|
|
Is it a fallacy to add a related word before an object to imply a change when there is no change?In a discussion on freedom, someone tried to argue with me that taxes through labor social programs in their country, can provide the following (freedoms).....
Freedom to work if your a woman. Freedom to not be discriminated against if disabled, gay or a Muslim. Freedom to have 6 weeks paid holiday a year. But I maintained that these are just a collection of labor laws created, and are not freedoms in the political sense and definition of the word. Rather these things are objects that the person identified as freedoms merely by placing the word “freedom” before them to try to use them in their arguement. I can grill out hamburgers. If someone passes a law that significantly lowers the cost of beef, I do not somehow suddenly have “The freedom to grill steak without fear of going bankrupt”. No freedom actually granted here in the political sense of the word. Regardless of whether one agrees or not, is merely adding a related word in this manner to imply a change a fallacy? What kind? |
| asked on Thursday, Jul 04, 2019 10:54:34 AM by Jeff | |
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.
|
|
This is a common rhetorical technique used to associate a positive word with an idea that is being sold. You could use a reductio and just ask something similar to your hamburger analogy:
"If taxes through labor social programs result in 'freedom to work if your a woman,' then can't we say they also result in 'freedom to have less money'?" I can see how using the definition of freedom: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint," this can be argued both ways. On the one hand, the taxes do not grant these freedoms (the freedoms already exist without the taxes). On the other hand, the taxes could be argued remove some hindrance or restraint. In summary, I don't see any fallacious reasoning here, just rhetoric that may be best met with rhetoric (the reductio). |
| answered on Thursday, Jul 04, 2019 11:11:04 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Hey, I agree with Bo.
|
| answered on Thursday, Jul 04, 2019 02:16:52 PM by Bill |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Equivocation
|
| answered on Thursday, Jul 04, 2019 02:26:20 PM by Bryan |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
I think it depends a lot on how you view freedom. Do you see it as a positive thing ( Freedom to do something without restriction) Or a negative thing. ( Freedom From the things that keep you from doing something)
In a negative sense; he/she is free FROM whatever is blocking them from being able to work if your a woman. Freedom from discrimination if disabled, gay or a Muslim. being able to have 6 weeks paid holiday a year. We can find freedom in a positive sense of deciding to do something We can find freedom in a negative sense from whatever binds us. The prisoner seeks freedom from the shackles that bind him. A person can't be free to worship as he pleases unless he is free FROM your religion. |
| answered on Saturday, Jul 06, 2019 04:06:11 AM by Bryan |
Comments |
|
| |