Common Logical Fallacies In Political Arguments

[martybegan]

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?

========
Gee you are soooo good at being wrong. Do you do it deliberately?

The Justices ARE elected.

The Senate VOTES on them. The either vote to approve or deny.

The Senate's members were voted into office by the citizens of their state and they in turn vote up or down on nominated Justices.

To claim they are " unelected " is just a big fat LIE.

That is not "elected". They are appointed and confirmed. Stop trying to be smart, it isn't working.

========
The people of the various states ELECT their Senators who then VOTE on a nominee.

They either vote to confirm or deny. When you take a vote that is called an election.

You can try to split hairs all you want but when they vote to confirm that is an ELECTION.

And that is what the Constitution calls for.

Why do you hate the American Constitution?

They are still not elected, no matter how much you try to spin it.

And I have far more respect for the actual written constitution than you ever will. You worship the Court, of course only when it suits you.

========
Not at all.

I am 100% against the Citizens United decision but I accept it as the law of the land ... until such time as Congress passes legislation that outlaws it and THAT legislation is found Constitutional.

There are a lot of decisions I don't like but I don't try to invalidate them claiming the Justices aren't elected ( when they aren't even required to be elected under the Constitution ) or any of that other crap right wingers vomit all over the Internet.

I have far more respect for the Constitution and the SC than you do ... that's obvious.

Bullshit. The court is overstepping its constitutional limits, period. It is legislating, not interpreting.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Undoing Citizens United will require a constitutional amendment. Period.

Yes, revocation of the 1st amendment.

Though this is a goal of the democrats.

 

[SwimExpert]

Undoing Citizens United will require a constitutional amendment. Period.

Yes, revocation of the 1st amendment.

Though this is a goal of the democrats.

No, moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, moron.

Yes retard.

To deny political speech would require the 1st to be revoked."Hillary: The Movie" is protected speech.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, moron.

Yes retard.

To deny political speech would require the 1st to be revoked."Hillary: The Movie" is protected speech.

To deny sanity required your brain to be revoked.

But to undo Citizens United would merely take an amendment that stated:

The Congress shall have the power to regulate the financing of political campaigns for elected federal office, but no such regulation shall create any unique burden or limitation on one political party that is not also applied to all other political parties; nor shall any such regulation create any unique burden or limitation on one candidate for an office that is not also applied to any other candidates for the same office.

The several states shall have the power to regulate the financing of political campaigns for elected state office, but no such regulation shall create any unique burden or limitation on one political party that is not also applied to all other political parties; nor shall any such regulation create any unique burden or limitation on one candidate for an office that is not also applied to any other candidates for the same office.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, moron.

Yes retard.

To deny political speech would require the 1st to be revoked."Hillary: The Movie" is protected speech.

To deny sanity required your brain to be revoked.

But to undo Citizens United would merely take an amendment that stated:

The Congress shall have the power to regulate the financing of political campaigns for elected federal office, but no such regulation shall create any unique burden or limitation on one political party that is not also applied to all other political parties; nor shall any such regulation create any unique burden or limitation on one candidate for an office that is not also applied to any other candidates for the same office.

The several states shall have the power to regulate the financing of political campaigns for elected state office, but no such regulation shall create any unique burden or limitation on one political party that is not also applied to all other political parties; nor shall any such regulation create any unique burden or limitation on one candidate for an office that is not also applied to any other candidates for the same office.

Remember (as if you ever knew) that Citizens United was prohibited under McCain - Feingold from showing "Hillary: The Movie." Though the democrats were free to show Fahrenheit 9/11 (some are more equal than others.) At issue was that the anti-Bush movie was financed by Moore and his backers (George Soros) while Citizens United was a political action committee. The democrats were aghast that little people would actually have a voice, and moved to crush this outrage.

But sadly for you, the SCOTUS ruled that even little people, banding together to form a PAC, are allowed political speech.

See, your above law would not have stopped the PAC from producing and distributing a movie that exposed a party member. "Hillary: The Movie" did not finance any campaign. To stop little people from having a voice through the creation of PAC's will indeed require you to assault the 1st directly.

 

[g5000]

This being another presidential election year, I thought now would be a good time to bump this topic.

 

[Correll]

This being another presidential election year, I thought now would be a good time to bump this topic.

What would happen if liberals gave up the Racism Accusation?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Ah, this again.

What the OP is missing is the fact that simply identifying a logical fallacy does not prove your case.

That is like a doctor diagnosing a disease and declaring the patient cured without actually treating the patient.

Identifying a logical fallacy only helps to formulate a counter argument, by identifying weaknesses in the argument itself, to allow one to prove how the argument is not true.

Every argument has fallacy. Otherwise, it would be called the truth.

Class dismissed.

 

[g5000]

Every argument has fallacy.

Ipse dixit.

In other words, horseshit.

Although I will concede all of YOUR arguments contain a fallacy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Every argument has fallacy.

Ipse dixit.

In other words, horseshit.

Make an argument. I will identify at least one fallacy.

Go!


By the way, anyone who's ever done this exercise knows good and goddamn well that every argument has fallacy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Every argument has fallacy.

Ipse dixit.

In other words, horseshit.

Although I will concede all of YOUR arguments contain a fallacy.

I admit that all my arguments contain fallacy.

Fallacy does not make arguments false. Every court case ever conducted is loaded with fallacies on both sides, yet the rules of evidence allow finders a fact to rely on fallacious arguments and fallacious presentation of evidence to reach conclusions. Why is that?

I will wait.

(my statement above is, itself, the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to common practice...see)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In other words, horseshit

By the way, this is a form of fallacy of denying the antecedent. Probably inertia and ad hominem too.

Although I will concede all of YOUR arguments contain a fallacy.

Certainly ad hominem, although a true statement of anybody making an argument.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another four years and conservatives remain the masters of all manner of ridiculous sophistry.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Another four years and conservatives remain the masters of all manner of ridiculous sophistry.

Hasty generalization, ad hominem, and one hell of a lazy ecological fallacy.

(the "lazy" part itself being an ad hominem).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Every argument has fallacy.

Ipse dixit.

In other words, horseshit.

Although I will concede all of YOUR arguments contain a fallacy.

Still waiting for you to make an argument that is not ladened with fallacy.

tiktok, g5000

(which the above is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance)(I can do this shit all fucking day long [straw man and inductive hyperbole])

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

g5000 is an evil bastard (ad hominem) for FORCING me (hyperbole) to continue with this argumentum ad ignorantiam line of reasoning because he will not respond with a non-fallacious argument (correlation fallacy).

(and the whole fucking statement above is argumentum ad logicam)