|
|
What fallacies?On social media, Woman points to the woman sign on the bathroom says “back in my day this was easier to understand.” Implying that in today’s context no one knows what a woman is anymore. Someone responds saying “back in your day women couldn’t get a credit card without their husband’s signature.” Then makes a movement and noise to denote that the first woman is stupid. What’s the fallacy in person two’s response? I want to say it’s a combination of the red herring and somewhat of a reductio ad absurdem, but wondering what else might be at play here if at all. |
| asked on Saturday, Mar 22, 2025 09:22:39 PM by LF2023 | |
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."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
The response by the second person contains several logical issues:
1. **Red Herring**: This is indeed a red herring fallacy. By mentioning the historical inability of women to get credit cards without a husband's signature, the second person is diverting the discussion away from the original point about the clarity of gender identification signs. This response introduces an unrelated topic, which doesn’t directly address or refute the original argument. 2. **Ad Hominem**: The response also includes an ad hominem fallacy. By implying that the first woman is stupid through a movement and noise, the responder is attacking the person rather than addressing the substance of her argument. This undermines the logic by focusing on discrediting the speaker instead of logically refuting the claim. 3. **Appeal to Tradition**: The original statement by the first woman might suggest an appeal to tradition, which relies on the notion that something is better or correct simply because it is older or traditional. While this isn't a fallacy in the second person's response, it provides context for misunderstanding and fallacious reasoning in the overall exchange. Considering these points, the main fallacies in the second person's response are the red herring and ad hominem, rather than reductio ad absurdum, as there is no exaggeration of the first argument to absurdity to refute it. |
| answered on Saturday, Mar 22, 2025 09:23:00 PM by AI Fallacy Master | |
AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
The first woman's argument is one that you see a lot from conservatives, against the rising prevalence of trans people. There is an appeal to complexity in this argument, that defining "woman" in a way that recognizes the nuances of gender identity in inherently worse than one that relies solely on anatomical sex. But, more relevant to this situation, it has an appeal to tradition , where it's implied that the older definition of "woman" is correct because it's older. The person responding about the credit card is pointing out the appeal to tradition argument, by showing a situation where, in the past, there was a different understanding of women, that they were too irresponsible to handle their own finances, and it made life worse for them. I don't think the argument is inherently fallacious, but the exchange has happened so many times that these arguments have basically been reduced down to memes. I would say that the movement and noise implying stupidity would probably fall under ad hominem (abusive). |
|||
| answered on Sunday, Mar 23, 2025 10:04:10 AM by Mr. Wednesday | ||||
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
