What fallacy/fallacies is this? Faulty Generalization? Ad Hominem? Association fallacy? False Cause? All? Others?

For context, this has been said in the forum of a political party in the context of a vote regarding equalizing the rights of gay families to those or conventional families, which some parties rejected or abstained from, not necessarily out of homophobia (and definitely with no connection whatsoever to the actual voters of those parties).

Edit, to clarify:

  1. The accused parties are not homophobic.
  2. The policy is not rejected due to homophobia.
  3. There is no reason to believe all or even the majority of their voters are homophobic
  4. Even if the above where true, there is no way the accuser could know without doing extensive statistical research, which they have not done, so as it stands, their claim that they can tell if a voter is homophobic based on which party they vote for is absolutely unfounded.
  • Aside from what you named, see appeal to motive:"challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer"; and cynicism as colloquially used (attributing ulterior motives by default).
    – Conifold
    Sep 15, 2021 at 0:53
  • 1
    Are we talking probability, or certainty? How bout "tell me who you voted for and I'll tell you whether you are pro-life or pro-choice? And with a proverbial "gun to your head" and told you must choose one way or the other or you will die, in the many of national/statal elections, methinks one will accurately predict say 75%of the time. This This type of queries would have been tougher a few decades ago. In the contemporary ethos, and in the more distant past, one's chances of accurately making the prediction are pretty good. Despite reliance upon your formal and informal fallacies.
    – gonzo
    Sep 15, 2021 at 1:30
  • To clarify: do you think this statement in general is a fallacy, or just as a reply to the kind of debate you are describing in your post?
    – E...
    Sep 15, 2021 at 1:55
  • Certainty, they are essentially accusing everyone who votes those parties of being homophobic, which is not true (not even the parties themselves are homophobic). So, to clarify, can that single sentence be all those fallacies?
    – Juan
    Sep 15, 2021 at 1:58
  • This also depends on the definition of "homophobia". I don't think it's unreasonable to say that people, who help a homophobic person acquire the power needed to enforce homophobic policies, are homophobic. Sep 16, 2021 at 1:49

2 Answers 2


This is probably not the answer you're looking for, but anyway: A fallacy is an error in reasoning, so to know which fallacy (if any) exists here we have to know the reasoning behind this statement. Usually the reasoning is given explicitly in an argument (premises + conclusion) form or in a way that can be easily reconstructed. But here it is hard to tell.

Presumably, the speaker making this statement has a background assumption that looks like this: if you voted for party X, then you are homophobic, and if you didn't, then you aren't. The reasoning that led the speaker to making this assumption may involve a fallacy, but it does not have to. If it is solely based on encountering a few cases of homophobic voters of party X, then it is probably a faulty generalization. But if the speaker has solid evidence that a majority of X party voters are homophobic, then it might be a reasonable assumption.

  • I can clarify, the issue is that they are doing a unfounded generalization (not all the voters of those parties are homophobic, and there is no reason to think it's even the general rule), so as you say it should be a faulty generalization, but the accusation is also based on a false premise (assuming the party and policy themselves are homophobic, which is false). Both the premise and the generalized conclusion are false.
    – Juan
    Sep 15, 2021 at 4:03

For what it's worth ...

A candidate X's manifesto may include social, economic, moral, gender policies/proposals. One may vote for X if one likes any one/more/all of them. To single out one particular component (homophobia) is to oversimplify (fallacy) X's complexity, and also commit an illicit reduction (fallacy) of X to one specific trait (this is quite common, cars are also called wheels, knives are called blades).

Sometimes we're offered only package deals, aka bundleware - pertaining to the OP, if you like X's economic proposals, you'll havta put up with X's homphobia.

So ends this tale.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .