# Name that fallacy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547 "2017-10-22T15:39:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/1 "2017-10-22T15:39:35Z")
Pretty sure this is obvious but I cannot figure it out. I have seen this a lot on social media but I cannot figure out what the actual fallacy is. People will post shitty things the US government have done in the past that are true as evidence that they did something else. For example, someone will point out that the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is evidence that the US government created AIDS or crack. Or that Operation LAC gives them a good reason to scream about chemtrails. What is this fallacy called? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/2 "2017-10-22T15:45:19Z")
I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. The evidence of prior bad acts is (however much of a stretch) in an area relevant to the question at hand. It lends support, however weak, to the claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/3 "2017-10-22T16:04:08Z")
Association fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/4 "2017-10-22T16:11:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Association fallacy. I don’t think so. Known prior unethical experimentation with disease is not irrelevant to a claim of unethical experimentation with disease. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/5 "2017-10-22T17:02:17Z")
It’s valid to impugn the integrity of an organization based on past sins…but it is a fallacy to claim that this is proof of a specific charge. “George couldn’t have robbed the bank; he’s a good person.” “No, he isn’t; he has three priors for shoplifting.” Valid. “George has three priors for shoplifting, and that’s why you, the jury, should convict him on this bank robbery charge.” Fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/6 "2017-10-23T04:50:16Z")
Right. The existence of the Tuskegee experiment wouldn’t be a valid way to prove the crack or AIDS theories, but it would rebut a claim that the U.S. government would never do anything like intentionally cause suffering for black people without a valid reason or attempt to profit from their suffering. And remember the experiment went on after there was an actual cure for syphilis, letting men suffer, die, and spread disease for no useful medical knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/7 "2017-10-23T05:10:08Z")
It’s evidence that the US government has done shady shit in the past. It isn’t proof that the US government has done _this specific_ shady thing. It isn’t even _good evidence_ that the US government has done _this specific_ shady thing. The fallacy is trying to turn weak evidence into proof, usually with a lot of verbal head-shaking and feigned disbelief that _this_ wouldn’t be enough to convince you, that you’re _so deluded_ that _this_ wouldn’t be conclusive proof of whatever the conspiracy theorist is selling. It’s extremely common, and is, really, just a variant on the “LOOKIT DA JOOZ” ranting: In the “LOOKIT DA JOOZ”, the “shady shit” in the past is Jewishness or ties to Jews, when told by someone who takes as an axiomatic fact that Jewishness is criminal or evidence of criminality. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/8 "2017-10-23T15:18:44Z")
It would be a version of ad hominem, would it not? Where the “person” is the government. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/9 "2017-10-23T15:33:04Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > It would be a version of ad hominem, would it not? Where the “person” is the government. No, an _ad hominen_ is an attack on an irrelevant aspect of the character of a person _holding_ an opinion or making an argument, in order to discredit their opinion. Here, it is not the U.S. government holding the opinion, the opinion is _about_ the alleged actions of the U.S. government. And in any event, this indictment of the character of the U.S. government is directly relevant to the question at hand. I still see no fallacy here. An argument can be pathetically weak without being fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/10 "2017-10-23T15:33:14Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > It would be a version of ad hominem, would it not? Where the “person” is the government. Yeesh, that fallacy is really [pathetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy). ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/11 "2017-10-23T16:06:59Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > No, an _ad hominen_ is an attack on an irrelevant aspect of the character of a person _holding_ an opinion or making an argument, in order to discredit their opinion. Here, it is not the U.S. government holding the opinion, the opinion is _about_ the alleged actions of the U.S. government. And in any event, this indictment of the character of the U.S. government is directly relevant to the question at hand. I would not agree with that definition of _ad hominen_. Suppose that an engineer announced that they had found a new source of electricity using kumquats. After this scheme failed abysmally, the same engineer announces today that they have found a new source of electricity using a novel type of solar panel. Dismissing the new solar panel out of hand would be an _ad hominen_ argument: “Eh, it’s just the kumquat guy again.” This also is not entirely fallacious - a prudent observer _would_ be rightfully skeptical of the kumquat guy, and dismissing his ideas out of hand rather than spending the money to put them to the test would be defensible. It’s still a version of an _ad hominen_ by definition: an attack on the person and not the merits of the idea on its own. It’s only a fallacy as \*\*Derleth \*\*explains above: prior bad acts may indicate a propensity for an action, but are not proof in themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/12 "2017-10-23T16:18:46Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > No, an _ad hominen_ is an attack on an irrelevant aspect of the character of a person _holding_ an opinion or making an argument, in order to discredit their opinion. Here, it is not the U.S. government holding the opinion, the opinion is _about_ the alleged actions of the U.S. government. And in any event, this indictment of the character of the U.S. government is directly relevant to the question at hand. > > I still see no fallacy here. An argument can be pathetically weak without being fallacious. I disagree. The heart of ad hominem is turning the discussion to the character of the subject, as opposed to the facts of a case. So for example, let’s say the United States did something like, say, poison the water supplies in the country of Freedonia. That seems relevant if the charge is that the U.S. also contemporaneously poisoned the water of Grand Fenwick for similar reasons. That’s because it seems relevant that the U.S. was carrying out a partcular policy of water poisoning to achieve a particular goal. I do not think in that discussion that bringing up smallpox blankets is anything but an effort to attack the character of the United States, other than making the U.S. seem like the sort of country that does bad things – which could be anything from water poisoning to conducting vivisection of aliens who visited Earth in flying saucers. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/13 "2017-10-23T18:41:58Z")
poisoning the well? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-that-fallacy/799547/14 "2017-10-23T18:55:34Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > poisoning the well? I was going to post that, but after reading Riemann’s objection to ad hominem, I thought this could also be nit-picked as not fitting the definition exactly as defined by webpages such as those on Wikipedia. But I think this particular type of ad hominem (poisoning the well) probably best fits what the OP is looking for.