Question

...
JohnnyT

Reductio Ad Aburdum and false accusation of false analogy/false equivalence + strawman??

Person A: '' I will do meth since I feel like doing it''


Person B: '' You can argue for/justify any action with that logic due to the fact that the premise is simply your desire or feelings and any act can be derived from that and argued for under that premise, including child rape''.


Person A ''Comparing or equating doing meth with child rape is a false analogy or false equivalence fallacy''

Person B ''That is a strawman fallacy because of the fact that my argument makes no comparison and doesn't equate the two actions but simply points out the logical implications or logical consequences of YOUR logic and what actions could be derived and argued for from the aforesaid premise. There is no comparison or equating between the two actions themselves.''
asked on Tuesday, Aug 06, 2019 07:24:48 PM by JohnnyT

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."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
mchasewalker
0
Person A: '' I will do meth since I feel like doing it''

Not a fallacy, just a statement.

Person A ''Comparing or equating doing meth with child rape is a false analogy or false equivalence fallacy''

Definitely a fallacy. As you pointed out you were not equating the two, but merely pointing out
the Slippery Slope of that kind of justification.
answered on Tuesday, Aug 06, 2019 07:36:00 PM by mchasewalker

Comments
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

"I will do X because I feel like doing it" is Self-Sealing Argument or a vacuous statement. This is like saying "where ever you go, there you are." I get the impression that Person A meant "I CAN do X because I feel like doing it" or this is what is being argued. Moving on assuming we are arguing "can" here and not "will."

Person B presented a solid reductio.

Person A missed the point of the reductio. Also misused those fallacies. Person B was not comparing the two behaviors; they noted two behaviors that would be justified under the rule.

Person B... said in different words what I wrote above.

Person A is not getting the reasoning here. Person B's only potential error is assuming Person A meant "can." Assuming no other context was given, Person B should have verified what was meant because again, "I will do it because I feel like it" is not a justification; it is tautology. The person won't rape a child because they might not feel like doing it, so technically, person B's reductio would fall apart (or at least not be as meaningful) if they really meant "will" and not "can".
answered on Tuesday, Aug 06, 2019 07:41:17 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments