What is this fallacy that person 2 made
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Person 1: heroin is highly addictive therefore its bad for people
Person 2: heroin isn't addictive because addiction was around before heroin
Answers
3Ad hoc Rescue or an MSU ( making shit up) non-sequitur. The history of addiction has nothing to do with the physically addictive properties of Heroin.
When a result can happen due to multiple causes but we miss some of them, our conclusion will be false and that would be a case of affirming the consequent .
The argument here is:
Something caused addiction to people before the invention of heroin, for example coca leaves.
coca => addiction
We have addiction therefore we have THAT which caused addiction before the invention of HEROIN (and therefore the cause is not heroin).
addiction => coca
We know that
coca => addiction
and we miss that
heroin => addiction
"The existence of a kind of thing does not allow the existence of new things of the same kind."
That's a made-up rule. This would be wishful thinking
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course