What is the logical fallacy

[DemocratSinceBirth]

What is the logical fallacy when you impute something somebody said because you find the person to be disreputable?

It's not the ad hominem fallacy.

What is it called?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. A red straw hominem. nt

[rock]

2. That's it!

See Wikipedia, List of fallacies.

Here's the entry: Personal attacks (Argumentum ad hominem) – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. There's one that's even more specific

because I made it on this board and it was pointed out to me.

[Scootaloo]

3. Depends

If the reason you find them disreputable is relevant to the argument at hand, then it's not a fallacy and is perfectly valid - Dick Cheney talking about foreign policy.

If the reason you find them disreputable has nothing to do with the topic at hand, then that is, indeed ad hominem - Anthony Weiner's sex scandals have nothing to do with his top 10 favorite Thanksgiving recipes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I was in an argument and I quoted Mao

"Before you speak, investigate."

That's sound counsel regardless of how you feel about the former Chinese leader.


The person I was arguing with said "F--k Mao."

[Scootaloo]

6. Congratulations on winning the argument

[Wounded Bear]

11. If the biggest fool in the world says the sun is shining...

That doesn't mean it's sunny outside.

Pirsig, not sure if he's quoting someone else or not.

[longship]

7. There's the "poison the well" fallacy.

Which is a form of an ad hominem.

Poisoning the well

But without context, it's difficult to narrow it down. You provide no specifics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. See post five/nt

[longship]

9. Well, it's certainly an ad hominem.

Maybe it's a good question for the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. They have a semi-regular segment called "Name that logical fallacy". Listeners e-mail questions and they often cover them on the show.

This is the best such show on the Intertubes, IMHO. The host, Dr. Steven Novella (a Yale clinical neurologist) would be able to answer your question immediately. He's fucking brilliant.

[petronius]

10. 'Guilt by Association,' perhaps?

[bemildred]

12. Tu quoque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[bemildred]

13. Fallacies of Exposition

a. Equivocation - shifting the sense of a word
b. Accident - treating as permanent that which may not be
c. Smuggled connotation - the selection of a descriptive word has no
logical implications and may itself be in error. In fact, often,
the argument is about the correct words to use in a discussion.
d. Misuse of etymology - the roots of a word have no logical
implications
e. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
f. Misuse of large numbers
g. Composition - transferring to the whole properties of its parts
h. Division - transferring to parts properties of the whole
i. Genetic Fallacy - assuming that present form has implications about
origins or vice versa
j. The call for perfection - treating a few objections as sufficient to
draw a negative conclusion (without providing a better option or
showing the current situation is better)
g. Begging the question - Using the desired conclusion as a hidden
premise
h. Two wrongs make a right - "Everybody does it"
i. Damning the source - the origin of a statement has no necessary
relation to its merits
j. Ad Hominem - damning your opponent, indulging in personalities

[Hosnon]

14. Impugn? nt.

[lame54]

15. the Chappaquiddick fallacy