|
|
What type of emotional fallacies are this?So I have encountered this series of confusing statements when I started mentioning MJ had abuse claims.
Person A (Me): So Leaving Neverland had two more child sex abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. Person B (Defender/Fan): Those accusations against him has been disproven. Person A: But that was a previous case. These are new accusations, not to mention the 3rd this decade. Person B: But those accusations will always come out, besides I believe he's smart enough not to do that plus I personally believe that he would never do that because it would jepordize his reputation. Person A: But.... Person B: Plus he's dead and the timing of it is weird, and he changed! Plus I enjoy his music. |
| asked on Thursday, Mar 07, 2019 05:53:51 AM by Douglas Arndell | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Person A (Me): So Leaving Neverland had two more child sex abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. Perhaps you were interrupted here, but you should be clear and to the point. Otherwise, your discussion can go in all different directions. For example, "So Leaving Neverland had two more child sex abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. I am convinced that MJ was a pedophile. " Person B (Defender/Fan): Those accusations against him has been disproven. I understand this as person B is saying the accusations featured in the documentary were disproven, not the previous ones. This is simply factually incorrect. Person A: But that was a previous case. These are new accusations, not to mention the 3rd this decade. This could be seen as strawman on your part (but most likely a misunderstanding). Again, if person B was referring to the current accusations, then you are responding to an argument/response person B did not make. Person B: But those accusations will always come out, Non sequitur. Assuming "those accusations will always come out" is true, this is irreverent to the truth of the claims. besides I believe he's smart enough not to do that... Appeal to faith. plus I personally believe that he would never do that because it would jepordize his reputation. Argument from incredulity. .... continues with much of the same; responses that are irrelevant to the truth of the claims being made. |
| answered on Thursday, Mar 07, 2019 06:13:33 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
It sounds as if someone simply doesn't want to believe the evidence. The claim that if you enjoy the music, MJ must be innocent, is irrelevant to the conclusion. (Sadly, many great artists have been evil men or women.) We hear this same kind of thinking in politics (Kamala Harris is a great candidate, so the accusations about her misconduct as a prosecutor are wrong; Trump is a great president, and therefore the accusations about Russian collusion are wrong, etc.)
|
| answered on Thursday, Mar 07, 2019 08:23:32 AM by Bill |
Comments |
|
| |