https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum
>Hitler was a Rothschild bastard and the founder of Israel. Nice try kike
Reductio ad Hitlerum (/ˈhɪtlərəm/; Latin[a] for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", ad Nazium[b], "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,[1] for example: "Hitler was against tobacco smoking, X is against tobacco smoking, therefore X is a Nazi".
Coined by Leo Strauss in 1953, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).[2] According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[3]
Since its inception, the 'reductio ad Hitlerum' fallacy has also inspired a counter-fallacy, whereby it has been cited not to point out a logical fallacy in an argument but instead to deflect valid allegations of acting with similar intent or beliefs to Nazism, allegations of collaboration with the Holocaust, or to support statements of Holocaust denial, by alleging that critics are exaggerating their allegations, irrespective of the actual specifics of the allegations or the evidence supporting them. In this counter-fallacy, any mention of historical events associated with the Nazis is used as a basis to dismiss the other fundamentals of the argument as 'reductio ad Hitlerum', even where there is a direct association.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy.[3][4] The argument is that a policy leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.
Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else…?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such an action.[5]
An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a reductio ad Hitlerum when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.[6]
The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have been used in an article written by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss for Measure: A Critical Journal in spring 1951;[7] it was made famous in a book by the same author published in 1953[1] Natural Right and History, Chapter II:
In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.
The phrase was derived from the legitimate logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.
Historian Daniel Goldhagen, who had written about the Holocaust, argues that not all comparisons to Hitler and Nazism are logical fallacies since if they all were, there would be nothing to learn from the events that led to the Holocaust. He argues in his book Hitler's Willing Executioners, that many people who were complicit or active participants in the Holocaust and subsequently in fascist and neo-Nazi movements have manipulated the historical narrative to escape blame or to deny aspects of the Holocaust.[8][9] Claims that allegations of anti-Semitism are reductio ad Hitlerum have also been employed by David Irving, a British Holocaust denier.[10] The claim of reductio ad Hitlerum has in recent years been employed widely online to shut down criticism of anti-Semitic and fascistic statements and defense of the use of reductio ad Hitlerum to silence criticism has also been employed more widely in social media by companies such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Allegations of reductio ad Hitlerum is also employed as a technique with which to make general claims about political opponents as making absurd allegations, whether or not they have actually made those allegations in truth. In 2000, Thomas Fleming claimed that reductio ad Hitlerum was being used by his opponents against his values:
Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk", then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi …[11]
Although named for and formalized around Hitler, the logical fallacy existed prior to the Second World War. There were other individuals from history who were used as stand-ins for pure evil.[12] In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries the Pharaoh of the Book of Exodus was commonly seen as the most villainous person in history.[12] In the years prior to the Civil War, abolitionists referred to slaveholders as modern-day Pharaohs. After VE Day, Pharaoh continued to appear in the speeches of social reformers like Martin Luther King Jr.[12] Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate were also commonly held up as pure evil. However, there was no universal Hitler-like person and different regions and times used different stand-ins.[12] In the years after the American Revolution, King George III was often vilified in the United States. Andrew Jackson was also called King Andrew the First. During the American Civil War, some Confederates called Lincoln a "modern Pharaoh".[12]
The phrase parade of horribles originally referred to a literal parade of people wearing comic and grotesque costumes, rather like the Philadelphia Mummers Parade. It was a traditional feature of Fourth of July parades in parts of the United States in the 19th century, and "Horribles Parades" continue to be part of the Independence Day celebration in several New England communities.[1] A 1926 newspaper article about July the Fourth celebrations in the White Mountains of New Hampshire notes:
Old-time celebrations are to be held tomorrow at Littleton, Lancaster, Colebrook, and Conway, with all the usual features of street parades of horribles and grotesques, brass bands, decorated automobiles and vehicles, exhibitions by fire departments, basket picnics in convenient groves…[2]
Founded in 1926, the Ancient and Horribles Parade in Chepachet, Rhode Island continues this tradition.
Other rural New England towns, such as Hopkinton, Massachusetts and Mendon, Massachusetts still hold annual Horribles Parades.[3]
>he phrase parade of horribles originally referred to a literal parade of people wearing comic and grotesque costumes,
A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action.[4][5] Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions; however, a parade of horribles can potentially be a fallacy if one or more of the following is true:
The action doesn't actually change the likelihood of the "horribles" occurring. The "horribles" could be unlikely to occur even if the action is taken, or they could be likely to happen anyway even if the action is avoided. This is an appeal to probability, and can be viewed as a non sequitur insofar as the action has no causal relation to the "horribles".
The argument relies solely on the emotional impact of the "horribles" (an appeal to emotion).
The "horribles" are not actually bad.
The "horribles" have a low probability of occurring when compared to the high probability of good occurring.
A parade of horribles is a type of hyperbole, because it exaggerates the negative results of the action, arguing that "If we do this, ultimately all these horrible things will happen".
MISLEADING VIVIDNESS
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.
The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.
When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[1] or banned in some[which?] jurisdictions.
When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[5] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who…"; "I know of a case where…" etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.
In all forms of anecdotal evidence its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.
The wisdom of repugnance or "appeal to disgust",[1] also known informally as the yuck factor,[2] is the belief that an intuitive (or "deep-seated") negative response to some thing, idea, or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that wisdom may manifest itself in feelings of disgust towards anything which lacks goodness or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such 'wisdom' may not be immediately explicable through reason.
>The wisdom of repugnance or "appeal to disgust"
The term "wisdom of repugnance" was coined in 1997 by Leon Kass, chairman (2001–2005) of the President's Council on Bioethics, in an article in The New Republic,[3] which was later expanded into a further (2001) article in the same magazine,[4] and also incorporated into his 2002 book Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity.[5] Kass stated that disgust was not an argument per se, but went on to say that "in crucial cases… repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate."
The term originated in discussions of bioethics. It is often used by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. It is thus often viewed as loaded language, and is primarily used by certain bioconservatives to justify their position.
The concept is also used in the study of controversies such as same-sex marriage,[6][7][8] pornography,[9] marijuana legalization,[10] alternative sexualities[11] and legalization of abortion.[12] In all cases, it expresses the view that one's "gut reaction" might justify objecting to some practice even in the absence of a persuasive rational case against that practice.
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1]
>Tu quoque
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore, X is false.
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
In the trial of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]
Ipse dixit (Latin for "he said it himself") is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion.[1]
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.[2]
The Latin form of the expression comes from the Roman orator and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) in his theological studies De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) and is his translation of the Greek expression (with the identical meaning) autòs épha (αὐτὸς ἔφα), an argument from authority made by the disciples of Pythagoras when appealing to the pronouncements of the master rather than to reason or evidence.[3]
Before the early 17th century, scholars applied the ipse dixit term to justify their subject-matter arguments if the arguments previously had been used by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC).[4]
Ipse-dixitism
In the late 18th century, Jeremy Bentham adapted the term ipse dixit into the word ipse-dixitism.[5] Bentham coined the term to apply to all non-utilitarian political arguments.[6]
Legal usage
In modern legal and administrative decisions, the term ipse dixit has generally been used as a criticism of arguments based solely upon the authority of an individual or organization. For example, in National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. v. Brinegar, 491 F.2d 31, 40 (D.C. Cir. 1974), Circuit Judge Wilkey considered that the Secretary of Transportation's "statement of the reasons for his conclusion that the requirements are practicable is not so inherently plausible that the court can accept it on the agency's mere ipse dixit".[7]
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the problem of "opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of an expert".[8] Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court has held "a claim will not stand or fall on the mere ipse dixit of a credentialed witness".[9]
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln said in his speech at Freeport, Illinois, at the second joint debate with Douglas:
I pass one or two points I have because my time will very soon expire, but I must be allowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs again, as he did upon one or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln,—an insignificant individual like Lincoln,— upon his ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large number of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want to say that, in the first place, I have made no charge of any sort upon my ipse dixit. I have only arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to the understanding of others, saying what I think it proves, but giving you the means of judging whether it proves it or not. This is precisely what I have done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at all.[10]
Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1][2] Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.[3][4]
The concept of truthiness has emerged as a major subject of discussion surrounding U.S. politics during the 1990s and 2000s because of the perception among some observers of a rise in propaganda and a growing hostility toward factual reporting and fact-based discussion.[3]
American television comedian Stephen Colbert coined the term truthiness in this meaning[5] as the subject of a segment called "The Wørd" during the pilot episode of his political satire program The Colbert Report on October 17, 2005. By using this as part of his routine, Colbert satirized the misuse of appeal to emotion and "gut feeling" as a rhetorical device in contemporaneous socio-political discourse.[6] He particularly applied it to U.S. President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.[7] Colbert later ascribed truthiness to other institutions and organizations, including Wikipedia.[8] Colbert has sometimes used a Dog Latin version of the term, "Veritasiness".[9] For example, in Colbert's "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando" the word "Veritasiness" can be seen on the banner above the eagle on the operation's seal.
Truthiness was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.[10][11] Linguist and OED consultant Benjamin Zimmer[5][12] pointed out that the word truthiness[13] already had a history in literature and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), as a derivation of truthy, and The Century Dictionary, both of which indicate it as rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness, faithfulness".[5] Responding to claims by Michael Adams that the word already existed with a different meaning, Colbert said: "Truthiness is a word I pulled right out of my keister".[14]
χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά
Khalepà tà kalá
"The good/beautiful things [are] difficult [to attain]."
"Naught without labor."
"[What is] good/beautiful [is] troublesome."