07:03:41 PM Sep 14th 2012
"This is also often used politically, playing off the fear of whatever is the scapegoat du jour" The question of whether this is fallacious begs the question of whether or not the scapegoat du jour is rationally to be feared. Winston Churchill saying Those Wacky Nazis are to be feared is different from Adolf Hitler saying Jews are to be feared. Therefore calling this particular instance fallacious is itself fallacious as it depends on who or what the "scapegoat du jour" is.
05:01:31 AM Oct 15th 2011
"Agree that 2+2=5, or else social order will collapse, criminals will go free, and they will beat everyone up" is not a logical fallacy, because it is not using logic. A logical fallacy would be "2+2=5 because if you disagree, social order will collapse"-which already falls under Appeal to Consequences. So why is this under Logical Fallacies?