Talk:Argumentum ad martyrdom

Delete

While I'm all for coining new laws and getting there first, I don't think this is sufficiently different to existing fallacies to warrant an article. ADK^{...I'll pander your communist!} 14:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

+1. Persecution complex also covers this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect maybe. It's used as an actual argument by the hard of thinking. Does it have a proper name? - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, it's persecution complex + Galileo Gambit. The only subtle distinction I can make out is that while the Galileo Gambit is essentially "science was wrong before..." underneath, this seems to be implying that someone is right because of their persecution. ADK^{...I'll loll your dictator!} 10:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes but it's a particularly Christian argument as well. Matthew 5:11:

• “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

And lots more. So if you are a "true Christian" you expect to be persecuted for your beliefs. And when you are "persecuted" it confirms that you are right. When I lived in the Christian world I remember hearing it said that if you were not being persecuted then you were doing something wrong.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Added to article - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In which case is it not best to discuss it in terms of Matthew 5:11? ADK^{...I'll recollect your glucose!} 11:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because of "and lots more" - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, if Christians expect to be persecuted because of their belief why do so many of them whinge about being persecuted by atheists then? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It think it depends on the species of Christian. Not all of them take it that way, in the same way that not all Muslims go out actively looking for martyrdom - which actually follows a similar kind of logic.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a +1 from me on the use of "species" there. :P ADK^{...I'll graphitize your cheeseburger!} 13:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the article considerably and removed the "delete" tag - the term is out there, with multiple usage and multiple meanings - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tone troll?

"An argumentum ad martyrdom can usually be identified by a comment like, "Why are you so hostile?" or, "You're filled with so much hate." " This suggests tone troll. Are these examples used by Tinker Grey? (Do you have a link to the post coining the term?) - David Gerard (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

JFGI, it's the only result. ADK^{...I'll coax your bass guitar!} 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I got five different links and not the original - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7417926-64/#post53578855 ADK^{...I'll graphitize your gasoline!} 14:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Other meaning: martyrdom as evidence of religion being true

The argument that no-one would be martyred for a lie. I have an example [1] of this usage from 2008 - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And another [2] from 2009. "Would you put yourself out there to be mocked, tarred and feathered, criticized etc. unless what you were preaching you knew without a shadow of a doubt was true?" Argument from personal certainty (whatever that one's called). - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"or for that matter, Islam or whatever" - we have Christians actually using this argument. Do we have Muslims actually using this argument? - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely every Muslim who blows himself up with a bomb to become a martyr is making a form of this argument?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For example: In the political sphere the application of the sense of martyr as "witness," i.e. one who demonstrates the truth of one's conviction, adds another dimension to the modern phenomenon of jihad: as well as the martyr being a most effective fighter in prosecuting God's cause, she also testifies to its legitimacy by her willingness to die. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Historians' use

Makes sense to me. Indeed, I'd agree that something that is self-critical is more likely to be true than something that is gushing with praise. But I'm not sure how it applies to argumentum ad martyrdom as presented. This "cutting across the grain" implies that the criticism is true (and/or legitimate), not that the thing it is criticising must be True purely on the basis that it has received criticism. ^sshole 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of my biggest questions - does it even apply here. I read the 2nd "definition", about someone who is hated, more likly stating the truth and thought 'oh, that' sorta cutting across the grain'. But I'm not sure it is, or that it fits here. so i'm looking for second opinions.GodotGet over it!. 15:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so, a connection doesn't immediately jump out. One is an excuse to justify your own ridicule (Galileo Gambit style) the other is an historical observation. ^sshole 15:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems slightly a stretch to me. Has anyone actually used the term "argumentum ad martyrdom" for it? - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)