What is the falllacy of creating bad circumstances but only blaming the outcome of it (one that works in your favor)?

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question

For example if someone were to insist you buy their car tires that they're vending, but you insist you don't need them because you already have functioning tires for your car.

So after ignoring your arguments and failing to convince you time and again to buy their tires, the person eventually slashes you tires with a sharp weapon or a tool, making them useless.

This eventually forces you to buy their tires, being left with no option.

But after expressing anger at them for having to buy their expensive tires and suffering the financial burden of it and blaming them, they reply "but your tires don't work" essentially, only sticking to the circumstances and not what caused them in an obvious attempt to relieve themselves of any accountability.

Basically leaving out the most important piece of information in the first place- that they slashed your previous tires in the first place.

They keep on repeating the circumstances, as if you don't get it, without admitting to their cause of it.

What fallacy is this? Does anyone know. BTW has anyone faced this in life?

I'm in Pakistan now. It just gives me a happy feeling that I can connect to you folks from just about anywhere in the world.

Answers

The fallacy expressed in this scenario could be identified as "Denying the Antecedent," where one essentially argues that the cause is irrelevant because the outcome is true. The vendor is ignoring or denying their initial action (i.e., slashing the tires) which is the real cause of the outcome (i.e., the necessity to buy new tires), and instead, focusing solely on the outcome.

Additionally, it may also involve elements of "Begging the Question" where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. In this case, focusing on the slashed tires situation while omitting the information about who caused the situation.

In everyday life, this kind of fallacy can occur when someone tries to deflect blame or avoid responsibility for their actions by maintaining focus on the effect of those actions and avoiding the cause.

There's no fallacy here. This is extortion.

I think the fallacy that best describes the situation as a whole is retrogressive causation . The tire salesman, in an effort to get you to have better tires, goes about it by destroying your tires.

But, in the end section of the scenario, where the tire salesman uses the excuse of "but your tires don't work" to deflect from the fact that he was the one who destroyed them, that would be an example of rationalization .

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