|
|
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."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
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 |
|
| |