Fallacy of every act is cultural

Recently I am hearing a logic. I am going to explain it as much as I can.

There is a cultural club alliance in our university. There are sports clubs, social clubs, debating clubs, id est, clubs those are not considered 'cultural' (singing, dancing etc), in the alliance too. So, when asked about the validation of alliance membership of those clubs, the replied logic is: Sports is a part of 'our culture', so is debating, blood donation etc.

But, I think, this is a fallacy, not sure exactly what it is. I think so because in a cultural programme, those debating clubs, sports clubs, and clubs of other forms, don't do things that represent their nature, but they do the usual singing, dancing, recitation etc, id est, activities which are considered cultural in common sense. If 'since sports is a part of culture, therefore sports club is a cultural club', why don't you include a sports segment in a cultural programme? And there are other logic, but I am going to be brief to keep the discussion short.

I think this logic is a fallacy composed of 'faulty comparison' and 'division fallacy'.

So my questions are:
1) Is the logic 'blood donation, sports, debate and other social activities are part of our culture, therefore all clubs and organisations related to these are cultural clubs and organisation' is a fallacy, or not?
2) If it is a fallacy, what kind of fallacy it is?
3) Please give some other examples of this fallacy.

I consider none of the above would constitute a fallacy. The above is a bit confusing.

There would be a possibility there may be a fallacy in the above if there is a specific line of logic that could be evaluated on the criteria of fallacies.

go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

Fallacy of equivocation might fit depending on the ambiguous use of the word culture. In regards to sports I don't recall any society that doesn't have a sport as part of its culture although I'm sure there might be a few. Culture can be used to describe historical things or current ones. It's just too vague.

If you 'think' that 1 + 1 = 2 is logical thinking, then if Rose cures her cancer by thinking that she has no cancer and the doctors say that it is a miracle, then logically 1 + 1 = 2 is not logical thinking.

Culture, sport, debating, arguments etc. are human devices made to make humans behave rationally. Yet the 21st century is infested by wars, millions made homeless, countries refusing to open their borders because their standards of living fall or terrorists enter are logical devices used to protect because humans live in fear pretending to be FREE.

To THINK in any culture is determined by beliefs - if you see a woman covered from head to toe, you are disgusted and is afraid that she is a terrorist while when you see a woman scantily clad, your eyes feast on the gaze and wallow in all kinds of fantasies. Which form is THINKING?

DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT THINKING IS?

Ignatius Udunuwara?

Sorry to answer with a question, but I sense there is more to this question which might help uncover the roots and therefore uncover a fallacy which is being swallowed whole on campus. IS THE QUESTION of whether a sports team is part of culture or not important because, if it IS, then there is a different set of rules governing the way the group is permitted to be set up? (Separate genders "because this is part of our culture"; Cricket instead of Baseball "because this is part of our culture"; No Women on the Chess Team "because this is part of our culture")

You see the question; Why is the relatively nebulous "Culture" being referenced? Perhaps Culture is being referrenced as an "Authority" and the fallacy is there...

Can you explain why "Culture" is important to their discussion?

I am here to learn and not to teach, but it seems like an "appeal to tradition" in that, what is culturally accepted seems to be akin to tradition.

So, the question remains, are they USING "tradition" as the cool-aide for some poison... discouraging cold examination of the some aspect of the club/group? (Such as gender; eg. "Traditionally, in our culture there are only two genders and only one of them plays this sport")... so it seems that it matters why culture has been raised... because, objectively, in our culture there actually have been only two genders recognized for consideration and only one of them has played certain sports (or those two genders play, but in separate leagues)... but those are fallacious reasons to limit, say, membership in a club.

I still have that question but I expect that there is an appeal to tradition fallacy at work.

I stand to be corrected. I am learning.

In my view the OP poses a perfectly good question, though this is masked by the responses I’ve seen from this Forum to date, all of which seemed unable to correctly assess the relevant issue.

The issue at hand is one of Logical Grouping, i.e., whether objective criteria apply to such grouping, and if they do, what constraints on such criteria (if any) exist and whether violation of such constraints constitute a logical fallacy.

The OP’s statement:

“There is a cultural club alliance in our university. There are sports clubs, social clubs, debating clubs, id est, clubs those are not considered 'cultural' (singing, dancing etc), in the alliance too. So, when asked about the validation of alliance membership of those clubs, the replied logic is: Sports is a part of 'our culture', so is debating, blood donation etc.”

The OP goes on to question whether some of the ‘clubs’ belong in the alliance (i.e., with others that implicitly do belong) and whether lumping these clubs in with the others may somehow be logically fallacious.

Most of us probably recall early childhood ‘grouping’ questions, where you are asked to look at pictures of e.g., a dog, cat, bear, mouse and a fish and select ‘the one that doesn’t belong.’ The widely-accepted correct answer, ‘fish’ reflects the consensus that this set of creatures, unlike the others, is GENERALLY cold-blooded, live/swim in the water, breathes through gills, and has fins for limbs.

However, there are numerous exceptions. ‘Lungfish’ breath air without requiring conventional gills. The ‘Opah’ fish is warm blooded. (It can consistently keep its entire body around 5 degrees Celsius warmer than its environment.) There exists a host of ‘fish’ that also exhibit ‘walking’ characteristics and some can exist out of water for days. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal. . .

So, what’s the point, you’re probably asking?

The point is that widely-accepted ‘Grouping’ norms need not contain the precision or exactitude for logical fallacies to apply to perceived exceptions, or deviations.

I would argue this club/alliance ‘Grouping’ issue is related to, and possibly an example of INDUCTIVE REASONING (IR).

IR “is reasoning in which the premise(s) are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a DEDUCTIVE argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence/criteria given.” IR arguments are thus uncertain and are often judged as strong or weak, depending on the assessed probability of the conclusion being true.

Full Circle: ‘CULTURE’ (club) is a extremely broad descriptor. The implied ‘Premise’ is that clubs comprising this Alliance share the common denominator of comprising or contributing in some way to the ‘Culture’ of club members (or perhaps to University Culture or even to ‘Culture’ generally.) The ‘Conclusion’ is that Club X meets these criteria and belongs in the alliance. Without further refinement, this can easily be validated to include most all of the clubs the OP listed (sports, social, debating, singing, dancing, etc.). I have a harder time accepting “Blood Donation” constituting a ‘Culture’ club (except perhaps for Transylvanian transfer students) but even this must be allowed under Inductive Reasoning-type inexactitude.

Thus, given the broadness of the solely-listed Premise/criteria, Culture, IMOP no logical fallacy applies to mentioned clubs admitted to the alliance.

I scrolled through Dr. Bennett's list of fallacies, and I found one that I think fits. It's called the "definist fallacy." The person making a claim defines terms to support his claim. In this case, the Merriam-Webster definition of "culture" is:

a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations
b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>

The person making the claim is expanding the definition to include specific activities of a group, rather than just the overall beliefs of the group.

The main things to understand here are what everyone's definitions of "culture" are, and what the cultural club alliance means to accomplish or support.