Argumentum ad nauseam
m (Quick-adding category Latin phrases (using HotCat)) |
(→Examples) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*Obama has not made his birth certificate available. | *Obama has not made his birth certificate available. | ||
*"Yes we can". | *"Yes we can". | ||
| + | *The stimulus bill will save or create 4 million jobs. | ||
*The science of global warming is still unclear. | *The science of global warming is still unclear. | ||
*Our Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation. | *Our Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation. | ||
Revision as of 03:09, 22 December 2009
Argumentum ad nauseam is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough.
Due to the modern 24 hour cable news cycle and the fact every idiot has a blog, Argumentum ad nauseam is becoming particularly prevalent. In politics it is usually used in the form of a talking point, which is then reduced to a three second sound bite and is repeated at every available opportunity. On the blogosphere it takes the form of a meme, where every like minded blogger repeats a statement used by a fellow blogger. Twitter, where every message has to be less than 140 characters, has only made this latter form of viral propaganda worse.
Contents |
Examples
- Evolution is just a theory.
- The creation-evolution debate is a debate about worldviews.
- Obamacare will install death panels and kill your grandmother.
- Obama has not made his birth certificate available.
- "Yes we can".
- The stimulus bill will save or create 4 million jobs.
- The science of global warming is still unclear.
- Our Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation.
Parodies
| “ |
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, |
” |
| —Lewis Carroll, The Hunting Of The Snark | ||
See also
External links
| Articles about logical fallacies | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal fallacies | |||||
| Affirming the consequent | Denying the antecedent | ||||
| Informal fallacies | |||||
|
Argumentum ad nauseam |
|||||
| Red herrings | |||||
| Conditional fallacies | |||||
| Fallacious argument styles | |||||