|
|
What fallacy is this?Person T did something illegal and corrupt.
People D take legal action against person T. Person T claims people D are idiots and therefor that means person T is innocent. |
| asked on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 09:31:22 PM by Jason Mathias | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
|
non sequitur
The premise does not support the conclusion. |
| answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 01:22:38 AM by Steven Hobbs |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
D’s charge T with being a corrupt criminal
T claims D ’s are idiots Therefore T is innocent Argumentum Ad hominem Corruption is a crime Insulting one’s accusers is not a defense |
| answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 03:11:06 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
People are idiots, therefore, T is innocent.....ad hominem
|
| answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 03:30:53 AM by skips777 |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
The relevant part is "Person T claims people D are idiots and therefor that means person T is innocent." Idiots can be correct about the guilt of person T regardless of any intellectual deficiencies they might have. This is a classic Ad Hominem (abusive) . More generally, it is also a non-sequitur .
|
| answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 06:35:56 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Although there is an ad hominem component ( the perjorative insult leveled ), the fallacy seems a straightforward non-sequitur.
|
| answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 06:49:42 PM by Citizen Irrelevant |
Comments |
|
| |
