an insult (or an observation, in your case.)

Ad Hominem is the rejection of an argument on the basis that the person who made it is a drug addict.

Example:

Me: Illegal immigration hurts America by taking jobs from Americans

You: You're just a Trump supporter and hate Mexicans.

This is ad hominem in that it fails to address the argument and instead attacks the person.

Where your ignorance bites you is in failing to distinguish between argument and insult.

Example:

You: Barack Obama is the greatest president ever.

Me: He ran the national debt up to $18 trillion, you fucking retard.

Now you ignorantly claim that is ad hom, but it is not. Your argument was addressed and refuted, the insult added is not the basis of the argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've provided several examples of the fallacy.

Yes you have, and that several of your examples are flat out wrong - where you rewrote the source to meet your hack agenda, brings me no end of laughs.

That you are incapable of grasping what the actual fallacy is is your problem, not mine.

If you want to disagree with an expert who is speaking on a matter on which they are the expert, and you are retarded enough to think your opinion is of equal weight to an expert's, then you are even dumber than I thought. And it has nothing to do with the Argument From Authority fallacy. That you haven't even realized this is also indicative of your ignorance.

Oh, and you calling me a liberal is an example of a straw man fallacy. You just can't stop yourself from being a neverending case study!

Jake, you are no expert, you are an ignorant troll who altered the source material in hopes of forcing it to fit your partisan agenda.

 

[g5000]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

Confirmation Bias: Remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses". Actively seeking out news stories which align with one's belief system, while denying or ignoring the majority which do not.

This problem is enhanced by the fact that only negative events make the news, while non-events do not.

For example, let's return to our brain surgeons and circus clown. 97,000 successful surgeries do not make the news. But 3,000 failed ones do, and that is all the circus clown and his followers talk about. Every time a brain surgeon makes an error, that gets big air play until the circus clown has a lot of people convinced that brain surgeons are a menace to society and that brain surgery would be better down by circus clowns.

Every time a brain surgeon makes a mistake, the propaganda outlets scream it loud and far and wide, with doom music to add a little Appeal To Emotion. "Haul out the coma lady! These brain surgeons are trying to destroy America!!!"

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."


Argument from Inertia: Magical thinking. The more often you repeat something, the truer it becomes, no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Usually because it is too painful to admit one's belief system is wrong.

Now, for anyone who wants the ACCURATE definition of logical fallacies..

Fallacies


Remember, it isn't that leftists don't know anything, it's that most of what leftists know, simply isn't so.

For instance, Jake5000 ignorantly says that Tu Queque means;

{Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.}

Now how does jake know this? Well, he made it up because it fits his confirmation bias.

WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS IS;


{
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque


This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
   Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
   Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
   Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
2. Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
   Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
3. Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
   Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

}

You actually just emphasized what I already explained about a Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Tu quoque - RationalWiki


A conversation between rival politicians:

Politician 1: Is it true that you were at a brothel last night?

Politician 2: You should know better than I do, I was with you last night!

Here's the part you don't get, dipshit:
The fact that Politician 1 was also present at the brothel in no way absolves any of the moral blame for Politician 2

So, exactly as I said in the OP, every time someone starts a topic which casts a politician in a bad light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to point out the bad behavior of a politician of the opposite party in an attempt to divert attention away from the bad behavior of the politician they are defending.

IF you persist in being stupid, I can provide a helluva lot of examples, because this forums is chock full of them.

 

[SwimExpert]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

Confirmation Bias: Remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses". Actively seeking out news stories which align with one's belief system, while denying or ignoring the majority which do not.

This problem is enhanced by the fact that only negative events make the news, while non-events do not.

For example, let's return to our brain surgeons and circus clown. 97,000 successful surgeries do not make the news. But 3,000 failed ones do, and that is all the circus clown and his followers talk about. Every time a brain surgeon makes an error, that gets big air play until the circus clown has a lot of people convinced that brain surgeons are a menace to society and that brain surgery would be better down by circus clowns.

Every time a brain surgeon makes a mistake, the propaganda outlets scream it loud and far and wide, with doom music to add a little Appeal To Emotion. "Haul out the coma lady! These brain surgeons are trying to destroy America!!!"

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."


Argument from Inertia: Magical thinking. The more often you repeat something, the truer it becomes, no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Usually because it is too painful to admit one's belief system is wrong.

Now, for anyone who wants the ACCURATE definition of logical fallacies..

Fallacies


Remember, it isn't that leftists don't know anything, it's that most of what leftists know, simply isn't so.

For instance, Jake5000 ignorantly says that Tu Queque means;

{Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.}

Now how does jake know this? Well, he made it up because it fits his confirmation bias.

WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS IS;


{
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque


This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
   Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
   Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
   Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
2. Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
   Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
3. Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
   Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

}

See what I mean g5000? This moron opens with the line "the problem is what they think they know is actually false" and proceeds to provide an amazing demonstration of his abysmal knowledge of what Tu Quoque means.

In his supreme ignorance he does not understand that ad hominem tu quoque is something different than tu quoque. He is also plagiarizing, as his entire statement is a copy-paste of this page. Though he probably got it from the very poorly written Wikipedia article.

So, to elaborate on the above poster's pathetic display of ignorance:

Ad hominem tu quoque = Rejecting an argument simply because the speaker is a hypocrite. EX: Hillary Clinton wants to take away your guns but has armed body guards, therefore I reject Hillary Clinton's minimum wage proposal.

Tu quoque = Building an argument on the basis of someone else's previous actions or statements. EX: Donald Trump should use voter fraud to win the election because the Democrats have been doing it for years.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You frequently use the Appeal to Copy and Paste fallacy.

Calling someone a drug addict is an ad hominem attack. Let me copy and paste, if I may:

"First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making."

Or did you do some lines already today? <-- Ad Hominem, implies you are a drug user and therefore your arguments are wrong based on your unproven drug usage.

Nope, you are simply ignorant.

The fallacies are rhetorical devices. Calling you are drug addict is merely an insult (or an observation, in your case.)

Ad Hominem is the rejection of an argument on the basis that the person who made it is a drug addict.

Example:

Me: Illegal immigration hurts America by taking jobs from Americans

You: You're just a Trump supporter and hate Mexicans.

This is ad hominem in that it fails to address the argument and instead attacks the person.

Where your ignorance bites you is in failing to distinguish between argument and insult.

Example:

You: Barack Obama is the greatest president ever.

Me: He ran the national debt up to $18 trillion, you fucking retard.

Now you ignorantly claim that is ad hom, but it is not. Your argument was addressed and refuted, the insult added is not the basis of the argument.

Sorry, the attack on the 'person's' argument is implied. You use drugs, therefore your argument isn't valid. That is what is implied.

Or was the implication, you use drugs, therefore you can't fly. Or you can't be an astronaut. Or maybe you really don't know what a fallacy is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

Confirmation Bias: Remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses". Actively seeking out news stories which align with one's belief system, while denying or ignoring the majority which do not.

This problem is enhanced by the fact that only negative events make the news, while non-events do not.

For example, let's return to our brain surgeons and circus clown. 97,000 successful surgeries do not make the news. But 3,000 failed ones do, and that is all the circus clown and his followers talk about. Every time a brain surgeon makes an error, that gets big air play until the circus clown has a lot of people convinced that brain surgeons are a menace to society and that brain surgery would be better down by circus clowns.

Every time a brain surgeon makes a mistake, the propaganda outlets scream it loud and far and wide, with doom music to add a little Appeal To Emotion. "Haul out the coma lady! These brain surgeons are trying to destroy America!!!"

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."


Argument from Inertia: Magical thinking. The more often you repeat something, the truer it becomes, no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Usually because it is too painful to admit one's belief system is wrong.

Now, for anyone who wants the ACCURATE definition of logical fallacies..

Fallacies


Remember, it isn't that leftists don't know anything, it's that most of what leftists know, simply isn't so.

For instance, Jake5000 ignorantly says that Tu Queque means;

{Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.}

Now how does jake know this? Well, he made it up because it fits his confirmation bias.

WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS IS;


{
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque


This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
   Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
   Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
   Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
2. Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
   Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
3. Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
   Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

}

See what I mean g5000? This moron opens with the line "the problem is what they think they know is actually false" and proceeds to provide an amazing demonstration of his abysmal knowledge of what Tu Quoque means.

In his supreme ignorance he does not understand that ad hominem tu quoque is something different than tu quoque. He is also plagiarizing, as his entire statement is a copy-paste of this page. Though he probably got it from the very poorly written Wikipedia article.

So, to elaborate on the above poster's pathetic display of ignorance:

Ad hominem tu quoque = Rejecting an argument simply because the speaker is a hypocrite. EX: Hillary Clinton wants to take away your guns but has armed body guards, therefore I reject Hillary Clinton's minimum wage proposal.

Tu quoque = Building an argument on the basis of someone else's previous actions or statements. EX: Donald Trump should use voter fraud to win the election because the Democrats have been doing it for years.

Funny thing retard, I cited my reference, which is the most recognized source. (Nizkor)

BUT I do admire you running to Jake's defense, no doubt he'll let you swallow as a reward.

 

[g5000]

Funny thing retard, I cited my reference, which is the most recognized source. (Nizkor)

BUT I do admire you running to Jake's defense, no doubt he'll let you swallow as a reward.

You cited Nizkor without a clue as to the significance of what you were quoting. You actually supported the OP, but are too stupid to see it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Funny thing retard, I cited my reference, which is the most recognized source. (Nizkor)

Nizkor is the most recognized source for what!?!


Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

Holocaust Educational Resource

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry, the attack on the 'person's' argument is implied. You use drugs, therefore your argument isn't valid. That is what is implied.

Of was the implication, you use drugs, therefore you can't fly. Or you can't be an astronaut. Or maybe you really don't know what a fallacy is.

It does not address the argument.

You still fail to grasp the meaning of this fallacy.

If you claim Hillary is honest, and I say "you are on drugs." that is ad hom.

If instead I say;

• Dodging Sniper fire
• Chelsea jogging by the WTC on 9/11
• Benghazi was due to an internet video
• I was named for Sir Hillary Edmund

You must be on drugs.

See, the first does not address the argument, the second does, then notes that making such a claim is delusional.

 

[g5000]

The Tu Quote Fallacy is employed on at least a daily basis on this forum.

Here is an actual example below. First, an opening post about Trump being accused of fraud:

A fool and his vote are soon parted.


Schneiderman: Trump University fraud 'pretty straightforward'

And now the Tu QuoQue Fallacy which immediately followed:

Hey "Dick" Tracey... have you seen Obama's transcripts ?

Boom!

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You cited Nizkor without a clue as to the significance of what you were quoting. You actually supported the OP, but are too stupid to see it.

I'm just laughing at you Jake.

You copied the fallacies from an uncredited source, and then altered several of them to meet your partisan agenda. In doing so, you changed the meaning and revealed yourself as both ignorant and dishonest.

Good job.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Uncensored2008, you've wandered willingly into a minefield equipped with a mine detector that is defective. Best advice, backtrack out the way you came in. There is no shame in it. Learn something.

(I know you won't)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny thing retard, I cited my reference, which is the most recognized source. (Nizkor)

Nizkor is the most recognized source for what!?!


Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

Holocaust Educational Resource

Maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue my argument will no longer be accurate?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored2008, you've wandered willingly into a minefield equipped with a mine detector that is defective. Best advice, backtrack out the way you came in. There is no shame in it. Learn something.

(I know you won't)

Translation, you handed my ass to me, so I'll declare victory as I retreat.

Jake5000 is a partisan hack: fact.

He altered the meaning of several fallacies in order to promote a partisan agenda: fact.

In doing so, he made a fool of himself: fact.

You share his partisan views, thus circle the waggons: fact.

Look, at this point I'm just laughing at you ignorant sots.

 

[SwimExpert]

Funny thing retard, I cited my reference, which is the most recognized source. (Nizkor)

Nizkor is the most recognized source for what!?!


Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

Holocaust Educational Resource

Maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue my argument will no longer be accurate?

Ad hominem and red herring.

 

[g5000]

More examples from this forum:

Kelly Ayotte (R) staffer (R) resigns after prostitution arrest

A Republican is arrested for hiring a hooker.

The Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town:

Two words: Barney Frank

I forget what the old school term for Bill Clinton's women would be.
Is it Chipee?

Hmmm, what about the 16 year old sex slaves held on Epstein Lolita Island? You know, the girls that Bill Clinton make 12 to 30 trips to go minister to?

Were the arrangements made by the secret service or the DEA?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny thing retard, I cited my reference, which is the most recognized source. (Nizkor)

Nizkor is the most recognized source for what!?!


Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

Holocaust Educational Resource

Maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue my argument will no longer be accurate?

Ad hominem and red herring.

 

[g5000]

He altered the meaning of several fallacies in order to promote a partisan agenda: fact.

Ipse dixit.

Bare assertion not proven by ANY facts.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Uncensored2008, you've wandered willingly into a minefield equipped with a mine detector that is defective. Best advice, backtrack out the way you came in. There is no shame in it. Learn something.

(I know you won't)

Translation, you handed my ass to me, so I'll declare victory as I retreat.

Jake5000 is a partisan hack: fact.

He altered the meaning of several fallacies in order to promote a partisan agenda: fact.

In doing so, he made a fool of himself: fact.

You share his partisan views, thus circle the waggons: fact.

Look, at this point I'm just laughing at you ignorant sots.

See 'Guilt By Association'. You have some reading to do Padawan.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More examples from this forum:

Kelly Ayotte (R) staffer (R) resigns after prostitution arrest

A Republican is arrested for hiring a hooker.

The Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town:

Two words: Barney Frank

I forget what the old school term for Bill Clinton's women would be.
Is it Chipee?

Hmmm, what about the 16 year old sex slaves held on Epstein Lolita Island? You know, the girls that Bill Clinton make 12 to 30 trips to go minister to?

Were the arrangements made by the secret service or the DEA?

Yo Jake, here is a great one for you:

the definition of malapropism