Reductio Ad Aburdum and false accusation of false analogy/false equivalence + strawman??
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Person B: '' You can argue for/justify any action with that logic due to the fact that the premise is simply your desire or feelings and any act can be derived from that and argued for under that premise, including child rape''.
Person A ''Comparing or equating doing meth with child rape is a false analogy or false equivalence fallacy''
Person B ''That is a strawman fallacy because of the fact that my argument makes no comparison and doesn't equate the two actions but simply points out the logical implications or logical consequences of YOUR logic and what actions could be derived and argued for from the aforesaid premise. There is no comparison or equating between the two actions themselves.''
Answers
2Not a fallacy, just a statement.
Person A ''Comparing or equating doing meth with child rape is a false analogy or false equivalence fallacy''
Definitely a fallacy. As you pointed out you were not equating the two, but merely pointing out
the Slippery Slope of that kind of justification.
"I will do X because I feel like doing it" is Self-Sealing Argument or a vacuous statement. This is like saying "where ever you go, there you are." I get the impression that Person A meant "I CAN do X because I feel like doing it" or this is what is being argued. Moving on assuming we are arguing "can" here and not "will."
Person B presented a solid reductio.
Person A missed the point of the reductio. Also misused those fallacies. Person B was not comparing the two behaviors; they noted two behaviors that would be justified under the rule.
Person B... said in different words what I wrote above.
Person A is not getting the reasoning here. Person B's only potential error is assuming Person A meant "can." Assuming no other context was given, Person B should have verified what was meant because again, "I will do it because I feel like it" is not a justification; it is tautology. The person won't rape a child because they might not feel like doing it, so technically, person B's reductio would fall apart (or at least not be as meaningful) if they really meant "will" and not "can".
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course