Communism
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Are there any logical fallacies one can point to in communism?
Does communism ignore “human nature” and is it a form of Utopianism?
To that end can someone point out fallacies in the concept of Utopianism.
Can someone point to logical fallacies made in arguments used by feminists?
Is all of conservatism just one great big appeal to emotion? Does that necessarily make it wrong?
Comments on Question
Answers
1Communism often overlooks the Barbeque Sauce Dilemma. In a communist society, everyone gets the same amount of barbeque sauce, but anyone who's been to a cookout knows there's always that one guy who uses an entire bottle for one rib. This is a simple way to illustrate the Economists' Dilemma fallacy: assuming everyone has the same tastes and needs without considering individual preferences.
A typical criticism of communism is that it ignores "human nature," i.e., people are naturally selfish and competitive. However, this assumes a single definition of "human nature" which is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy wearing a kilt and playing bagpipes.
The concept of Utopianism can be encumbered with the Nirvana Fallacy, i.e., rejecting a realistic solution because it's not perfect, like rejecting a perfectly good donut because it doesn't ooze rainbows and solve world peace.
Coming to feminism, not all arguments used contain logical fallacies. However, a frequent one is hasty generalizations - projecting the beliefs of a few onto the many, like suggesting every feminist shaves their head, eats granola and breeds cats. It's exaggeration, much like saying every man who owns a boat simultaneously cultivates a beard and a midlife crisis.
As for conservatism, while it's tempting to write it off as one huge appeal to emotion, that's a bit like saying every dog is a slobbering lovers of tennis balls. It's not entirely accurate. Does that make it wrong? Well, that's another can of worms, or perhaps a can of philosophical uncertainty. Anyone's got a can opener?
A typical criticism of communism is that it ignores "human nature," i.e., people are naturally selfish and competitive. However, this assumes a single definition of "human nature" which is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy wearing a kilt and playing bagpipes.
The concept of Utopianism can be encumbered with the Nirvana Fallacy, i.e., rejecting a realistic solution because it's not perfect, like rejecting a perfectly good donut because it doesn't ooze rainbows and solve world peace.
Coming to feminism, not all arguments used contain logical fallacies. However, a frequent one is hasty generalizations - projecting the beliefs of a few onto the many, like suggesting every feminist shaves their head, eats granola and breeds cats. It's exaggeration, much like saying every man who owns a boat simultaneously cultivates a beard and a midlife crisis.
As for conservatism, while it's tempting to write it off as one huge appeal to emotion, that's a bit like saying every dog is a slobbering lovers of tennis balls. It's not entirely accurate. Does that make it wrong? Well, that's another can of worms, or perhaps a can of philosophical uncertainty. Anyone's got a can opener?
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I think this question is too broad to have a meaningful answer. Communism, feminism and conservatism are all ideas that have evolved over time, have competing philosophies within them, and are going to vary widely based on when, where, and how they're implemented. And, spend enough time on the internet, and you'll find plenty of people using bad arguments to support any idea of your choosing.