
«The donkey said to the tiger:
«The grass is blue.»The tiger replied:
«No, the grass is green.»The discussion heated up, and the two decided to go to the lion, the king of the jungle.
“DON’T ARGUE WITH DONKEYS”

«The donkey said to the tiger:
«The grass is blue.»The tiger replied:
«No, the grass is green.»The discussion heated up, and the two decided to go to the lion, the king of the jungle.
“DON’T ARGUE WITH DONKEYS”
These are just three logical fallacies that irritate me:

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.
Ad hominem

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Genetic fallacy

Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.
Appeal to emotion

Graphics via The School of Thought

There are two problems to face when talking about conspiracy theories: Some people see them everywhere; some people see them nowhere.
“Conspiracy Theory” as a Pejorative + Michael Parenti on Conspiracy (1993)
You must be logged in to post a comment.