Is this committing a fallacy/ is it A priori? HELP ASAP
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
"Political dissent is anti-democracy"
i know since dissent means sharing/expressing opinions and democracy is basically the government of the people's opinions
so the statement would be a contradiction right? so would this be considered a negation of "Political dissent is democracy" thus making it a A priori statement, or is this either an evaluative or empirical statement just committing the fallacy of inconsistency??
PLEAASE HELPP ASAP!!!
i know since dissent means sharing/expressing opinions and democracy is basically the government of the people's opinions
so the statement would be a contradiction right? so would this be considered a negation of "Political dissent is democracy" thus making it a A priori statement, or is this either an evaluative or empirical statement just committing the fallacy of inconsistency??
PLEAASE HELPP ASAP!!!
Answers
1It is technically possible to a democracy when all people share the same ideas. In other words, dissent is not a necessary condition for democracy. In practice, however, it is an important part - but that would have to be argued. So I do not see any fallacy in the statement, just poor reasoning. I would classify "Political dissent is anti-democracy" as an opinion.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course