Fallacies

[boatsnguitars]

Found this instructive video.


It's quite telling that the least educated group of voters (Trump voters) are cheering obvious fallacies.

I would propose that we fact check candidates as they talk. (I think it's better to have people who don't trade in fallacies leading our respective countries.)

But, what fallacies come to mind when you think of egregious examples of fallacies? There are many in religion and politics.

But do you have some that really rub you the wrong way?

[Purple Knight]

Why ad hominem is not always a fallacy, especially the extremely popular "you're a moron" version:

viewtopic.php?t=37986

If the proponent's intelligence or ability to understand is attacked, I see it as quite valid. Attacking someone who believes in God based on, for example, their weight, would probably be irrelevant. But a relevant attack, I don't believe, should be thrown out simply because it is a personal attack. Another example of a relevant attack would be against a multiple-convicted animal abuser who argues that a certain thing does not hurt the animal and shouldn't be considered abuse. Such a person can and should be dismissed out of hand. Weight would be relevant if someone says they've figured out the ultimate diet. If they weigh 700lbs, or if they had bariatric surgery, they need not be entertained.

Now, this does mean that anyone could make such an attack regardless of whether it was true, but then the question becomes whether it is true. If someone genuinely lacks the ability to understand when they've been thoroughly refuted, what can you say except that this is the case?

Ad populum (bandwagon) is also not always a fallacy, though it is in this case because the people in the audience are comparing notes. They can easily rile one another up into a frenzy, a bubble, information cascade, whatever. When ad populum is not a fallacy is when you can show that the large group comes to the same conclusion, and each individual does so independently. When people are not comparing notes and you can show so, if they all think the same thing, it's time to take notice.
In this case they are comparing notes though, so yeah, the fact that a lot of people support you proves nothing. However, we should be careful saying that bandwagon is a fallacy when discussing politics as we may end up invalidating our political system that relies on votes, assuming that a good and valid government will come out of popular decision.

False cause... is not very descriptive of Trump's anecdote about other candidates not knowing the air conditioning didn't work, or the room was too big, so they can't beat ISIS. This is... simply not a cogent anything. You could call it a non sequitir maybe. This is rambling. Biden does this too. You can't refute it because no case is being made intelligibly enough for the audience to figure out what the intended connection might be. This is due to having candidates that are 80.



These old people just... they well... they old. This is now a verb. Old people gonna old. It's a thing. Popular cartoons make fun of it.





This is a very specific thing so maybe we call it a specific fallacy? I vote for "Get in the Nursing Home Already."

Black and White is probably fairly descriptive of the bland oversimplification (of probably nothing) that Trump is talking about, until he gets to the specific issue of losing the trade war China which is indeed a very serious issue being faced by the US. However, when he crosses into his business deals with China, while not being a president or even a politician, the anecdote indeed does not apply. Trump brings up these serious issues but he knows they're too big to fix. And of course he didn't fix them in his presidency.

Strawman is not entirely descriptive of Trump's case against illegal immigration. There's no argument being made. Some people believe we should help immigrants, some believe we should not. Some people believe we should pay for services for immigrants, some people believe we should try harder to keep them out. This is a pure ought. The is-ought dilemma applies. There are not any arguments or conclusions. You either say yes we ought or no we ought not. Whether there is a lot of trash where illegal immigrants cross is not in question.



Genetic or Composition fallacies apply completely to what Trump is saying about crime being brought from Mexico, because, even if true that illegal immigrants commit more crime, it's completely irrelevant to whether we're wrong to keep them out or not. Should we keep out an entire group or hurt them because more members of that group commit crimes? Absolutely genetic and composition fallacies, punishing some for what others in their group do. Men commit more crime than women. Vastly. Should we deport them to the ocean or something? Drown them like puppies? Treat them inhumanely?

This is the one time when I can say it's not a matter of opinion and logic simply dictates one position over the other. If it would be wrong to keep people out if they were all literal angels, it's just as wrong even if they commit more crimes. You must treat people equally and individually, not as a member of their group.

People who want border protection should not make cases about crime. Composition fallacy 100%. If they want borders because all countries have them, and they believe they have just as much of a right to safeguard what is theirs, for them, they should make that case. Mexico has nondisplacement enshrined in their constitution, and non-citizens may not own property in Mexico.