Never Back Up An Unverifiable Claim With Another Unverifiable Claim About Someone's IntentionssteemCreated with Sketch.

in politics •  8 years ago  (edited)

Originally posted at anti-aggressionleague.com

In short, this is an ad hominem fallacy. I first noticed preachy Christians using this sophist tactic. If you don't believe in God its because you hate God or you have a 'hardened heart' or you're rebelling against him (and whatever other ridiculous hypotheses they like to put forth). But I've begun to notice it more in political discourse. If you oppose the welfare state (particularly food stamps) you must hate poor people. If you criticize U.S. foreign policy, you must hate America, or the new one: you must be an agent of the Kremlin. If you criticize the law enforcement you must hate cops and want total anomie. If you voted for Donald Trump you're a (insert litany of gender studies buzzwords). Well, you get the point by now. It's 1) not an argument, 2) a logical fallacy and most importantly an unverifiable claim. You can't know another person's intentions unless they tell you their intentions, especially if you're arguing with them on the internet anonymously. You can't read minds and you're not psychic, so more than likely if you assume what someone is thinking, in the midst of a heated debate, and especially if it's on the internet, you're making an unverifiable claim that doesn't actually demonstrate your point. Try harder. Try again.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Also called Speculation, and Mind Reading :D

Also False Dichotomy, either or reasoning, False Dilemma, False Binary

Speculation is a more general term applicable to broader uses than the one I was trying to narrow it down to. False Dichotomy and false dilemma would apply to a line of questioning or presentation of choices that gives the false impression that there are only two choices when there are more.

Nice to see someone comment besides a bot though. Most comments are bots posting links to my own blog.

Mind Reading is Speculating, Speculating is Mind Reading.
False dichotomy is either or reasoning, and by your logic you should see that they only give two choices, when there are more, not impressing, but explicitly.

Calling it a personal attack one has to read into it, it's very straight and to the point when you call it speculating. Personal attacks are broad and general, so calling it by what it is, it's less confusing because one need not read anything into their false dichotomy.

Yes but speculation isn't necessarily a logical fallacy. Calling it a personal attack emphasizes the fact that its not a valid way of arguing against someone's position. Most arguments on the internet are speculation anyway.

Its not true, in this situation it's speculation, calling it a fallacy won't make them any wronger, it just invites confusion. They speculate, logic zilch.

I called it three things. Pay attention.

  1. not an argument, 2) a logical fallacy (i.e. ad hominem) and most importantly an unverifiable claim.

Unverifiable claim = speculation. If you're disputing this point then you're simply playing a semantics game. The OP isn't complex at all. Very succinct and forthright, as most of my posts are.

Again speculation is a broad term. An argument could be based on speculation without attacking another person. That's why I mentioned both speculation and ad hominem. Try re-reading the OP.

'It's 1) not an argument, 2) a logical fallacy and most importantly an unverifiable claim. '

Unverifiable claim = speculation so I already mentioned it. There's no confusion if you actually read it.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

But did you call it speculation, you chose the complex over the simple I'm afraid, I chose colloquial over the formal.

I'm not giving weight to the attack part:

  1. One must read into it, and therefore make a mountain out of a mole hill.
  2. Creates confusion as it seeks to wrong the wronger even more