Hate speach

Hate speech
False analogy

False analogy is an informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments. It is often mistakenly considered to be a formal fallacy, but it is not, because a false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument.

In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property.

The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B).

In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges".

Examples

The following are examples of false analogies:

Access to firearms should not be severely restricted, as access to kitchen knives is not severely restricted and yet, like firearms, they are sometimes used to kill “innocent” people. This analogy deliberately ignores critical differences between guns and kitchen knives. Such an example might have some value as a figurative analogy (the purpose of a figurative analogy is illustrative and metaphorical) but it is obviously flawed if it is intended as a literal analogy advanced as a proof.

Note however, that in much of Asia, knives and forks are restricted to kitchen use by the cook and the less-dangerous chop sticks are used instead by diners. (Cultural differences play a role in these types of arguments as well.)

A more relevant argument might involve the use of firearms between criminal and non-criminal personnel.

The treatment of Arabs by the State of Israel since 1967 resembles South Africa during the apartheid era. This analogy deliberately ignores the differences between the Arab-Israeli conflict and South African apartheid.

For example, Arab citizens of Israel have the right to run a business wherever they please, have freedom of movement, and have full voting rights. This was not true of black South Africans during the apartheid era.

If we legalize gay marriage, what's stopping us from legalizing so-called "marriages" based on bestiality? This foolish analogy deliberately ignores the differences between homosexuality and bestiality. A marriage (queer and straight) can be argued, that it is based on a mutual agreement between two consenting adult humans. A marriage between a human and an animal would be impossible because one of the two parties cannot give consent in the matter.

A proper argument instead would be that Homosexuality is a sinful abomination before God and this perversion will be judged.

Or that it is contrary to natural law, because males/females do not pair off to procreate to insure the survival of a species. There are many good arguments against this homosexual perversion of God’s perfect design of marriage; bestiality is not one of them. This would be a separate perversion of God’s marriage plan.

Another false analogy is that if I speak against this sinful perversion of homosexuality I am speaking hate-speech. The falsity here or false analogy would be that every one who speaks out against wrong must hate the person who is committing the wrong when in fact those who speak out many times due so in loving concern for the person who is perpetrating this destruction on their lives and on their soul. This in fact should be considered in any type of speech as love speech and should be spoken boldly to all in humility to spread not only the word of this sin but the furtherance of the One who can save from this sinfulness, Christ Jesus.

Incorrectly classifying an analogy false

Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.

AD HOMINEM

We have all seen if not used the personal attack rebuttals in an argument. Ad Hominem is a Latin term which means, ”to the man”. The advocate attacks his or her opponent rather then the argument put forward by the opponent. When personal abuse of this kind is put forward, the content of the attack does not relate to the objective facts about such things as the opponents membership of a particular group or the profession they practice. Rather the abuse is directed at the person’s character or other personal attributes.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua.
This term originated in the Middle Ages in Europe when Christians suffering from the Bubonic Plague falsely accused Jews of poisoning their wells in order to infect them. In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result.
For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words can, or was intended to communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.

In comparison, this poisoned well has been perpetrated on the American public and even on the so called Church in that we are lead in some small way by these preemptive strikes at our wells to taint are belief that homosexual perversion is good and those who speak differently are speaking in hate. We as Christians should dose the well by saying that this is love speech and that everything we stand against is done out of a genuine loving concern for all mankind.