|
|
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."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
