Argumentum ad martyrdom

Argumentum ad martyrdom according to Wiki:

Argumentum ad martyrdom is a pseudo-Latin term used for two different logical fallacies favoured by some Christians:

that something becomes true if the person asserting it is perceived to be hated for it (a variation on the Galileo gambit);
that martyrdom is evidence for the truth of a proposition as martyrs would not die for nothing (argument from personal certainty, a form of argument by assertion).

I never employed this logical fallacy. It would not be reliable to do so as Buddhists have set themselves on fire with gasoline and Muslims have strapped explosives to themselves.

Some atheist may daydream that such things escaped the notice of Christians somehow.

The opposite extreme may be to assume one giving up his life for something means nothing at all and need not come into consideration.

Neither extremes have I ever fallen into on this Forum.

@FMF

An answer from you would be interesting because you have been inclined to use argumentum ad martyrdom on numerous occasions.

You come short of definitely saying I used it, which I have not.

You say I have been "inclined to use".

Once you start talking what people are "inclined to use" or "tend to use" you can say anyone is "inclined" or "tends" towards just about anything you wish to associate them with.

If I used it, show me.

@sonship said
You say I have been "inclined to use".

Yes you have been inclined to use all manner of logical fallacies as you go about your "work" here for as long as I have been reading your stuff. You have also been inclined to resort to raw personal abuse when you get stroppy. You have ugly inclinations.

@sonship said
Once you start talking what people are "inclined to use" or "tend to use" you can say anyone is "inclined" or "tends" towards just about anything you wish to associate them with.

You tend to use indignant and sometimes vituperative personal remarks when you get flustered or rubbed up the wrong way.

@fmf said
The OP is about Japanese kamikaze pilots who sacrificed themselves because they believed the Emperor of Japan was a god and it isn't about those who did not. Sorry for not being clear.

No, the OP is asking the reader to voice an opinion.

Assuming what they believed is neither here nor there. Some believed as you assume; I assume that some did not.

Either way, you seem to be using the beliefs of these people in an off hand way in order to denounce their beliefs. Perhaps you could have been more clear that that is what you intended.

@fmf said
Do you think Japanese kamikaze pilots sacrificing themselves because they believed the Emperor of Japan was a god proved anything about their Emperor? An answer from you would be interesting because you have been inclined to use argumentum ad martyrdom on numerous occasions.

Are you willing to guess what percentage of kamikaze[sic] pilots actually believed this?

No, probably not.

@divegeester said
Little of your post is connected to the actual question in the OP or my reply to it.

I didn't consider that my answer to the question was so dependent on what you thought about my answer.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your knowledge of Kamikaze pilots is perfectly adequate.

@fmf said
Did Japanese kamikaze pilots sacrifice themselves because the Emperor of Japan actually was a god and the pilots knew for a fact that it was true, or does it only mean they believed it to be so?

I don't think they had enough fuel to reach land or aircraft carrier /one way ticket .

@fmf said
I don't need to "prove" it to you. I am stating that you have used Argumentum ad martyrdom countless times. If people think I am telling a lie about you, so be it.

So here it is.

Obviously, your use of such a narrow, confining "belief" of these pilots was simply self-serving, designed to fuel yet another attack on a Christian.

I'm sorry to have answered your question in such a thoughtful, intelligent way, when that was never the intention of your question to begin with. I should have known better, considering the nature of similar "questions" you've asked in the past. Even whodey is careful to drop both shoes at once, rather than leading the readership on a wild goose chase.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

As it turns out, the question is neither here nor there.

It simply served FMF as a backdrop excuse for yet another attack on another poster.

I believe it's called 'smoke and mirrors'.

@suzianne said
Are you willing to guess what percentage of kamikaze[sic] pilots actually believed this?

No, probably not.

The percentage of pilots you actually believed it has no significant bearing on the OP question.

@suzianne said
As it turns out, the question is neither here nor there.

I think "argumentum ad martyrdom" is an interesting topic.