Is it considered ad hominem if someone, for example, uses something Hitler said in an argument, and I refuse that point due to Hitler's horrific past and taking in to account his morals and values? Or is this something else entirely?

Basically, the structure goes like this:

"I'm causing this minor problem x, and as a defensive argument, I'm saying it's not as bad as this other major (but unconnected and unrelated) problem y (the idea being, you shouldn't care about problem x when problem y exists)"

Was thinking maybe False Equivalency, but that doesn't seem exactly right. Was also looking at Moral Equivalency, but I'm not sure. Any ideas? Thank you!

I've seen this a few times now, and I was wondering if there's a term for it:

tl;dr: Ignoring obvious intent or intentionally leaning into tenuous plausible deniability, and then turning the accusation on those who seek to address the obvious offense.

(TW: Racist use of fallacy in example. I'm having trouble explaining it without a concrete example.)

Person A: Person B making monkey noises at Person C (who is African-American) is racist and offensive. Person D: You think it's offensive because you associate black people and monkeys. You are the racist one.

I feel like I'm always having the same pattern of "conversation" with my father - and I feel like if I can identify the logical fallacies I can save myself some future frustration - let me know if there is one (or a different tactic) that I am missing. Or if you have any advice on how to deal with these conversations - there are other people in my family that bait us younguns by saying controversial things, but I don't think my dad is doing that.

Am using placeholders because it's different people/groups but the same conversation pattern.

Dad: X person/people are saying something terrible because they hate Y, but Y has done a lot of good things, now they're going to start tearing everything that Y did down (Slippery Slope).

Me: I don't think they're going to tear everything down, they're taking about something specific, and if they want to do that, I don't see a problem with it.

Dad: But Y did so many great things that added so much to X's culture/country!

Me: Yes Y did do some things that did have positive effects, but there were some negative things they did too, and if X wants to remove something specific because of this negative history, then I think it's up to them.

Dad: but X doing this and saying negative things about Y is really dividing people! It's going to really backfire, just like what's happening in Z country with A event. (False Analogy or Red Herring - A is significantly different and very loosely connected)

Me: That's a different situation, we're talking about X and Y, not Z and A.

Dad: Well I know that the people at work and the people I hang out with are already tired of this rhetoric and are starting to dislike X - they're really making way too much of a deal about this history, hasn't this already been figured out? All of this talk is getting repetitive and I'm tired of it. Why only focus on the negatives of Y? (Hasty generalization and... others?)

Me: I mean X only been talking about it for 3 years and issues with Y have been happening for much longer than that, and Y has been praised for most of that time - so it's not a long time when you put it into that perspective. X is bringing a lot of attention to it now because they have some power and people are listening - it might be loud but I don't think it's a bad thing. Telling people that "I am tired of X talking about how bad Y is, they should get over it" does a disservice to you, it makes you seem out of touch. (He had said this in public, to friends and strangers to try and get... sympathy?)

Dad: You're always taking the other side of things and never agreeing with me! (Straw man? Ad hominem? - calling me a contrarian when I am not)

Me: that's not true, I agreed with you that Y did do some things that were positive. But I do disagree with you on some things - and I think we're going to have to live with that because I don't think this is a productive conversation.

Dad: X is tearing society apart! They should be bringing people together because that will be more productive/better for society. (Slippery Slope and red herring)

The conversation starts with outrage about some imaginary slippery slope, and I when I say it's not a slippery slope (in I guess some attempt to be like, it's not actually that bad), there's just a deluge of different twists and turns and I feel like I have whiplash.

This is a generalized and simplified account, often this pattern repeats with different X and Y before I exit the (in person) convo. It's hard to keep him focused on one X and Y.

I have told him that I don't want to talk about X and Y with him again, but I'm anticipating this will come up again, because I've also asked him to stop before, and had this conversation before in different iterations but essentially with him saying the same thing.

Hey, all, new here! Glad I found this this sub because I like to stay abreast of faulty argumentation tactics. 🤔

Scenario:

• Person A (who is not affected by the alleged ‘bad circumstance’) says, ‘The bad circumstance that people say is happening to them isn’t really happening.’
• Person B responds ‘I’ll bet you (Person A) would say that the bad circumstance was happening if it was happening to you.’

Q: Is Person’s B’s response fallacious/deceptive reasoning or argumentation?

I need help identifying what I believe to be a logical fallacy but one which I can't remember the name of.

What is it called when someone has a bad argument or theory, and to defend the argument, they continue to add on more ridiculous claims and theories until their argument is entirely incoherent? The size and incoherence of their arguments make it nearly impossible to argue against. Essentially, hiding lies behind chaos...

Growing up in the evangelical church, I remember being set up this way by youth pastors/other leaders frequently. It was always so frustrating, I remember thinking "but that's not at all what I meant!" But by the time you're there it feels to twisted to explain yourself out. And I'm wondering if there's a word for it. It seems similar to strawman/fallacy of presupposition/loaded question, but those don't feel quite right. The two-part structure of getting someone to agree to a claim, and then stretching that claim to an unrelated topic, or extreme degree it is the key.

