Zero limits fallacy
E.g., “He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says.” See also “Guilt by Association.” The opposite of this is the “Star Power” fallacy. The Ad Hominem Argument (also, “Personal attack,” “Poisoning the well.”): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos.An opposite fallacy is that of Moral Licensing. Not to be confused with the Argument from Consequences, which is quite different. Freezing to death is a natural “consequence” of going out naked in subzero weather but going to prison is a punishment for bank robbery, not a natural, inevitable or unavoidable “consequence,” of robbing a bank. E.g.,” The consequences of your misbehavior could include suspension or expulsion.” A corrupt argument from ethos, arrogating to oneself or to one’s rules or laws an ethos of cosmic inevitability, i.e., the ethos of God, Fate, Destiny or Reality Itself. Actions have Consequences: The contemporary fallacy of a person in power falsely describing an imposed punishment or penalty as a “consequence” of another’s negative act.The opposite of this fallacy is the Taboo. Certain ideologues and religious fundamentalists are proud to use this fallacy as their primary method of “reasoning” and some are even honest enough to say so. ): A corrupt argument from logos, starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse, “fact” or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it. The A Priori Argument (Also, Rationalization Proof Texting.
![zero limits fallacy zero limits fallacy](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/e/eb/No_limits.jpg)
![zero limits fallacy zero limits fallacy](http://cdn0.globalgolf.com/images/product/zoom/1024000/1024595-12-8-1613.jpg)
No claim is made to “academic rigor” in this listing. Effort has been made to avoid mere word-games (e.g., “The Fallacist’s Fallacy,” or the famous “Crocodile’s Paradox” of classic times), or the so-called “fallacies” of purely formal, symbolic, or business and financial logic.
![zero limits fallacy zero limits fallacy](https://img1.od-cdn.com/ImageType-400/0128-1/2ED/457/12/{2ED45712-505D-4677-B06C-94162886A8C8}Img400.jpg)
Fallacies often seem superficially sound, and they far too often retain immense persuasive power even after being clearly exposed as false. Fallacies are not always deliberate, but a good scholar’s purpose is always to identify and unmask fallacies in arguments. Note that many of these definitions overlap, but the goal here is to identify contemporary and classic fallacies as they are used in today’s discourse. Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that prove nothing.