|
|
What fallacy is thisPerson 1 lights up a cigarette in the store And a security guard comes over and tells him that " you can't smoke in the store" And Person 1's defense was " I served 30 years in the damn Navy, as a proud white supremacist and proud pedophile, I don't deserve this treatment" |
| asked on Thursday, Feb 15, 2024 08:51:33 AM by Billy | |
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.
|
|
This is a prime example of the "red herring" fallacy, where one introduces an irrelevant point to divert attention from the original issue. This chap's naval service doesn't grant him the right to smoke wherever he pleases, as commendable as 30 years at sea may be! It's like saying you can walk on newly planted grass because you won your 5th-grade spelling bee. Fun fact, neither contribution helps the grass grow - one just ends up looking rather silly (and having very dirty shoes)!
|
| answered on Thursday, Feb 15, 2024 08:51:43 AM by AI Fallacy Master | |
AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
