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.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.