Category Archives: Informal Fallacies

OK quoque

Posted on 5/21/2013 by Scott Aikin

Just in: James Inhofe  (R- OK) is now plugging for federal disaster aid for the tornado damage in Oklahoma.  That’s fine.  Ah, but he and his colleague, Tom Coburn (R-OK) were famously against similar aid for the East Coast after … Continue reading →

Posted in Ad hominem tu quoque | Tagged | Leave a comment

You would have noticed this hypocrisy… if you weren’t such a hypocrite

Posted on 5/19/2013 by Scott Aikin

Jonah Goldberg at NRO rings up a fantastic subjunctive tu quoque: Yes, it’s extremely unlikely he ordered the IRS to discriminate against tea-party. . . . And his outrage now — however convenient — is appreciated. But when people he … Continue reading →

Posted in Ad hominem tu quoque, Jonah Goldberg | Tagged | 5 Comments

Pretty in pink

Posted on 5/9/2013 by Scott Aikin

Check out Charles Krauthammer’s downplaying analogy over at the NRO for Obama’s ‘Red Line’ ultimatum with Syria using chemical weapons and what the Right thinks is dithering (or “fudging and fumbling”) in the face of the worry they’ve used them.  … Continue reading →

Posted in Charles Krauthammer, Weak Analogy | 1 Comment

Do you want firm, weasely abs?

Posted on 5/3/2013 by Scott Aikin

Weaseling is a form of informational misdirection.  You get your audience to agree to a very weak version of a commitment, then proceed as if they’ve agreed to a stronger version.  The greatest weasel ever was in Dumb and Dumber … Continue reading →

Posted in Fallacies of ambiguity, Suppressed Evidence, Things that are false | Tagged | 2 Comments

TU to-the-evah-lovin’ QUOQUE!

Posted on 5/2/2013 by Scott Aikin

We’ve had a number of discussions here at the NS about how ad hominem tu quoque can sometimes actually be a relevant form of argument. (See one of mine HERE, Colin on it HERE, John on it HERE, and my … Continue reading →

Posted in Ad hominem tu quoque, Argument from Double Standards, Argument from Inconsistency, inconsistency, is quoque, weak man | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

True tolerance

Posted on 4/30/2013 by Scott Aikin

Chris Broussard at ESPN said that Jason Collins, the NBA player who’s come out as gay, isn’t a true Christian and is “in open rebellion to God.”  So what?  Well, he got some blowback from a variety of sources.  So … Continue reading →

Posted in Ad hominem circumstantial, Argument from Double Standards, Equivocation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Doctor, but not a real one

Posted on 4/27/2013 by Scott Aikin

A quick lesson on equivocation and how not to charge that it’s occurring.  Charles Cooke has a piece over at NRO about how Jill Biden, who has a Ed.D., has been tweeting under the handle ‘DrBiden’.  The tweets have been … Continue reading →

Posted in Equivocation | Tagged | 5 Comments

Just little old me…

Posted on 4/23/2013 by Scott Aikin

Dennis Prager’s post at NRO today is literally a series of conservative talking points on Islam and terrorism.  All pretty much familiar fare, from identifying a persecution complex in their opponents (the irony!) to blaming the Left for encouraging them … Continue reading →

Posted in Bad Explanations, General discussion, Iron man, Narrativism | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

The Kim Jong-Un of rhetorical analogies

Posted on 4/12/2013 by Scott Aikin

David Brooks, arguing that sequestration has put government spending well below ideal levels for sustainable economic culture: Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy. That’s laying it on pretty thick.  Though, given the way Republicans talk about … Continue reading →

Posted in Weak Analogy | Tagged | Leave a comment

Do you like your herring red or blue?

Posted on 4/12/2013 by Scott Aikin

Matt Purple’s got a great change of subject for Republicans concerned about election futures (HERE).  When there are laments about how shallow the Republican bench for 2016 is beyond Christie and Rubio, he’s got a new topic of conversation: Let’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Red Herring | Tagged | Leave a comment