The « F-bomb » (including curses; obscenity; Desecity). A juvenile illusion of pathos trying to defend or reinforce its argument with a sexual language, obscene, vulgar, coarse or profane gratuitous, when such a language does not help to make an argument stronger, except perhaps to create a sense of identity with certain young « urban » male audiences. This error also involves adding free sex scenes or « adult » language to an otherwise unrelated novel or film, sometimes simply to avoid the dreaded « G » rating. In the context of this illusion, there is the Salacious Fallacy, which wrongly draws attention to its own argument and thus a possible adequacy with one`s own argument by inappropriate sexualization, especially the link with a form of sex perceived as deviant, perverse or forbidden (for example. B argue against Bill Clinton`s presidential legacy by continuing to wave Monica`s blue dress, or against Donald Trump`s presidency with an emphasis on his presidency. Historically, this dangerous illusion has been deeply involved in lynching, in which false racist accusations against a black or minority victim have almost always been beneficial and the sensation associated with it has been used successfully to fuel public emotions in a murderous tone. See also The Red Herring. Name call: A large number of arguments « Ad Hominem ». The dangerous illusion that simply because you are or must be, all arguments, disagreements or objections to your own point of view or action are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. Regarding Z.B. « My view on abortion is the only one that is needed.
To disagree with me, to argue or to question my judgment in one way or another, it would only show how much you really are a pig. It also applies to rebutting an argument by simply designating it as a « mistake » or invalidating it, without proving why it is invalid, or by summarily denouncing them, by designating them as « racist, » « communist, » « moron, » any name followed by the suffix « late » or other negative name without further explanation. For the Z.B. « It`s an A-hole, the end of the story » or « I`m a loser. » Part of this is Newspeak`s illusion that creates identification with a certain type of audience by inventing or using racist or offensive nicknames, sometimes military, for opponents or enemies, for example.B. « The fucking dinosaurs are even worse than scales and neocons. » Or: In the Big One, it took us five years to beat both the Js and the Jerries, more than a decade and a half after niner-eleven, why is it so hard for us to hit a bunch of hajjis and? Note that the word « Nazi » originally belonged to this category, but this term has long been used as a true English nominal. See also « Reductionism, » « Ad Hominem Argument » and « Alphabet Soup. » I suppose people who make such arguments should be ashamed of themselves. Geez. It`s pretty much an inevitable feature of disagreements that people you don`t agree with do something wrong. That is exactly the way it is done.
If these are complaints, the assertion that this action is wrong and therefore should not be an act that must be done. It is worth noting the way in which one argues in a democracy. The end of injustice may be exaggerated.