Question

...
Pistol

What kind of fallacies are these?

1. In a disagreement, one person constantly uses the failures of the other person's past to invalidate their points, even if it is unrelated to the disagreement at hand. 

2. In a debate or argument, one member of the argument overwhelms the other with repetitive and non stop points to try and push the other party in the disagreement to cease all objections (aka...."word beat them into submission"). 

asked on Wednesday, Apr 12, 2023 08:42:13 AM by Pistol

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
3

1. In a disagreement, one person constantly uses the failures of the other person's past to invalidate their points, even if it is unrelated to the disagreement at hand. 

Sounds like some type of ad hominem; the specific form would depend on the content of the statement. More generally, the irrelevant use of someone else's past to attack their present argument is a non sequitur.

 

2. In a debate or argument, one member of the argument overwhelms the other with repetitive and non stop points to try and push the other party in the disagreement to cease all objections (aka...."word beat them into submission"). 
 

This is a gish gallop.
answered on Wednesday, Apr 12, 2023 03:44:27 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

... but there is also argumentum ad nauseam in which the same point is repeated many times. In a Gish Gallop, many bullshit points are given all at once.

The example sounds more like a Gish Gallop with a little ad nauseam thrown in.

posted on Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 07:47:28 AM
...
0
Pistol writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

that makes alot of sense...thank you for the insight

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 08:56:11 AM
...
skips777
0

#1) You've had all these failures therefore you're wrong could be a genetic fallacy or non sequitur.

#2) Nothing can be determined without knowing what "the talking points" are with regard to the subject. If they're relevant information where's the problem?

answered on Wednesday, Apr 12, 2023 01:06:12 PM by skips777

skips777 Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
0

Ad hominem, gish gallop and nonsequitur. However, in a policy discussion (for example), past failures do flag to examine closely anything the person has to say. 

answered on Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 08:27:09 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments