Sticking this here…

For future reference purposes…

Not that I’m seeing more and more of this every day… Nope…


Sticking this here… — 16 Comments

  1. Back in the day, we would teach kids how to identify these and, for a while, they’d have fun pointing them out in the newspapers and on television. Nowadays, it’s how they think. Sigh …

  2. I have always thought that there are times that argument #1 bares consideration. If the person making the argument or statement is a well know scoundrel, or liar, there’s nothing wrong with not listening to what they’re saying, because they have a history of lying, etc.
    So there is (IMHO) nothing wrong with pointing out that their reputation is such that no one should be listening to anything they say.

    • That’s not an ad hominem attack.
      It’s directly assailing their credibility if you can offer evidence in support, and thus fair game.
      Trying to paint them as eleventy other kinds of nefarious douche is.

  3. Hey Old NFO;

    Back in the day, they taught logic and how to REASON and solve a problem through logical thought process, but now it is emotions and *Reeeeeeeee*. We as a society are going to have a big problem in the next 20-40 years as the last of us logical thinkers pass on and the *reeee* thinkers assume critical mass. although I wonder if they already haven’t looking at twitter and reddit.

  4. I used to get in trouble with a certain liberal science teacher in the 70s when he taught these. I used the popular bumpersticker of the time that had a picture of Albert Einstein and his quote, “You cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent war,” as the example of Appeal to an Authority in one field speaking way the hell out of his feild. Teacher got madder when I cited Vegetius as a Roman military biographer – an expert in his field – who wrote “Si vis pacem, para bellum” which is the exact opposite of Einstein: “If you seek peace, prepare for war.”

    • War is what happens when one nation or people decide to kill, enslave, or steal from another nation or people, and the victims resist.
      In that sense, submission to tyranny, theft, and genocide IS technically “avoiding war.”. Technically.
      If you really wanted to screw with that teachers head though, you could have asked him why it’s a bad idea to screw with a rattlesnake, and are rattlers prepared for conflict?

  5. The one I have always hated is “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. History has proven that more often than not The enemy of my enemy is usually also my enemy.

    • The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. No more, no less.

      Now, if my friend is the enemy of my enemy, then the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again, no more, no less.

      Random people who aren’t either friends or enemies are just random potentials. Kind of like potential energy, does nothing until used.

        • er- not that is number 29.
          I prefer “There is no such thing as overkill there is only open fire and reloading!”

  6. I would take exception to the ‘slippery slope’ being a fallacy. It is easy to see that it is in fact a well-observed phenomenon. I adduce into evidence the whole ‘Gay Rights’ movement. Originally, it was ‘I just want to hold my Partner’s hand as he dies of AIDS’. All well and good, just sign the permission slip. ‘But it’s a RIGHT! Gay Marriage! That’s all we ask!’ ‘Well, OF COURSE 5 year olds are sexually aware individuals, and need the nurturing care of perverts 5+ times their age!’ The Bedouins know better. Camel sticks its nose in the tent, it gets whacked with a stout stick.

    It is, in fact, the absolute opposite of the sound method of ‘reducio ad absurdum’.

    • When you argue B from A, it’s not a slippery slope fallacy.
      When you argue Z from A, you just slipped over the cliff.

      And reductio ad absurdum is also a fallacy.

      If everyone was jumping off a cliff, would you do it too?” is the classic example.
      The correct response to which is “If everyone were breathing, would you do it too