Two potential fallacies?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
So I have two things that I can't quite put the name to:
First:
Often, I get wrapped up in debates on various topics, but more often, I'm the audience for others debating. The topic in question was if one should ever give permission to law enforcement to search you or your belongings. Person 1 said that they believe that there is never a legitimate reason or circumstance that a person should ever give police permission to search without a warrant. Person 2, on the other hand, says that if you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not allow the police to search. Are either of these statements fallacious? Both seem to be, though Person 2 seems to have the more fallacious statement.
Second:
Whenever I (or seemingly anyone, really), is accused of something, often the accuser will use my lack of denial as proof of admittance. Is this fallacious, and if so, is there a name to it?
First:
Often, I get wrapped up in debates on various topics, but more often, I'm the audience for others debating. The topic in question was if one should ever give permission to law enforcement to search you or your belongings. Person 1 said that they believe that there is never a legitimate reason or circumstance that a person should ever give police permission to search without a warrant. Person 2, on the other hand, says that if you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not allow the police to search. Are either of these statements fallacious? Both seem to be, though Person 2 seems to have the more fallacious statement.
Second:
Whenever I (or seemingly anyone, really), is accused of something, often the accuser will use my lack of denial as proof of admittance. Is this fallacious, and if so, is there a name to it?
Answers
1"There is never a legitimate reason or circumstance that a person should ever give police permission to search without a warrant."
I would not say fallacy, but all it would take is one legitimate reason to refute this absolute claim. For example, the police had a reliable tip that a serial killer just broke into someones home. The police tell this to the homeowner and ask to search their house. Should the family really refuse without a warrant???
"if you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to not allow the police to search."
Again, no fallacy, but an absolute claim that just takes one example to refute. This is more difficult to provide an example because having something to hide can be loosely defined. For example, hiding something illegal vs. hiding something embarrassing (your women's shoes collection you use for cross-dressing). One could argue that principle is reason enough: if we let police in without a warrant, it can set a bad precedent. That is a reason. So the claim is refuted.
Whenever I (or seemingly anyone, really), is accused of something, often the accuser will use my lack of denial as proof of admittance. Is this fallacious, and if so, is there a name to it?
This is known as the argument from silence<>.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course