Talk:Argumentum ad lazarum

Is it correct to use this phrase for the (very common) converse, arguing that an opponent is wrong because it is rich? Securiger 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it it's called argumentum ad crumenam. 72.139.119.165 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

2007-01-31 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

examples
It seems to me that the second through fourth examples are poor ones.

"The homeless tell us it’s hard to find housing. Thus it must be."

This is a poor basis for asserting a certainty, but it seems that its argument could be called an "Argument from Experience" (if such exists). Even as such it is flawed, as the homeless are not the only group with experience, but it does not seem to be crediting them with authority due to poverty - only due to experience.

"The monks have forsworn all material possessions. They must have achieved enlightenment."

In a Buddhist definition, enlightenment involves detachment from worldly desires. (Also, again the observation does not lead to certainty.) Within a Buddhist paradigm it seems that it is simply attributing an observation to a state which contains a defining element that seems to possibly have causal relationship to the thing observed.

"All you need to know about the civil war in that country is that the rebels live in mud huts, while the general who sends troops against them sits in a luxurious, air-conditioned office."

Is this Argumentum ad Lazarum, or is it Argumentum ad Crumenam? It seems to advise no further examination, which is perhaps unreasonable in itself, but it could spin either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druthulhu (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)