How to Coach Yourself and Others Beware of Manipulation | Page 61

Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).
(Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial
situation.)
Argument from Inertia (also “Stay the Course”).
The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action even after discovering it is
mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting one's decision (or one's leader, or one's
faith) was wrong, and all one's effort, expense and sacrifice was for nothing, and that is unthinkable. A
variety of the Argument from Consequences.
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)
A conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy)
Inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it
is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then
the idea itself must also be a false.
Chronological snobbery
Where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false,
was also commonly heldcitation needed
Genetic fallacy
Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current
meaning or context.
Judgmental language
Insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy)
Claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card)
Comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with
one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin's law)
Straw man. (also "The Straw Person")
An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. The fallacy of setting up a phony
version of an opponent's argument, and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand.
E.g., "Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare
comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!"
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy)
The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its
proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
Two wrongs make a right (also: “Tu Quoque “)
Occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. A shaky
or false standpoint is defended or one's own bad action is excused by pointing out that one's
opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse. E.g., "Sure, we may
have tortured prisoners of war, but we didn't cut off heads off like they do!" A corrupt argument from
ethos. Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.

60