Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
Logically speaking, when the implications of condition A make condition B impossible, you have the fallacy contradictio in adjecto, or conflicting conditions. "I don't care what you believe" implies that what person Y believes is irrelevant to person X. However, adding "as long as your beliefs don't harm others" implies that at some hypothetical point, person X will care what person Y believes - hence, it isn't irrelevant. The same would go for your example. Practically speaking, though, anyone in person X's position is simply trying to say that their tolerance for difference of belief ends at active harm, in other words, their patience, like everyone else's, has a cutoff point. Thus, it is really not worth it to call 'fallacy' on someone, especially since tolerance lies on a spectrum. Remember the exception to this rule: "When the self-contradictory statement is not put forth as an argument, but rather as an ironic statement, perhaps with the intent to convey some kind of deeper truth or meaning, but not necessarily to be taken literally, then this fallacy is not committed." |
answered on Monday, Mar 29, 2021 10:07:30 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
False Equivalence |
|||
answered on Monday, Mar 29, 2021 09:34:19 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | ||||
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|
|
The second statement is a separate argument to the first, so it becomes impossible to argue that your beliefs don't harm others without refuting the first statement, which is a statement of a subjective nature that you cannot refute evidentially. |
answered on Tuesday, Mar 30, 2021 08:17:38 AM by GoblinCookie | |
GoblinCookie Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
This looks like a discussion of the Non-Aggression Princple. My experience is it evokes emotions that destroy the discussion. In the 3,000 years of NAP debate, each side seems to have dug in its heels. It is a moral issue, not a logical issue. |
answered on Tuesday, Mar 30, 2021 06:11:50 PM by Dr. Richard | |
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|