Question

...

Liberals are dictator?

I saw a comment from a media said that Liberals are dictator that don't accept criticism, see the downvote as the proof. And when there's no downvote he said that what he say is right? It seems that he interpret to win every situation in the first place. What fallacy is this?

asked on Thursday, Nov 17, 2022 06:02:38 PM by

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
4

I am not sure I quite understand but I will do my best.

Liberals are dictators because they down vote comments they don't like.

This just doesn't follow. Down voting something that says something negative about a person or their group doesn't make that person a dictator or even dictatorial.

And when there's no downvote he said that what he say is right?

I don't quite understand this. Perhaps he is just asserting without evidence (not like a downvote would be evidence).

 

answered on Thursday, Nov 17, 2022 06:32:53 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

The point of this question is he seems to make him right no matter what the result is -If he got downvote, he assumes that what he say is right.  -If he didn't get the downvote, he assumes that what he say is right. I wanna ask what is this type of fallacy?

 

 

 

posted on Friday, Nov 18, 2022 05:50:03 AM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Niti]

This can be a self-sealing argument .

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Nov 18, 2022 06:30:17 AM
...
3
Citizen Irrelevant writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

You are a very tolerant,  and logical, person, Dr. Bennett.  And you work very hard to clarify things.  Rare qualities amongst forum moderators today, and I greatly appreciate what you do in here.  

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Nov 18, 2022 10:26:32 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Would you mind if I ask more things?

1. I've read examples of self-sealing argument, how are these different from Circular Reasoning?

2. Could Special Pleading fit this as well? Because it seems like he shifted a goalpost to win an argument. (from a downvote to not getting a downvote)

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Nov 18, 2022 06:40:49 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Niti]

1. Circular requires x leading to y and y leading to x whereas the self-sealing argument doesn't require circularity. Also, a circular argument is more of fallacy of form where a self-dealing argument can be classified as rhetoric or even a bad argument.

2. You can argue that, but I don't think that is a strong argument. Sometimes argument where the conclusion does not follow are best simply left as non sequitur . This way, the error is clear and virtually undisputed. If you try to pin down a specific named fallacy, the argument can shift to the specific fallacy rather than the more blatant fact of the error in the reasoning.

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Nov 19, 2022 06:43:12 AM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Citizen Irrelevant]

I appreciate the compliment. But I am not sure if I can accept the compliment without the full disclosure that I lack tolerance and patience when I am dealing with compartmentalization. I think I will write a post on this rather than explain it here. But thank you :)

https://www.hostingauthors.com/posts/bobennett/compartmentalization-how-otherwise-rational-people-believe-idiotic-things.html

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Nov 19, 2022 06:46:55 AM
...
0
Jason Mathias writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Bo, what is the difference between a self serving argument and an unfalsifiablity fallacy?

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Dec 17, 2022 04:17:22 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

I think you mean self-sealing argument ... The answer is found in the exception:

Exception: Holding beliefs that are unfalsifiable is not fallacious, especially when stated as beliefs or opinions. This becomes fallacious when an unfalsifiable claim is presented as evidence in argumentation.

So basically it is context. There is a fine line, no doubt.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Dec 18, 2022 06:41:36 AM
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
0

I don't think this is an intelligible exchange.

(Note: I posted this yesterday, but my comment seems to have vanished!)

answered on Thursday, Nov 17, 2022 06:31:58 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Mikael
0

I am wondering if it could be a kind of "Poisoning the well fallacy"  in which he is preemptively trying you to refute his argument.

answered on Friday, Nov 18, 2022 07:38:20 AM by Mikael

Mikael Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Mikael
0

Interpreting upvotes as proof he is correct is an Appeal to Popularity

answered on Wednesday, Dec 07, 2022 07:49:42 PM by Mikael

Mikael Suggested These Categories

Comments