>
> Argumentum ad populum
>
> This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People.
> You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an
> assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of
> fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:
>
> "Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."
>
> "For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the Bible.
> This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more evidence
> do you need that Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying to tell
> those people that they are all mistaken fools?"
>
>
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>
> Bandwagon Fallacy: The name "bandwagon fallacy" comes from the phrase
> "jump on the bandwagon" or "climb on the bandwagon", a bandwagon being
> a wagon big enough to hold a band of musicians. In past political
> campaigns, candidates would ride a bandwagon through town, and people
> would show support for the candidate by climbing aboard the wagon. The
> phrase has come to refer to joining a cause because of its
> popularity.
>
>
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
>
> Appeals to Authority
> Fallacy Name: Argumentum ad Populum
> (Appeal to Numbers)
>
> Alternate Names:
>
> Appeal to the People
> Appeal to the Majority
> Appeal to the Gallery
> Appeal to Popular Prejudcie
> Appeal to the Mob
> Appeal to the Multitude
> Argument from Consensus
> Argumentum ad Numerum
>
> Category:
> Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority
>
> Explanation:
> This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to
> something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the
> general form:
>
> 1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is
> true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people
> agree on. Therefore, X is true. This fallacy can take on the direct
> approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate
> attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get
> them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development
> of a sort of "mob mentality" -- people go along with what they hear
> because they experience others also going along with it. This is,
> obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.
>
> This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker
> is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some
> relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds.
>
> Examples and Discussion:
>
> One common way this fallacy is used is known as the "Bandwagon
> Argument." Here, the arguer explicitly relies upon people's desire to
> fit in and be liked by others to get them to "go along" with the
> offered conclusion. Naturally, it is a common tactic in advertising:
>
> 2. Our cleaner is preferred two-to-one over the next leading brand.
>
> 3. The number one movie for three weeks in a row!
>
> 4. This book has been on the New York Times' bestseller list for 64
> straight weeks.
>
> 5. Over four million people have switched to our insurance company --
> shouldn't you
>
> In all of the above cases, you are being told that lots and lots of
> other people prefer some particular product. In example #2, you are
> even being told to what degree it is allegedly preferred over the
> nearest competitor. Example #5 makes an overt appeal to you to follow
> the crowd, and with the others this appeal is implied.
>
> We also find this argument used in religion:
>
> 6. Hundreds of millions of people have been Christians, devoutly
> following it and even dying for it. How could that be possible if
> Christianity weren't true? Once again, we find the argument that the
> number of people who accept a claim is a good basis for believing that
> claim. But we know now that such an appeal is fallacious -- hundreds of
> millions of people can be wrong. Even a Christian making the above
> argument must acknowledge that because at least that many people have
> devoutly followed other religions.
>
> The only time such an argument won't be fallacious is when the
> consensus is one of individual authorities and thus the argument meets
> the same basic standards required of the general Argument from
> Authority. For example, an argument about the nature of lung cancer
> based upon the published opinions of most cancer researchers would
> carry real weight and would not be fallacious.
>
> Most of the time, however, this is not the case, thus rendering the
> argument fallacious. At best, it might serve as a minor, supplemental
> feature in an argument, but it cannot serve as a substitute for real
> facts and data.
>
> Another common method is called the Appeal to Vanity. In this, some
> product or idea is associated with a person or group admired by
> others. The goal is to get people to adopt the product or idea because
> they, too, want to be like that person or group. This is common in
> advertising, but it can also be found in politics:
>
> 7. The most successful business people in the country read the Wall
> Street Journal -- shouldn't you read it, too?
>
> 8. Some of the biggest stars in Hollywood support the cause of
> reducing pollution -- don't you want to help us as well? The third form
> that this indirect approach takes is call an Appeal to the Elite. Many
> people want to be thought of as "elite" in some fashion, be it in
> terms of what they know, whom they know, or what they have. When an
> argument appeals to this desire, it amounts to an Appeal to the Elite,
> also known as Snob Appeal.
>
> This is often used in advertising when a company tries to get you to
> buy something based upon the idea that the product or service is that
> used by some particular -- and elite -- segment of society. The
> implication is that, if you also use it, then perhaps you can consider
> yourself part of that same class:
>
> 9. The wealthiest citizens of the city have eaten at The Ritz for over
> 50 years. Why haven't you given us a try?
>
> 10. The Bentley is a car for those with discriminating tastes. If you
> are one of the select few who can appreciate such a vehicle, you will
> never regret your decision to own one.
>
>
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/numbers.htm
>
> Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
> Argumentum Ad
Populumhttp://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
>
>
>
>>> We could call it the "Who Gives A Shit" channel.
>> You'd never watch it......
