Argue? That implies it isn’t a settled matter. A name, and a mission statement, have no inherent meaning as to the success of that mission statement or the fulfillment of that name. Nor does this mean that how those matters are dealt with must be in line with the* form* you’ve suggested this takes. Nor have you shown the extent to which posters are even aware of the form.
Are you arguing against the idea of the existence of logical fallacies?
Nope. That would be hard to do; the very fact that I’m referring to it at all shows that the idea of the existence of logical fallacies exists.
Proof by assertion
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction
Informal Fallacies are not actually Logical Fallacies.
*
An informal fallacy occurs when the contents of an argument’s stated premises fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion.[1][need quotation to verify] In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in the form of the argument. Though the form of the argument may be relevant, it is also the content that is implicated in the erroneous reasoning. So while formal fallacies always guarantee that the resulting argument is invalid, an argument containing an informal fallacy might employ a valid logical form while nevertheless remaining rationally unpersuasive.
*
This is not a High School debating club.
In fact, one of the most common informal fallacies is* Argument from authority*, which is verboten in a High School Debating club, but something we want and ask for here, aka “cite?”
While it’s true it can be misused, such as saying that “Well Einstein opposed the death Penalty thus it must be wrong” used correctly “Einstein’s theory proves xxx in physics” it’s a must do.
In fact** Bricker **constantly *appeals to authority * with his legal cites.
Bricker, would you like us to call you out everytime you use that informal fallacy? 
If you’re going to start falling back on "fallacies’ make sure you know the difference between a** true logical or formal fallacy,** and a informal fallacy, which is fine everywhere but HS debate clubs.
Yes, of course its well poisoning. This is not an antiseptic issue. There are real shitty motives behind these laws. We have legislators on tape telling us about these shitty motives. Does it have to be the UNANIMOUS intent of the legislators or is the fact that it was part of the motivation that drove forward a voter ID law enough to taint the law?
So a whiff of discriminatory effect is OK but at some point it will become an unbearable stanch that we have to remove?
If the burdens imposed were evenly spread through the electorate then a slight burden might be more tolerable but it is not evenly spread, it is concentrated on folks whose rights seem to be the target of the people who pass the Voter ID laws.
I thought we had protections in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority? Like the bill of rights and liberals.
Good grief!
The appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority invoked does in fact constitute an authority for the proposition being advanced!
You cannot simply repeat the words, “Appeal to authority,” without an understanding of what is meant by the logical fallacy.
(emphasis added)
The citation of a court decision to prove a point of law is NOT generally a fallacious appeal to authority.
I certainly do know the difference.
But I don’t agree that informal fallacies are “fine everywhere except HS debate clubs.”
The point of identifying a logical fallacy is to show that the argument is weak. This is of value in discussions here just as much, if not more, than in high school debate.
If you say, “Bricker doesn’t vote for Democrats, and people who don’t vote for Democrats are hateful racists and homophobes; that means that we are not hateful racists and homophobes,” that statement includes a formal logical fallacy: illicit negative.
If you say, “Bricker doesn’t vote for Democrats, and so we can safely assume he favors racism and homophobia,” that’s no longer a formal logical fallacy but it remains an informal fallacy. You’ve removed the illicit negative but are still poisoning the well. That’s an informal fallacy, but it matters greatly, because it highlights specifically how your argument is weak.
Has nothing to do with high school debate, Dr Deth. It has to do with identifying weak argument.
How, specifically, do you believe the Bill of Rights is involved here?
No, no. Because I assume you would react poorly to Well, of course you’re against Voter ID laws; you just want all those illegals to vote Democratic!
Poisoning the well is a fallacy of distraction: you asked me to assess whether I’d approve a Jim Crow law in a debate about what the process to approve laws should be, knowing that I would recoil from the idea or be reluctant to aver support for it – not because the particular law was bad – after all, you didn’t even identify what it was – but because it was a “Jim Crow” law.
We don’t have a system where we must submit laws for your approval prior to enacting them. If you want that power, run for governor.
