Guilty By Association (GBA)
Guilt by association (GBA) can actually take two forms, one is an association fallacy and the other is an ad hominem fallacy.
From the wikipedia entry on association fallacy and GBA:
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
- A makes claim P.
- Bs also make claim P.
- Therefore, A is a B.
[…]
This fallacy can also take another form:
- A makes claim P.
- Bs make claims P and Q
- Therefore, A makes claim Q.
From the wikipedia entry for ad hominem logical fallacies:
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone’s argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.
Both types of GBA attacks are in the common arsenal of Online Discernment Ministries (ODM’s), most often for the purpose of dismissing a person’s belief or statement out of hand without ever having to examine it.
When examined from a tactical position, the use of this type of logical fallacy is often a tacit admission of ideological bankruptcy, in which the position of the target is ceded in favor of attempting to discredit the target, himself/herself.
Example 1:
Spencer Burke has made statements in support of Universalism
Mike Clawson quoted Spencer Burke at a church event.
Therefore, Mike is a universalist.
Additionally, Mike’s wife, Kim, stated something that was embarrassing to ODM’s
Therefore, Kim must be a universalist because she is married to Mike, and therefore anything that Kim says should be ignored.
Example 2:
Chris teaches Situational Leadership II
Ken Blanchard developed Situational Leadership II and supports the Hoffman Institute.
Therefore, Chris must support the Hoffman Institute, so anything he says must be discarded as suspect.
Example 3:
Nathan plays modern music for worship at his church
Seeker sensitive churches water down the gospel and play modern music for worship in their churches
Therefore, Nathan must attend a seeker sensitive church and he waters down the gospel, so anything he says can be ignored.
Example 4:
Brian MacLaren is a figure in the emergent church, and holds views which some consider to be universalist.
John has a link to Brian MacLaren’s website from his blog.
Therefore, John is emergent and is a suspect universalist and anything he says is suspect.
Example 5:
Brian MacLaren is a figure in the emergent church, and holds views which some consider to be universalist.
Mark wrote a favorable review of a book written by Brian MacLaren.
John quoted Mark on his blog.
Therefore, John should be ignored because he quoted Mark who is suspect because he wrote a favorable review of a book by Brian MacLaren.
All of these examples should be self-evident in being fallacious, though ODM’s will often disguise GBA attacks by prattling on about each point of the attack, potentially spending more time on the associative target than on the actual target, most often when they do not wish to address the points or position given by the actual target.
The permutations of this type of fallacy are virtually endless and become a game of six degrees of separation very quickly, where anyone’s views may be discarded based on a chain of connectivity to someone else considered ’suspect’.
