Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
========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.========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.
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?
A casino owner can talk about constitutional law, but his opinion is worth two cents.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.========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.
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?
========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.========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.
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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.========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.========
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.
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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.========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.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.
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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
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.========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."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".
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.
Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.
Got it now?
he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]
================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.========
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.
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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... admittedly an ambulance chaser probably isn't too up on the Jones Act as well as a maritime attorney would be. I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.========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.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.
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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
================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.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.
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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... admittedly an ambulance chaser probably isn't too up on the Jones Act as well as a maritime attorney would be. I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
Of course anyone can " talk " about anything and we all hold our own opinions.
But right wingers use language that conveys the impression that because they disagree ( with the Supreme Court for example ) that their opinions should override the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court should apologize for their error.
They ( right wingers ) believe they are < always > correct and liberals are < always > wrong when everyone knows it is just the opposite
This authoritarian attitude of the righties turns most people off and that is why the party is a party of old white men and is rapidly dying off.
========I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.========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?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.
========I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.========Why can't a casino owner talk about constitutional law? What of said owner was an attorney?
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.
Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.
A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.
Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.
With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.
THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND
Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.
========================I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.========
What < kind > of attorney?
A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.
What kind of education / experience does he have?
Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.
Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.
Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.
A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.
Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.
With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.
THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND
Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.
The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.
And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?
========================I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.
The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.
Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.
A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.
Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.
With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.
THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND
Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.
The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.
And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?
And now you want to claim that because they are " unelected " that their legal opinions are not binding.
You are a real piece of shit.
Why do you hate America and the Contitution?
You obviously do hate the Constitution because you don't accept anything it says when it doesn't go your way.
You just described about 90% of the posts on here, both left and right.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."
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.
Somewhere in that neighborhood, yes. Precisely why I started this topic.You just described about 90% of the posts on here, both left and right.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."
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".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."
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.
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.
.
Good use of the term "fallacy".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."
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.
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.
.
I'm a little fuzzy on how I'm supposed to "work together" with someone that thinks I'm Evil because of things that other people did centuries ago, and that the right thing to do is to discriminate against me and that if I have a problem with that, I'm Evil Twice over.
For one example.
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.========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.
Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.
Got it now?
That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:
T
he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]
When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.
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.========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.
Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.
Got it now?
That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:
T
he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]
When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.
There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.
Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.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.========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.
Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.
Got it now?
That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:
T
he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]
When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.
There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.
