Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|