Question

...
Jason Mathias

What fallacies are in here?

Person 1: A lot about Trump sickens me, but maybe at the top of the list is his very intentional efforts to divide us up by the color of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation and our religion. 

Person 2: His housing secretary is black, his enterprise chief is back, his top 3 White House advisers are women, his intelligence chief is gay, and his grandchildren are Jewish. Your comment demonstrably proves that you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of, you enormous clown. 

asked on Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020 08:21:20 PM by Jason Mathias

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."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

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
1

Person 1: A lot about Trump sickens me, but maybe at the top of the list is his very intentional efforts to divide us up by the color of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation and our religion. 

Without context, this appears to be just an opinion followed by a unsupported claim. No fallacies.

Person 2: His housing secretary is black, his enterprise chief is back, his top 3 White House advisers are women, his intelligence chief is gay, and his grandchildren are Jewish.

Person 2 is providing evidence against person 1's claim. No problems (assuming this is factually true). Granted, this isn't strong evidence, but these facts wouldn't seem to be consistent with the claim of person 1.

Your comment demonstrably proves that you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of, you enormous clown.

I take issue with the word "proves" as this could be argued to be evidence that person 1 did make a divisive statement, but we don't know if their intentions were to be divisive, so we don't know if person 1 is doing "exactly" what they are accusing Trump of doing. This conclusion does not follow; therefore a Non Sequitur . As for the clown comment, just some trash talking; not fallacious.

answered on Thursday, Feb 27, 2020 06:31:26 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
mike
1

Ill go with tokenism on the part of person 2.

answered on Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020 09:15:36 PM by mike

mike Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Aryan
0

It's fallacy-free up til the "Your comment..." At that point, person 2 is assuming that by calling Trump these things, person 1 is dividing people him/herself, which is a possibly false argument. Also, calling him a clown is attacking him, and not his point, which is an ad hoc attack.

answered on Tuesday, Mar 03, 2020 01:06:29 AM by Aryan

Aryan Suggested These Categories

Comments