Talk:Appeal to motive

When fallacious vs not fallacious

When is an appeal to motive a valid argument, can we have examples of both a correct and an incorrect appeal to motive? How does one prove motive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:90E:A200:B935:53EC:B5FA:423 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appeal to motive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120070114/http://insidephilosophy.com/logic/relevance.php to http://www.insidephilosophy.com/logic/relevance.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine example

I'd like to suggest that the Ukraine example used in the article might no be ideal. It is obviously a reference to Trump, and while it may be accurate, there are surely other equally apt examples that do not inject politics into the equation. Again, I'm not questioning the accuracy of the statement, just suggesting we'd be better served by keeping politics out of articles that aren't political in nature. 2601:18F:4101:4830:2CCF:D30A:BD57:F5FA (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Statistical association

The first example of the fallacy, about ACME and advertising, says literally "they were *probably* biased". While the advertisement is surely not *proof* of bias, the posterior *probability* of bias is certainly increased, meaning the statement is not fallacious. Laurent Meesseman (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)