|
|
Is this committing a fallacy/ is it A priori? HELP ASAP"Political dissent is anti-democracy"
i know since dissent means sharing/expressing opinions and democracy is basically the government of the people's opinions so the statement would be a contradiction right? so would this be considered a negation of "Political dissent is democracy" thus making it a A priori statement, or is this either an evaluative or empirical statement just committing the fallacy of inconsistency?? PLEAASE HELPP ASAP!!! |
| asked on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2016 03:22:07 PM by leyla | |
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."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
It is technically possible to a democracy when all people share the same ideas. In other words, dissent is not a necessary condition for democracy. In practice, however, it is an important part - but that would have to be argued. So I do not see any fallacy in the statement, just poor reasoning. I would classify "Political dissent is anti-democracy" as an opinion.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2016 04:25:07 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |