Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The Ad Hominem logical fallacy is an attack on the speaker’s credibility, rather than on the facts at hand. A Liberal using that fallacy would say: “His opinions are wrong because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless whether he’s correct on the facts.”
I want to know the word for the opposite of Ad Hominem, where a Liberal would say: “His opinions are correct because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless of whether he’s right about the facts.”
I thought of Appeal To Authority but that’s where the authority actually is an authority, for example, citing Paul Krugman as an authority on economics. It’s still a logical fallacy because it substitutes Krugman’s opinion for proof of the facts at hand, but it’s not quite the right fallacy.
I’m thinking of the Liberals saying Obama is Black and therefore Obama-care must be good, anybody who opposes him must be evil, based on his skin color and not on the merits of the proposal. He’s not an actual authority on health insurance so Appeal to Authority is the wrong fallacy.
I was reminded of it by the recent article on Thug in Pastels starring Javier Morillo, who advocates the same ideas as any Left-Wing union stooge but from the unimpeachable position of a Gay Hispanic man. Liberals treat him as if his opinions are right because of who is expressing those opinions. He’s untouchable, so his opinions are untouchable, whether or not they’re correct on the facts. What’s the word for that?
Is it the Halo Effect?
Joe Doakes
Figuring out the logic of the left could keep an army of philosophers busy for years.
It’s the Zubaz effect.
Everyone knows Zubaz are stupid looking, and everyone looks stupid wearing them but all your friends are wearing them so you can’t not buy a pair because admitting you think they look stupid is the same as admitting you choose to hang around stupid people.
swiftee,
I was actually introduced to Zubaz by the Raid Warriors, Mike Hegstrand and Joe Laurinitis. In fact, they gave me my first pair back in 1990 right after they were introduced. They were black with white palm fronds. They were behind the name and were early investors in the company.
I wore that pair primarily for knocking around or to the gym, then for yard work until they wore out. They just so damned comfortable.
I now have a couple or pairs in Vikings colors and one each for the Twins and Wild.
DOH! “ROAD” Warriors.
As long as conservatives CARE whether liberals accept them, the Halo Effect will bear fruit. A lib can always – and forever – condemn those who disagree with them. But, it requires an insecure conservative to give them license. BTW: “Halo Effect” is term coined by cops who notice drivers act ‘angelic’ when they know cops are watching).
Generic “genetic fallacy” works for me. For that matter, so does “ad hominem”, since it literally means “to the person” rather than “against the person”. So arguing that position A is correct because Mitch holds it is also ad hominem, just not in the usual way we use it.
boss, it’s a small world, Mike and I trained together going back to when Ventura first opened his gym on Lyndale before he got into the Road Warrior gig (you should have seen the head of long curly hair he had back then). We started wearing Zubaz because they were darn comfortable in the gym and on a hot summer day. We also wore surgical scrub pants for the same reasons.
Scott;
Yea, I saw pictures.
I didn’t know them that well, but they were good guys. I was really devastated when he died.
JD, what’s with the micro-aggression? Javier is Puerto Rican (must be said with a rolled “r”). Hispanic is a bit too general and may possibly include white people. He’s always specific about it on the radio.
Argument from authority is very weak. Who knows more that used car that you are thinking about buying, you or the fellow that is selling it?
Oh great…it’s a Zubaz lovers reunion….
*fml* 😉
I want to know the word for the opposite of Ad Hominem, where a Liberal would say: “His opinions are correct because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless of whether he’s right about the facts.”
I think “fellatio” is appropriate. Related term is “hypocrisy” because a liberal will ALWAYS consider an incorrect liberal more authoritative than a correct conservative, simply based on who they (incorrect liberal vs correct conservative) are.
Figuring out the logic of the left could keep an army of philosophers busy for years.
Or an army of typewriting monkeys busy for eternity.
Oh great…it’s a Zubaz lovers reunion….
Swiftee, I’ll take it a step even farther: I love my Crocs.
I love my Crocs
I say good day to you sir.
A literal opposite of Ad hominem would be Ab hominem: from the man. Anything he says must be believed because of who he is. Kind of like the Pope being infallible on religious matters.
Oh great…it’s a Zubaz lovers reunion….
swiftee, I’m thinking loose britches like loose shoes, and tight elsewhere, it’s a thing…………..wink!