Question

...
Bob

What fallacy is this? Dictators support attacks on journalists. Therefore if you attack one journalists opinion, you are pro-dictator.
asked on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:47:59 PM by Bob

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
See Dr. Bo's Fallacies of Composition or Division aka Part-to-whole or whole-to-part fallacies.
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:53:07 PM by mchasewalker

Comments
...
Abdulazeez
0
Since some errors in reasoning can be classified into many fallacies, I think the one you mentioned is an ad hominem (guilt by association)<> and also can be considered as a false equivalence<>
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:55:56 PM by Abdulazeez

Comments
...
lun
0
It seems to me to be a fallacy of affirming the consequent which falls under non sequitor
The statements sound like,
If u r a pro-dictator, then u support attack on journalists
You support attack on journalists
Therefore, u r a pro-dictator
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 10:04:12 PM by lun

Comments
...
modelerr
0
I can see either false equivalence or non sequitur displayed in this conspicuous fallacy. But IMOP more important than the specific type of fallacy present is the intuitively obvious absence of REASON present.

A real-world illustration:

Joseph Goebbles was the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment & Propaganda under Adolf Hitler. In short, he was responsible for dissemination of all state -supported news, opinion & propaganda under this dictatorship. Making the simplifying assumption he is
a proxy for all like-minded journalists within this Nazi regime, consistent with this fallacies' proposition, anyone DISAGREEING with Goebbles would be supporting this Nazi Dictatorship, which is absurd. QED, we have a glaring fallacy.
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 10:36:36 PM by modelerr

Comments
...
modelerr
0
My problem is two different interpretations of “attack”. Is it verbal? Physical? Even fatal? All journalists are subject to question. If the journalist lives to be questioned a second time, then there is no problem. The issue is in the silencing, not he attack.
answered on Monday, Dec 03, 2018 05:44:36 AM by modelerr

Comments
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

There are two significant problems with this argument. The first is use of the term "attack." It can be reasonably assumed that the arguer is referring to physical attacks on journalists of the dictators. In the second use of the word "attack" the arguer is specifically referring to "attacks on opinion," which quite different from chopping a journalist into pieces or similar (the implied use of "attack" by dictators). This is the equivocation fallacy<>.

The second problem has to do with the form of the argument:

(If you are a) Dictator, (then you) support attacks on journalists.
Therefore, if you attack one journalists opinion, you are pro-dictator.

the form being...

If P then Q.
Therefore, if Q then P.

Another example of this is:

If I have herpes, then I have a strange rash.
Therefore, if I have a strange rash, then I have herpes.

One can obviously have non-herpes rashes.

This is the fallacy known as Commutation of Conditionals where we are switching the antecedent and the consequent in a logical argument.

{date-time stamp}Saturday, Mar 09, 2019 04:59 PM{/date-time stamp}
I took a little artistic license by referring to this as a Commutation of Conditionals Fallacy because, as pointed out to me, the propositions used are not exact, which is required in a formal argument/fallacy. See my comments below as to why I think this fallacy works well for this example.
answered on Monday, Dec 03, 2018 07:02:15 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments