Logical Fallacies Part 1

Examples of Four Types of Logical Fallacies.
Part 1 includes:
1. Hasty Generalization
2. Ad Populum

Watch Part 2 to see:
3. Slippery Slope
4. Ad Hominem

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Logical
• Fallacies
• Hasty
• Generalization
• Ad
• Populum
• Slippery
• Slope
• Hominem

[thesparitan]

"You misunderstand, adding an insult to an argument does not necessarily make it wrong  But it is an unnecessary distraction thus it is considered fallacious"

By definition a fallacious argument is a wrong one.

[thesparitan]

@RevDevilin Actually I think there is a possibility for a misunderstanding here. Just to clarify and make sure of something. Do you believe that this sentence "you are a moron" is an ad hominem fallacy?

[thesparitan]

@RevDevilin You are actually enhancing a common misconception. No credible source uses your definition and its also not logically sound ether as I have explained before. You are not going to correct it because you don't see how it is wrong so why continue this debate. We are at an impasse, no further progress can be made. Its annoying that I run into this misconception all the time.

[RevDevilin]

@thesparitan I believe I am trying to clarify a common misconception, the wki shows the most common misuse, and the underlying theory behind it, but sometimes this is like trying to explain that 0.999r = 1 some people just don't get it

[RevDevilin]

@thesparitan Ok thxs for the chat, Bye

[RevDevilin]

@thesparitan You misunderstand, adding an insult to an argument does not necessarily make it wrong

But it is an unnecessary distraction thus it is considered fallacious

OED snd

"1.1 Of an argument, syllogism, etc.: Containing a fallacy"

Containing a fallacy, ie not meaning that it is entirely fallacious, but an add hom add's a unnecessary fallacious aspect to the argument

Can you not see this ?

[thesparitan]

@RevDevilin The point is you are not going to accept a clear definition and that seems to be that. I don't know where else this conversation can go, but I will personally choose the standard definition that is in every textbook, school and dictionary then some guy. Thanks for the help but I will stick with my logically sound definition, if you please.

[thesparitan]

@RevDevilin Insults are not fallacious and if you are going to try use the wikipedia definition as proof then you have to use the other part that I posted which shows you are completely wrong. It is impossible for an insult to be an ad hominem because if that were true then even the most sound deductive arguments would be untrue if someone added an insult. What about calling someone stupid when they are in fact stupid?  What if I just take offense at any word?

[thesparitan]

@RevDevilin Ok whatever. Something is off with you and I can't quite place it yet. You are a rather strange person, that's nether good nor bad but its just that you are baffling to me. I don't know why you cannot accept a simple truth. BTW this definition you posted doesn't disagree with what I said, in fact it supports it. I think you are suffering from incompetence on this issue. Believe what you want, you are only spreading disinformation.

[RevDevilin]

@thesparitan wki

"Abusive ad hominem, usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions"