|
|
A Logical analysis of this argument in the Rittenhouse trial."Mr. Rittenhouse, why didn't you let the person trying to kill you kill you before you decided to defend yourself." Seems like a presupposition that the person he killed was going to kill him. After all, that assumption is unknowable and we cant ask the dead their intention. This also seems to ignore the context. Context being that Rittenhouse was Blue Lives Matter who went to a Black Lives Matter protest with an AR-15 that was not his property, and he had no property or business there he was defending. Seems he went as a provocateur. And shots were fired, and the crowd identified Rittenhouse as an active shooter so they were trying to stop him from shooting anyone else. It also seems like an appeal to smart a** fallacy, kind of like the appeal to ridicule because of course we all know he cant shoot someone if he is dead first. Anything else you can add that I am not seeing? |
| asked on Saturday, Nov 20, 2021 11:41:17 AM 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."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
"Mr. Rittenhouse, why didn't you let the person trying to kill you kill you before you decided to defend yourself." This isn't an argument, but we can make it one. If we did, I would imagine this would be a strawman fallacy as I doubt anyone ever suggested this. But defense lawyers constantly commit fallacies—that is part of their job. Reason and truth is not their goal—it is defending their client, which often involves manipulating the jury with emotion and rhetoric. |
| answered on Saturday, Nov 20, 2021 11:51:50 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
