Originally Posted by
steelhead
Welp, let's see if we can apply these same logic to your FAKE NEWS arguments...
ad hominem
A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for it. Example:
A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so that workers are not exploited.
B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good job.
NO.... not because ou can't find a job but because it would cause a domino effect and crash the economy by putting small businesses out of business....FAIL
ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)
The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A simple obvious example of such fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against such a claim. At first sight it seems that many theories that we describe as scientific involve such a fallacy. E.g. the first law of thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any negative instance that would serve as evidence against it. But notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence for the law, namely positive instances. Notice also that this fallacy does not apply to situations where there are only two rival claims and one has already been falsified, then we may justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot find evidence for or against it.
OKay... studies shows that the one guy who caught Covid 19 from Sturgis and died from it, there are going to be 260K people infected from the super spreader event... because there's no evidence that these claims didn't happen then it should be true? LOL FAIL
ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)
In offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their need. E.g. a student argues that the teacher should let him/her pass the examination because he/she needs it in order to graduate. Of course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain conditions, as in contexts involving charity.
ad populum (appeal to popularity)
But think about all the hundreds of thousands of people dying, that can't all be made up, think about the elderly and be more considerate of your fellow human beings...look at all the racism by cops and all the institutional racism over the years, shouldn't there be some repatriation? FAIL
The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by many commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials implying that we should buy a certain product because it has made to the top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the city's "favourite".
BUT, BUT all the experts and scientists are saying it's true, it's the "popular" opinion!! FAIL.
Complex question or loaded question
A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer he/she gives to the question, will inevitably commit him/herself to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.
A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people to agree to something they never intended to say. For example, if you are asked "Are you still as self-centred as you used to be?", then no matter you answer "yes" or "no", you are bound to admit that you were self-centred in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question is indeed accepted in the conversational context.
How you walk outside without running into oncoming traffic amazes me.
Do you care about anyone else or only about yourself when you don't wear a mask? FAIL
Damn, FAKE news blown to smithereens again...haha
•
On a side note, every time you post, it reminds me of the fallacies we learned in Intro to Logic.
You can see every argument you have fit in one of these categories. I wonder what category your retort will fit in next.