39,327
edits
Association Fallacy: Difference between revisions
m
cleanup categories
m (revise quote template spacing) |
m (cleanup categories) |
||
Line 52:
==== '''[[wikipedia:Reductio ad Hitlerum|Reductio ad Hitlerum]]''' ====
:: A very common form of Guilt by Association is "Hitler did it, therefore it's bad." While persuasive, it's not always true, since while Hitler did a lot of evil things, he also was a massive advocate of animal rights (well, definitely more so than Jewish, gay, or Gypsy rights...), built motorways, painted pictures, hosted the Olympics, [[Hitler Ate Sugar|ate sugar]], and breathed oxygen. This is related to the Fallacy of Division, since it assumes the evilness of the whole of Hitler also applies to any part of Hitler. Related to [[Godwin's Law]] and [[Hitler Ate Sugar]].
==== Examples: ====
* An anti-abortion [[Jack Chick|Chick Tract]] claims abortion is wrong because Hitler killed Jewish babies, and therefore doctors who carry out abortions are as bad as Hitler.
* There's an interesting inversion of this [[Memetic Mutation|making the rounds on the internet.]] Whenever some distressing news is revealed to the world, someone will inevitably use the clip from ''[[Downfall (film)|Downfall]]'' where Hitler has a [[Villainous Breakdown]] upon learning that Berlin will be overrun. The person making the video will often put their words into ''Hitler's'' mouth. This is usually a case of [[Even Evil Has Standards]], with the intended message being "Even Hitler thinks that's going too far".
{{quote|"Y'know, Hitler was a vegetarian."
Line 61:
==== Looks like this fallacy but is not: ====
* Similar to the above, when an example is used to establish a fact about a group in the aggregate, rather than about members of that group. For instance, noting instances of gay men who are HIV positive and concluding that gay men have higher rates of HIV is not a fallacy (assuming valid statistical techniques are used). Concluding that a particular gay man is HIV positive is a fallacy.
* When a member of a group is presented as an example of a common feature at work, rather than proof in itself that there is a common feature. For instance, it is valid to use the 9/11 attacks and abortion-clinic bombings as examples of how ''radical'' Muslims and Christians ''can be'' evil. They are ''not'', on the other hand, examples of how ''all'' Muslims and Christians ''are'' evil. Capiche?
=== '''Honor by Association''': ===
Line 69:
==== Examples: ====
* One Usenet poster who claims "we should all become vegetarian" claims in his sig that "Jesus was a vegetarian". His reasoning: vegetarianism is good; Jesus was good; therefore Jesus must have been a vegetarian. Which assumes that vegetarianism is "Good" by all standards and values of those who hold that Jesus Christ was good '''and''' that Jesus is believed to be "Good" by everyone.
** Other people use a somewhat more complicated, but just as fallacious version of this argument: Because Jesus's teachings and behaviors were most in line with the Essene sect, Jesus must have been an Essene, and because the Essenes were mostly vegetarian (pescatarian, actually, but they leave out that part), Jesus must have been vegetarian and because Jesus is good, the vegetarianism is good and would therefore hate killing animals as much as they do. (Never mind that the Essenes weren't vegetarian out of compassion for animals, but rather because they believed anything created from sexual union was treif, but that fish spawned via abiogenesis in the waters and were therefore kosher. Of course that part gets left out, too.)
** Some sects of Christianity that preach teetotalitarianism apply a similar fallacy to alcohol. They feel alcohol is bad, and Jesus was purest good, so he naturally would not have done anything bad. Therefore he would not have partaken of alcohol. Therefore, the same word is translated as "unfermented grape juice" in instances where it's being partaken of or otherwise addressed positively, and "wine" when speaking against the dangers of excessive drinking in their editions of the Bible. This is pretty much entirely nonsensical; grape skins are coated in yeast, and therefore keeping grape juice from fermenting with period technology is impossible. You pretty much had to own a vineyard to get fresh grape juice in those days, as the alcohol produced by fermentation was necessary to prevent spoilage. <ref>There is one occasion where the change fits; at the party, when Jesus turns water into wine. One of the guests comments on what good wine it is, but it suddenly becomes even more impressive if he's gone to the trouble and expense of getting fresh-squeezed grape juice.</ref>
Line 78:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Association Fallacy]]
| |||