|
|
Symbolism Fallacy?With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, social media, as usual, has been the usual rolling trainwreck of bad takes, questionable statements and unabashed grave dancing & celebrations of her death, due to the her position as British momarch and the legacy of the British Empire. The latter seems to be way more common online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/09/irish-reaction-queen-death/ https://www.newsweek.com/why-black-twitter-fire-after-queen-elizabeth-second-death-1741410 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-elizabeths-death-revives-criticism-britains-legacy-colonialism-rcna46942 https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-dead-ireland-india-commonwealth-republic-1741243 The most common argument for celebrating her death is the symbol she provided for the British monarchy as well as claims that she upheld imperialism, colonialism and capitalism while she was on the throne. Events from before she was norn, The argument goes something like this: A: Elizabeth, as Queen, is a symbol of the British monarchy as well as the royal family. B: The monarchy (the symbol) and the empire go hand in hand, therefore anything the empire did is on the hands of the monarchy. X: The British Empire committed genocide/war crimes/famine/imperialism/colonialism under the monarchy, including the Irish Potato Famine, the Plantations, the famines in India, the Scramble for Africa and the Atlantic Slave Trade Y: Regardless of time period, the actions of the empire and the symbol it provided via the monarchy still go hand in hand, therefore Elizabeth is a symbol of the actions of the empire. Z: Therefore, since she is a symbol of a empire that did horrible things, Elizabeth is a war criminal/genocide supporter/murderer/wealth hoarder/supporter of slavery therefore it's morally justified to celebrate her death. |
| asked on Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 04:30:21 AM by Douglas Arndell | |
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."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
The main argument here seems to be that QE was a "symbol" of the bad things the British Empire did. Admittedly, I am not even remotely knowledgeable on the actions of QE in her lifetime, but assuming those who don't like her, don't like her based on the actions of her predecessors, then we might be dealing with ad hominem (guilt by association) . The extent of the fallacy is based on how much control/influence she did have over the alleged negative actions committed. For example, it is far more fallacious if she is blamed for actions before her lifetime, but far more reasonable to be blamed for actions within her lifetime that she could have condemned but chose not to. |
| answered on Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 07:33:07 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
