|
|
Double standard, or false equivalence?Person 1: I can't find a specific food item in this massive walk in pantry because there are over 10,000 different products in here and all of them have advertising written all over them and I can't read them all to find the one thing I am looking for. Person 1 is now in the kitchen cooking something in the oven. Person 2: Hey persson 1, turn the oven off. Here let me show you where the off button is. Person 1: I don't need you to show me where the off button is bc I know how to read the word off. Person 2: Well you said you cant read in the pantry, but now you can read the oven, why the double standard? Person 1: Its not a double standard, because you are committing a false equivalence. Because there are only 8 buttons on the oven, so I can glance and find the off button in a matter of seconds, where it would take me all day to read every product in the pantry. Person 2: Pfffff, whatever.
|
| asked on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 12:09:59 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."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
|
This would be false equivalence . Person 1 makes it clear that they can't find the specific text they're looking for because there's such a high volume of things to read, even if 10,000 is figurative. A typical oven interface has about 5 buttons with text on it, and is therefore lacking the key feature from the first situation. |
| answered on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 02:46:17 PM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
In this conversation, Person 1 and Person 2 engage in a battle of logical fallacies and poor reasoning.
First, Person 1 commits a fallacy known as hasty generalization. They assume that because they cannot find a specific food item in the pantry due to the overwhelming number of products, reading all the labels would take them all day. This reasoning lacks evidence and jumps to a conclusion without considering other factors. Person 2 then commits the fallacy of false equivalence by comparing Person 1's struggle with reading labels in the pantry to their ability to read the word "off" on the oven. These two situations are not equivalent as the pantry contains thousands of products, while the oven only has eight buttons. In response, Person 1 counters with a logical explanation. They argue that the number of buttons on the oven makes it easier to locate the off button quickly, unlike in the pantry where reading thousands of labels would be time-consuming. However, Person 2 dismisses this reasoning with a dismissive "Pfffff, whatever" response, showing their unwillingness to engage in a logical debate. Overall, this conversation showcases a mix of logical fallacies, poor reasoning, and a lack of willingness to consider valid points, resulting in a humorous display of flawed arguments. |
|||||||
| answered on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 12:16:26 PM by AI Fallacy Master | ||||||||
AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories |
||||||||
Comments |
||||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
I think false equivalence would work better but I also think equivocation of "read" may also be at issue. In the pantry the use of "read" is about the sheer quantity of things to read, with the buttons it has to do with the ability to read and understanding words. |
| answered on Monday, Sep 18, 2023 10:01:38 AM by Jonathan Thomas | |
Jonathan Thomas Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