Almost any burden rests disproportionately on the poor. The wealthy can take a day off to vote, drive to the polling station, and time their visit for the less crowded times. The working poor must plan their voting for before and after work, walk or take public transportation, and likely suffer longer wait times. That’s already true. Grow up: life is easier for the rich.
This is not a change that impermissibly extends that advantage, however.
Then if the argument is weak,* refute it*, dont fall back on HS debate club tactics.
And indeed, many still claim it is a fallacy, no matter the source:
wiki:
*Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided - it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy.[3]
John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument.[4] Although he did not call this type of argument a fallacy, he did note that it can be misused by taking advantage of the “respect” and “submission” of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion.[5] Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change Locke’s original terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority.[6] By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the “Fallacy of appealing to authority,” even while noting that “this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious.”[7]
In the Western rationalistic tradition[8] and in early modern philosophy, appealing to authority was generally considered a logical fallacy.[9]
More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the “Argument from Unqualified Authority”[10] or the “Argument from Unreliable Authority”.[11]
However, these are still not the only recognized forms of appeal to authority. For example, a 2012 guidebook on philosophical logic describes appeals to authority not merely as arguments from unqualified or unreliable authority, but as arguments from authority in general. In addition to appeals lacking evidence of the authority’s reliability, the book states that arguments from authority are fallacious if there is a lack of “good evidence” that the authorities appealed to possess “adequate justification for their views.”[12]*
all** informal fallacies**, including your* Proof by assertion* and *poisoning the well *have both valid and fallacious uses.
That’s the difference between Informal and Formal fallacies and it is why, here outside of a HS debate club, attacking the post based upon a claim of a informal fallacy is bogus.
if the argument is bad-* refute it on it’s merits.* Dont just claim “LOGICAL FALLACY”!!
Generally, in my experience, those that fall back on that are losing the argument. Just like you are losing the argument here Bricker.
True.
OK, I withdraw the claim.
No. If the argument is weak and includes a fallacy, it’s for the proponent to show why the fallacy doesn’t apply.
You type this, and then paste this:
Emphasis added, and I even left your copy-paste footnotes in.
Nothing in that quote differs from what I said. Certainly it can be misused – that’s when it’s a fallacy. But when the authority cited is in fact the proper authority for the truth of the proposition, it’s not a fallacy.
In other words: when I say that the law is X, and cite a court decision affirming that the law is X, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority. That’s what I said before and that’s what your copy/paste says now.
Yes. In the case of legal cites, the claim is that the law means X, and the authorities appealed to are in fact the ones that decide what the law means.
::sigh::
Nope they don’t, and why should I listen to anything you say on the subject, when you can’t even correctly figure out how to remove useless footnotes. hmm?
I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who weren’t able to vote because they didn’t have the money/time/whatever to get the approved id weren’t prevented from voting? They just chose not to?
Because if I dont remove them, then I am not quoting them, I am paraphrasing them, or have to add “…” or something.
But this is a Argumentum ad Hominem, a False equivalence, a Red herring among other informal fallacies.
Yes, it is.
Yes.
They weighed priorities.
What if the id required to vote were quite expensive? Like, let’s say that just showing up with a birth certificate isn’t enough. Like, maybe it’s still reasonable to doubt that someone’s a citizen after they’ve produced a birth certificate. So, in order to get an id to vote, you need to do a detailed background check. It costs thousands of dollars.
This would, predictable, result in many fewer people voting. Totally fine because no one is prevented from voting? They just have different priorities?
As I’ve mentioned a couple of times before, there’s certainly a point at which the cost incurred becomes so great that it’s impermissible – still, to be sure, a matter of priorities, but in my view the wrong priority to demand.
The right priority is (generally) where the legislature has set the mark now and the courts have approved it.
Yes, the whole crux of the matter is how onerous is it to get the particular type of ID involved, and that the threshold for “onerous” tends to vary and often have an effect beyond mere economic priority. (Simplified: in some places of the US, “sock the poor in the east end of the county” approximates “sock the black communities” too closely for comfort).
In my district the burdensomeness of getting a voter ID is negligible to laughable. In a district in North Carolina, it may be not so.
Well, good to know that fulfilling right-wing fever dreams counts as a priority.