Question

...
mchasewalker

Senate Hearings for Kavanaugh SCOTUS nominee

Well, it was Dr. Ford's day to testify before the Senate on Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and, whoa, was it a flurry of fallacies!

From Chairman Grassley's (Senator Yosemite Sam) opening barrage of well-poisoning to Sen. Lindsey Graham's post interrogation angry kyoodling.

Basically, Graham's argument was obviously peppered with his own confirmation bias, but more pointedly aimed at (his) friends on the other side of the aisle: "God help us if we have to do more interviews."

Overall, he's arguing against Dr. Ford's compelling testimony based on a proposed hypothetical harm to Senatorial precedence.

Can anyone name the fallacy?
asked on Thursday, Sep 27, 2018 02:55:00 PM by mchasewalker

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

...
Titus Prime
0
Over generalization of the topic key points makes this question irrelevant to any discussion.
answered on Thursday, Sep 27, 2018 09:19:16 PM by Titus Prime

Comments
...
mchasewalker
0
Accepted. The details were far too general for brevity sake. Let's see if I could do better.

X denies the veracity of a witness's recent allegations based on scant evidence.

Y calls for further investigation of said evidence.

X turns angry, begins screaming and threatening Y claiming that further investigations will lead to
irreparable harm to the witness and the future demise of an otherwise fair deliberative process.

What fallacies are behind X's stentorian threats?

answered on Friday, Sep 28, 2018 11:14:35 AM by mchasewalker

Comments