← Back to archive

I didn't need it when i was a kid

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question
Person A claims kids need x
Person b says they didn't need it when they were a kid so they don't need it.

I think this is appeal to tradition of argue from ignorance, but I'm not too sure.

Answers

5

This could also be a form of the historian's fallacy. However, I think the best match is simply the weak analogy.

excuse my englisch and/or assumptions


if person A makes a generalization,
person B can react to the claim including the generelization. stating that kids dont "need" x

if you take it out of kontext, and look at person B's claim seperetly it could state, : kids "might not" need X

important is that person A isnt stating, witch kids need X, so calling person B on its generelization doesnt bring you to the primary fallacy.

in fact it seems that person B atempts to call person A on its fallacy (something with unprovided information i guess)

without B's information A would generalize.









So, essentially the argument is a rejection of an idea solely based on the age of the claimant?

Chronological Snobbery.
I think it is mostly a hasty generalization fallacy. The argument states that because I as a kid (one individual) didn't need X, therefore kids (in general) don't need X.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization

Sounds like an anecdotal fallacy to me

Book

Want the full book?

Get the complete guide to logical fallacies by Bo Bennett.

Buy the Book

Master Logical Fallacies Online

Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.

View Online Course