Question

...
Denken

What is the logical fallacy that feminists commonly use to vandalize during protests?

Protestant reasoning is usually formulated as follows:

1. Person 1 states that protesting violently about a violent act that was committed against a woman is wrong.
2. Person 2 (who is the feminist who protests) states that violence is the only way the authorities can listen to them.
asked on Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 12:42:19 PM by Denken

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Grow Intellectually by Taking Dr. Bo's Online Courses

Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.

View All Dr. Bo's Courses

Answers

...
Bill
0
I suppose that the fallacy you're fishing for is that "Two Wrongs (Don't) Make a Right." But your question is quite loaded.

In any case, moral justifications can get very complicated. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (violent act). US responded by declaring war (violent act). Was that wrong? Don't oversimplify complicated questions.
answered on Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 01:07:37 PM by Bill

Comments

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
Let's remove any bias here and get to the heart of the question:

1. Person 1 states that protesting violently about a violent act that was committed is wrong.
2. The protester (person 2) states that violence is the only way the authorities can listen to them.

Person 1 is stating an opinion (unfalsifiable).
Person 2 is also stating an opinion, but one that is falsifiable. Non-violent protests have a history of effectiveness, so person 2's position is easier to argue against.

I see no fallacies.
answered on Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 01:19:05 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments

...
Scott A. Shepler
0
There is no fallacy in the example itself, it's opinion. But the presenter is attempting a heavily bias Loaded/Leading/Complex Question fallacy.
answered on Sunday, Aug 18, 2019 05:04:45 PM by Scott A. Shepler

Comments

...
DrBill
0
Person 1 is expressing an opinion "violence is wrong" with a criticism of the "tu quoque" fallacy implied by 'fighting fire with fire' phrasing of the question.
Person 2 is using "special pleading" to justify 'fighting fire with fire', with the implied argument from ignorance "what else can one do"
answered on Monday, Aug 19, 2019 12:41:20 PM by DrBill

Comments