I'm not sure of the type of fallacy used here

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question

Someone who says we as socially discriminate against things all the time, whether it's brands of fabric softeners we use, cereals we eat, cars we drive, clothes we wear, so why not discriminate against people of color, different nationalities, or people with handicaps? Does the word discriminate mean the same thing in both scenarios? I can sense something is wrong with these two comparisons.

Answers

The definition of "discriminate" is "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of." The word discriminate is used correctly in both cases. In the first, the user is distinguishing the features of one brand of fabric softener compared to another, and in the second, the user is identifying the features of a particular race. The big difference is that, in the first case, the conclusions come about from hard evidence, when that is almost never true in the second case. Not knowing any more in particular about the situation, I would have to say the fallacy is a non sequitur .

Not so fast. While in the case of a ‘fabric softener’ “hard evidence” (e.g., cost, performance, bio-degradability, etc.) may be at play, in a plethora of other examples the criteria used to ‘discriminate’ is purely subjective (flavor, texture, color, etc.). Bo accurately termed this as “preference” and it need not involve hard evidence.

The use of ‘discriminate’ (or discrimination) in a racial context most frequently involves extrapolating from personal negative experience(s) with an individual(s) comprising a dissimilar race, to form correspondingly negative opinions about that race as a genre. Even if the formative experiences are valid they would need to be overwhelmingly (& IMOP, impossibly) repetitive, and without alternative explanation, to warrant racial discrimination. In this context this strikes me as a fallacy of extrapolation.

A couple of things wrong here. First, I do agree that the word "discriminate" is being used differently, so this would be Equivocation . In the first example you provide, "discriminate" is more of a preference, whereas when related to people we are talking about an action or behavior that affects another person or group's well-being. Second, if a behavior is acceptable under one situation, it does not mean it is acceptable under all situations. Ignoring the equivocation, if it is okay to "discriminate" against Coke because one prefers Pepsi, that does not make it okay to discriminate against people of color. This is a common form of simple thinking where nuance is ignored and fallacious reasoning ensues as a result.

I think it's a form of a non sequitur: "it does not follow" and more clearly, "this is not that."

That's like saying:
- we allow the killing of mosquitoes, so why not allow the killing of neighbors.
- we allow driving cars on freeways , so why not allow driving golf carts on freeways .
- we allow our spouse and children to live in our house, so why not allow our work colleagues and their children to live in our house.

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