Question

...
Jason Mathias

Whats this logical form called?

X is the enemy. 

X says Y is true. 

Therefore, the opposite of Y must be the real truth. 

A real world example would be: "Facebook fact checked me, then censored me as being extremist content, therefore what I posted must be the real truth they don't want us to know about. 

asked on Sunday, Oct 24, 2021 05:02:47 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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

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

...
Shawn
3

This is a Non-Sequitur for sure, as well as a fallacy of opposition.
answered on Monday, Oct 25, 2021 07:36:20 AM by Shawn

Shawn Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Kostas Oikonomou
2

fallacy of opposition
answered on Monday, Oct 25, 2021 06:55:20 AM by Kostas Oikonomou

Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
2

X is the enemy. 

X says Y is true. 

Therefore, the opposite of Y must be the real truth.

In other words:

P1) Person A says X is true

P2) If Person A says X is true, then it is not

C) X is not true

This is a formally valid syllogism, but an unsound form of reasoning - it is a genetic fallacy. Your example follows this logic - because of the origin of the claim (the "enemy"), it is rejected.

Facebook fact checked me, then censored me as being extremist content, therefore what I posted must be the real truth they don't want us to know about. 

This actually seems a bit different. It's still a fallacy though - the appeal to censorship. "I was censored, therefore I am right." It's a non sequitur.
answered on Sunday, Oct 24, 2021 09:02:17 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
Jason Mathias writes:

Yes, I was thinking of the genetic fallacy, but claiming truth by opposites, and them making a truth claim based off the fact that they were fact checked by the opposition threw me off. 

posted on Monday, Oct 25, 2021 10:40:41 AM