Hey there! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part 18 of my series on here. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.
Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on…
This is a more specific version of ad hominem that refers to the fallacy we are seeing so often in politics today. Essentially with this fallacy, the person committing the fallacy will dismiss all claims and evidence from someone based on their original standpoint or views. For example, if someone is conservative and you dismiss them as being racist and hateful, thus they don’t have a valid opinion or claim, that is fallacious. You cannot ascribe to someone individually the views that you believe or project onto a collective, nor does being a part of the collective assume they fully subscribe to all the values and views held.
This is another well known modern fallacy that we see very often today which is again a version of ad hominem where they create a specific type of identifier to be offensive and or hateful in some way to take away credibility. Today we typically hear the term Nazi being thrown around very casually as an insult and it’s a very toxic form of reductionism.
This is the fallacy of convincing someone of something by connecting to their emotions with a touching story or scary myth. The point of this is to connect with an audience that maybe cannot appreciate the more technical and logical arguments and could be a form of the appeal to emotion fallacy.
This is the fallacy that if the problem or challenge being faced isn’t close by or you aren’t being affected by it currently, that is isn’t a problem and doesn’t exist. This is dangerous because the solution presented to make things go away or not exist is to censor, ignore problems, and restrict coverage of these issues.
This fallacy is the rejection of reasonable debate and dialogue. The person committing this fallacy offers an instant and non-negotiable offer of compliance and surrender or to be defeated. An example of this could be as simple as “agree with me or I will no longer speak to you because you’re wrong” all the way to “you must agree or face the consequences.” This is under the false gumption that standing your ground and not negotiating with the “enemy” is virtuous when really that’s exactly what an evil person would do, “shoot first and then ask questions later.”
If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.
If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!
You can support me via: