Common Logical Fallacies In Political Arguments

[Uncensored2008]

Ipse dixit.

Bare assertion not proven by ANY facts.

Here is another one for you Jake;

{
pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.}

 

[g5000]

Ipse dixit.

Bare assertion not proven by ANY facts.

Here is another one for you Jake;

{
pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.}

I provided a link to every fallacy. Nice try. Not.

Keep digging that hole you're in.

 

[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?

Yo Jake, here is a great one for you:

the definition of malapropism

See? You're too retarded to get it. Those are textbook Tu Quoque fallacies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Fail again sparky;

Description of Guilt By Association


Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

Examples of Guilt By Association

1. Will and Kiteena are arguing over socialism. Kiteena is a pacifist and hates violence and violent people.
   Kiteena: "I think that the United States should continue to adopt socialist programs. For example, I think that the government should take control of vital industries."
   Will: "So, you are for state ownership of industry."
   Kiteena: "Certainly. It is a great idea and will help make the world a less violent place."
   Will: "Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry?"
   Kiteena: "Oh, no! I don't want to be associated with those butchers!"
   
   
2. Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically.
   Jen: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."
   Sandy: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."
   Jen: "Who is he?"
   Sandy: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."
   Jen: "So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"
   Sandy: "Of course."
   
   
3. Libard and Ferris are discussing who they are going to vote for as the next department chair in the philosophy department. Libard is a radical feminist and she despises Wayne and Bill, who are two sexist professors in the department.
   Ferris: "So, who are you going to vote for?"
   Libard: "Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since she is a woman and there has never been a woman chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job. He has a lot of clout in the university and he is a decent person."
   Ferris: "You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. They really like the idea of having Steve as the new chair. I never thought I'd see you and those two pigs on the same side."
   Libard: "Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair."
   

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

 

[g5000]

It is truly bizarre how UC turns up late in topics. And then proceeds to make a fool of himself without realizing the entertainment value he provides.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ipse dixit.

Bare assertion not proven by ANY facts.

Here is another one for you Jake;

{
pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.}

I provided a link to every fallacy. Nice try. Not.

Keep digging that hole you're in.

Oh did you now Jake?

Let's look again at Tu Quoque.

You link Wikipedia, which used....Nizkor as it's source, and says;

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

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.[2]

An example would be

Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
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]
Now is THAT what YOU POSTED, Jake?

 

[Uncensored2008]

See? You're too retarded to get it. Those are textbook Tu Quoque fallacies.

So the argument is that I am retarded because you are an ignorant fraud?



Oh, this is too much fun.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It is truly bizarre how UC turns up late in topics. And then proceeds to make a fool of himself without realizing the entertainment value he provides.

I find it sad actually. I don't begrudge anyone having ignorance about something, I certainly am no expert on fallacies but I know a list of them fairly well. But this arrogant ignorance exhibited by some who, even when they are proven absolutely wrong or that they don't understand the subject, would rather continue arguing out of ignorance than learning and moving on.

These type people are just ponderous. I think they'd fall into the 'Dogma Argument' fallacy but I'm not sure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Hey what the fallacy when you tell people, "Drink piss!"?

 

[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?

Hey what the fallacy when you tell people, "Drink piss!"?

It's not a logical fallacy when you point out the truth to someone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Common Logical Fallacies Committed by Conservatives - Tier II:

Post Hoc

Hasty Generalization

Slippery Slope

False Dichotomy

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Good use of the term "fallacy".

noun, plural fallacies.

1.a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.

2.a misleading or unsound argument.

3.deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.

Another term would be lie, and that's precisely what has so polluted and distorted our political discourse, thanks to politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans.

And all of the above people clearly seem to be just fine when someone on their "side" lies.

These people are the biggest part of the problem, because they'd rather "win" than work together.
.

 

[SwimExpert]

Common Logical Fallacies Committed by Conservatives - Tier II:

Post Hoc

Hasty Generalization

Slippery Slope

False Dichotomy

There's that confirmation bias.

 

[martybegan]

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.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

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."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy. Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

It's not a fallacy to take the opinion of an expert in their field unless it's an opinion not in their field. If my foot doctor says I need my big toe operated on, he might be wrong but it's not a fallacy to take his advice. Now if he says the reason my tomatoes won't grow is I need to add used motor oil, and I take his advice because he's a respected foot doctor, that is a fallacy, piss freak.

The fallacy is assuming his position is the correct one JUST BECAUSE he is an expert, without any other logical evidence to back it up.