A friend of mine was talking about how he likes Destiny 2, and another friend of mine replied with, "Nah, just play Diablo 4 like a normal human being."

Would this be an example of the "No true Scotsman," fallacy?

I hear arguments like:

• 'The war on drugs doesn't work; therefore we must focus on harm reduction and legalization';
• 'Criminalizing prostitution only drives it underground; therefore we must legalize sex work';
• 'Some mental health issues are incurable; therefore physician assisted suicide should be legal for chronic mental illness.'

The argument emphasizes the negative outcomes of banning an activity, but leaps to the conclusion that enabling an activity is the only way to stop the negative outcomes. The argument refutes that there could be any nuance or middle ground or other factors.

Maybe "The White Flag Fallacy"; "The Enabler's Fallacy"; "The Give-Up Fallacy"; "The Prohibition Fallacy". "The Capitulation Fallacy"

Person A (to Person B): “You should really exercise.”

Person B: “Why?”

Person A: “Because it’s good for the brain and strengthens your body and mood!”

Person B: “So then it’s that I don’t actually need to exercise; I just need to have a good brain and strengthen my body and mood.”

Person A: “That’s why you should exercise!”

So for context, Person A’s argument consists of focusing on one specific method being important in order to directly achieve a specific goal, while Person B’s argument focuses somewhat indirectly on said goal being more important than the method proposed by Person A to achieve it.

So which person has committed a logical fallacy here, A or B? And what’s the fallacy called?

Often on the internet - particularly YouTube, I'll see a comment like this, sparked by a mention of someone complaining about parts of their profession:

"Police: Taking cover while bullets whiff through an inch of their heads

Firefighters: Carrying two unconscious adults in pitch black toxic smoke

Doctors: Struggling desperately to stop an arterial bleeding of a 5 year old child

Bartenders: Need to make a frozen drink for customers"

I've seen this format quite often around the internet when people of a profession perceived as less tough/challenging compared to others are mentioned complaining about their jobs, as a means to dunk on them. This is an example of relative privatization, isn't it?

My rationale behind thinking it might be, is that the implication is that because presumably the other three professions have it much harder with their jobs, and don't complain about it, then bartenders should not be allowed to complain about circumstances in their job they deem annoying.

What type of logical fallacy is this? -> "Your argument is false because: imprecise terminology was used, delivery style wasn't sufficiently polished, your argument wasnt made explicity clear enough" etc. Example dialogue: A: "I can't go to your party because I'm sick." B: "Thats not true, you're clearly not terminally ill." A: "no I'm not dying. By 'sick', I meant that I have the flu which is why I cant attend." B: "You weren't more specific what you meant by the word 'sick'. Since 'sick' can be interpreted many ways, you shouldve been more specific and because you weren't, you must not really have the flu and you actually CAN come to my party."

#logicalfallacy

Quick backstory. 13 years of service in the US military. First ten in the USMC. Then switched to the Army 3 years ago. I have absolutely nothing against helping homeless veterans but I do have an issue when people post the following

“Homeless veterans should come before any refugee”

My issue with this is that the people I see posting this NEVER just post about homeless veterans. They always post about them in comparison to refugees and immigrants. I personally feel that it cheapens the issue on both sides. I also normally feel that people post the issue in this way to avoid seeming some form of “racist/xenophobic”

My thing is, if you care about homeless veterans. You should post about homeless veterans and only them. Full stop your post should be “homeless veterans shouldn’t exist” or something. Instead I see people constantly posting about helping homeless vets over refugees. If you don’t like helping immigrants and refugees. Just say so.

If anyone has a better idea of what this kind of comparison/argument is called I’d appreciate some guidance Into where to look. I might be off base here but I really think this is a disservice to both issues.

When my son and I have a debate, instead of telling me why his position is good he only talks about why my position is bad. He then concludes that we should go with his position because mine is worse. When I press him to tell me why his position is good, he’ll say one little thing that isn’t enough to support his argument then go back to attacking my argument. Is this a logical fallacy? I feel like there has to be a name for this argument style.

Slapstick edits of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate committing logical fallacies.

https://youtube.com/shorts/SDOadjaqv5o?feature=share

Hi, I need help finding the correct name for this type of fallacy. If a company asks you to join their mailing list, and the options they give are "Yes" or "No, I hate fun" what type of logical fallacy/manipulation tactics would that be?

Another example I have of the same logic:

"If not for capitalism, we wouldn't have had all these technological innovations."

What would you call this? The best I got is post hoc ergo proper hoc and maybe historical bias fallacy. Is there anything else that applies?

Like, if you’re arguing that something isn’t justified, and the other person says they can think of a way it would be justified, then proceeds to give you a scenario that is not happening right now, and is extremely unlikely to ever happen.

Similar to strawman, but strawman means refuting an altered version, not overly simplified.