Question

...
Tim Eason

Help identifying fallacy

Hello Everyone!

I am struggling to identify the fallacy, though I am pretty sure there is one, and was hoping to get a bit of help.

There are a list of 20 odd rules and two people they apply to. Person A has followed the rules, while Person B has not. At some point one of the rules is broken by person A, and person B says "if you break rule 4, then you are saying all the rules are invalid and so I don't need to follow any of them." 

What is the fallacy being used by Person B? 

Thank you for any help with identifying this.

asked on Monday, May 25, 2020 06:45:04 PM by Tim Eason

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
Tim Eason writes:

Person B is making a straw man argument accusing Person A of the Nirvana fallacy. 

Person A has made no such claim that all rules can be ignored because they have chosen to break a rule.

posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 06:59:18 AM

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

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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

...
Bryan
0

That would be a non sequitur;  breaking a rule is a violation not a invalidation, and it has no bearing on the other rules at all. Why would Person A breaking it be any different from Person B breaking it? Even if it was devised by Person A that has nothing to do with how to deal with violations. 

answered on Monday, May 25, 2020 06:54:43 PM by Bryan

Bryan Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Jason Mathias
0

This seems like a Double Standard Fallacy, or a Special Pleading Fallacy. When Person B broke rule 4, that did not mean all the rules were invalidated. Person B is using person A's mistake to justify his mistakes and get out of following the rules. If person B blames person A, then it might also be a Scapegoating  Fallacy. And it's also a Non Sequitur Fallacy, because the conclusion does not follow the premise. 

answered on Monday, May 25, 2020 07:00:54 PM by Jason Mathias

Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
0

Non Sequitur. 

Just because a rule is broken doesn't mean it is invalid, since observance of a rule does not make a comment on its existence or logical congruence. Remember, people may follow invalid rules out of respect, or violate them out of curiosity. These are not assessments of validity, but reasons for obeying/disobeying laws.

In addition, two wrongs do not a right make. One transgression being justified by a previous transgression simply results in two transgressions of a rule for no cogent reason. The first violation was not reasonable either, so it cannot be used as a basis for justifying a second one. 

answered on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 03:18:54 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Michael Hurst
0

Among other fallacies noted by others, I would call this a tu quoque fallacy. It is a whataboutism - you didn't follow the rules, so it makes it OK for me to not follow the rules. 

answered on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 07:26:54 AM by Michael Hurst

Michael Hurst Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
DrBill
0

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)

The stamp has "ad hominem" but I regard it as simply "tu quoque" since the claimant merely seeks to claim equivalent behavior, as if one's error negates his criticism.  It's an excuse, not a reason.

 

answered on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 12:28:39 PM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments