What is the logical fallacy that feminists commonly use to vandalize during protests?

Question

Kuda	What is the logical fallacy that feminists commonly use to vandalize during protests? Protestant reasoning is usually formulated as follows: 1. Person 1 states that protesting violently about a violent act that was committed against a woman is wrong. 2. Person 2 (who is the feminist who protests) states that violence is the only way the authorities can listen to them.
	asked on Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 12:42:19 PM by Kuda
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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

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

Bill 0	I suppose that the fallacy you're fishing for is that "Two Wrongs (Don't) Make a Right." But your question is quite loaded. In any case, moral justifications can get very complicated. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (violent act). US responded by declaring war (violent act). Was that wrong? Don't oversimplify complicated questions.
	answered on Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 01:07:37 PM by Bill
Comments

Bo Bennett, PhD 0	Let's remove any bias here and get to the heart of the question: 1. Person 1 states that protesting violently about a violent act that was committed is wrong. 2. The protester (person 2) states that violence is the only way the authorities can listen to them. Person 1 is stating an opinion (unfalsifiable). Person 2 is also stating an opinion, but one that is falsifiable. Non-violent protests have a history of effectiveness, so person 2's position is easier to argue against. I see no fallacies.
	answered on Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 01:19:05 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Comments

Scott A. Shepler 0	There is no fallacy in the example itself, it's opinion. But the presenter is attempting a heavily bias Loaded/Leading/Complex Question fallacy.
	answered on Sunday, Aug 18, 2019 05:04:45 PM by Scott A. Shepler
Comments

DrBill 0	Person 1 is expressing an opinion "violence is wrong" with a criticism of the "tu quoque" fallacy implied by 'fighting fire with fire' phrasing of the question. Person 2 is using "special pleading" to justify 'fighting fire with fire', with the implied argument from ignorance "what else can one do"
	answered on Monday, Aug 19, 2019 12:41:20 PM by DrBill
Comments