 

[Mac1958]

Common Logical Fallacies Committed by Conservatives - Tier II:

Post Hoc

Hasty Generalization

Slippery Slope

False Dichotomy

There's that confirmation bias.

Only "those other guys" do it.


.

 

[martybegan]

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.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

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."

That's one version, but the one I am talking about is that my view is INVALID because I am not a supreme court justice.

========
It isn't that your view is INVALID it is that it is only your opinion and does not overrule the rulings of the Supreme Court.

You may hold the opinion that they are wrong but that doesn't make them wrong.

Unless you have as much education and experience with Constitutional Law as the Justices do, your opinion is not even in the same league as they are.

You seem to believe that because YOU think they are wrong .... that MAKES them wrong.

In reality YOU are the one who is wrong ... not for holding an incorrect opinion but for believing your opinion should override the Supreme Court.

it does make them wrong, my opinion not having any legal weight doesn't change that.

And where does my pointing out that they are wrong translate to thinking my opinion should somehow magically override the court's decisions? Again, I am just saying that in general they are wrong, their tone has been wrong, and the idea that they can create crap out of thin air is wrong. \

Unlike progressives, I realize that my thoughts, positions and concepts just don't poof into reality because I really really feel they should.

 

[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.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

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."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy. Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

It's not a fallacy to take the opinion of an expert in their field unless it's an opinion not in their field. If my foot doctor says I need my big toe operated on, he might be wrong but it's not a fallacy to take his advice. Now if he says the reason my tomatoes won't grow is I need to add used motor oil, and I take his advice because he's a respected foot doctor, that is a fallacy, piss freak.

The fallacy is assuming his position is the correct one JUST BECAUSE he is an expert, without any other logical evidence to back it up.

That is correct. Invoking the opinion of a legitimate authority tends to lend weight. It does not establish truth by itself.

 

[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.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

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."

That's one version, but the one I am talking about is that my view is INVALID because I am not a supreme court justice.

========
It isn't that your view is INVALID it is that it is only your opinion and does not overrule the rulings of the Supreme Court.

You may hold the opinion that they are wrong but that doesn't make them wrong.

Unless you have as much education and experience with Constitutional Law as the Justices do, your opinion is not even in the same league as they are.

You seem to believe that because YOU think they are wrong .... that MAKES them wrong.

In reality YOU are the one who is wrong ... not for holding an incorrect opinion but for believing your opinion should override the Supreme Court.

it does make them wrong, my opinion not having any legal weight doesn't change that.

And where does my pointing out that they are wrong translate to thinking my opinion should somehow magically override the court's decisions? Again, I am just saying that in general they are wrong, their tone has been wrong, and the idea that they can create crap out of thin air is wrong. \

Unlike progressives, I realize that my thoughts, positions and concepts just don't poof into reality because I really really feel they should.

Try really hard to get this through your head: The Argument From Authority fallacy is when someone who is an expert in one field speaks on a matter in a field in which they are NOT an expert, and being given more weight to their opinion because of their expertise in the unrelated field.

Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.

Got it now?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Reads like G5 ate a dictionary and has been shitting out pages for days.... Crikey.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

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."

That's one version, but the one I am talking about is that my view is INVALID because I am not a supreme court justice.

========
It isn't that your view is INVALID it is that it is only your opinion and does not overrule the rulings of the Supreme Court.

You may hold the opinion that they are wrong but that doesn't make them wrong.

Unless you have as much education and experience with Constitutional Law as the Justices do, your opinion is not even in the same league as they are.

You seem to believe that because YOU think they are wrong .... that MAKES them wrong.

In reality YOU are the one who is wrong ... not for holding an incorrect opinion but for believing your opinion should override the Supreme Court.

it does make them wrong, my opinion not having any legal weight doesn't change that.

And where does my pointing out that they are wrong translate to thinking my opinion should somehow magically override the court's decisions? Again, I am just saying that in general they are wrong, their tone has been wrong, and the idea that they can create crap out of thin air is wrong. \

Unlike progressives, I realize that my thoughts, positions and concepts just don't poof into reality because I really really feel they should.

Try really hard to get this through your head: The Argument From Authority fallacy is when someone who is an expert in one field speaks on a matter in a field in which they are NOT an expert, and being given more weight to their opinion because of their expertise in the unrelated field.

Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.

Got it now?

Why can't a casino owner talk about constitutional law? What of said owner was an attorney?