the-arguments-advocate

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz made this disgusting ‘joke’ at a recent conservative political conference.

The dude creepily giggles (and the audience joins in) after admitting to beating his wife. Yeah, ‘cuz domestic violence is apparently hilarious. 

How could anyone want to vote this misogynistic scumsack into office??

He’s referencing the classic example of a loaded question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”. It’s loaded since it implies that he has beat his wife. So he’s joking and saying that if the liberal media is going to ask the question, it’s going to be loaded.

How White People Sound When They “Disagree” With PoC About Racism Posted on

This morning on Twitter, Mia had a few words for white people who “disagree” with PoC about racism. It’s funny because it’s true.

If someone complains that they have a physical disability like arthritis, carpal tunnel, tendinitis or something else that doesn’t allow for the full use of their hands

OR some other disability like vertigo

DO NOT be a shitty asshole and say, “Videogames weren’t made for people like you.”

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Super_Adventure_Box

If someone complains that they have a physical disability like arthritis, carpal tunnel, tendinitis or something else that doesn’t allow for the full use of their hands

OR some other disability like vertigo

DO NOT be a shitty asshole and say, “Videogames weren’t made for people like you.”

Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual’s characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Examples of Personal Attack

In a school debate, Bill claims that the President’s economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying “the freshman has his facts wrong.”

“This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don’t see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer.”

“Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that.”

If I were to call someone an asshole, I haven’t committed a fallacy, rather I’m stating my estimation, albeit poor, of them. 

Hey aliens, there’s a lot of rhetoric and opinions that go along the lines of “you’re with us or you’re against us.” I’m not sure exactly when this enemy of logic and reason was born, but it appears it is here to stay.

The phrase was made famous by George W. Bush before he invaded Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Then when he said it everyone had a good laugh at the absurdity of the statement. Except then something unspeakable happened; everyone adapted that irrational paradigm of logic. I’m not sure how it happened, but when you’re out and about in this world it’s how people think.

The people who get shit on the most with this faulty paradigm are generally libertarians or anyone with an opinion that differs from anyone else. People will praise that we should all get along, but then when times comes when you have a different opinion than them they get weirded out.

An example of this that I saw today were people claiming Ron Paul supports sexual harassment. Except he didn’t say that he supports sexual harassment. His belief is that the federal government shouldn’t legislate things like sexual harassment, and that the definition of sexual harassment was too subjective to clearly define what constitutes as sexual harassment. He never stated that the workplace should be home of the free to grope, molest, and jizz on who ever gives you a hard on. But people walk away that since Ron Paul is against federal law dictating sexual harassment he must clearly be for sexual harassment.

The argument that “you’re with us or against us” is a logical fallacy since there is always more than one opinion on any subject. So when people come to the conclusion that “If you’re for A, then you must be against B.”

Another example of this can be American politics and the Republican and Democrat paradigm that exists. If you’re against one party it does not necessarily mean that you’re for the other party. Yet people still walk away thinking this absurd thought. To break this down simply I will cola as an example.

The two major cola companies in the united states are Coca-cola and Pepsi. They even share the same colors as the two major political parties, red and blue. Now if you’re for one it doesn’t necessary mean you’re against the other. What if you don’t care for coca-cola or pepsi what about lesser known colas that exist. They’re overlooked and laughed at, Royal Crown cola would be an example of this. What about variety of colas that can be found at grocery stores such as Whole Foods, or a grocer that’s similar. Clearly there are more options to cola than Coke or Pepsi, but most people forget about those or laugh at other companies; just like political parties, ideologies, and any view that differs from their own.