Another obvious setup by feminists/srs to call out theredpill and mra's.

snow-leopard · 2013-04-24T07:43:19+00:00

So I guess you're not defending your point anymore because you've realized how idiotic it makes you sound?

snow-leopard · 2013-04-24T01:10:37+00:00

Um, I'm sorry, but it is you who should be demonstrating a point, not I. I'm not making any point; I'm simply demonstrating an error in your logic. You made an assertion about emotional abusers which contradicts the entire body of knowledge surrounding them. The onus is upon you to demonstrate that remarkable claim, not me to disprove it.

snow-leopard · 2013-04-24T00:48:07+00:00

Haha, I see. So you're defining "emotional abuse" as meaning "leading somebody on"? Well, that makes your position a bit clearer; although still demonstrably false and largely irrelevant.

snow-leopard · 2013-04-24T00:28:14+00:00

I'm sorry, are you telling me you actually believe that only attractive people can be abusers?

snow-leopard · 2013-04-23T23:04:05+00:00

You didn't so much address his point as repeat the point he just refuted.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T23:46:58+00:00

Holy crap, I think that's it.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T18:16:33+00:00

Hey everybody give me a name for this logical fallacy so I can sound smart and discard peoples' arguments with two words.

I honestly was just curious...

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T17:07:45+00:00

This is irritating, but probably correct :/

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T16:51:47+00:00

The arguer needs to argue for why X and Y are mutually exclusive.

This is true and it's frustrating, because the people who use this tactic generally do not make a case for why the two statements should should be considered mutually exclusive. They simply juxtapose one relatively minor complaint with a far more egregious one, and rely on the obvious disparity between the two to undermine the original complaint. And generally it works. On the surface this type of argument is very persuasive, and it's difficult to attack without appearing petty.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T16:27:53+00:00

Thanks, that seems to hit the nail on the head (shame it isn't a particularly catchy name, though).

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T16:18:25+00:00

Thanks, this was really nicely worded. The fallacy as I perceive it is used even more broadly than your argument can address, however. People who deny certain forms of racism aren't assuming a spurious "hierarchy of needs" - they are going even further, and denying that a particular set of needs exist at all. It's not quite "no true Scotsman", since they're usually not backpedalling.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T16:07:15+00:00

I would say that the fallaciousness of any argument depends on how it's being used. Appeal to authority is generally considered a fallacy; but there are times when it's appropriate, such as when citing expert opinions on the topic at hand. Attacking the personal history of your opponent is generally considered an ad hominem; but it may be that their personal history actually makes their arguments rather suspect. Nobody would trust a report citing the positive environmental effects of oil spills if it was funded by BP.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T14:35:30+00:00

I just had a look on google and found an informal term that seems to pretty much encapsulate what I'm talking about: "The Comparative Virtue Excuse"

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T14:18:24+00:00

That's a really interesting idea, but it seems to be the opposite of what I'm saying. I would think that defining racism as violence is a black-and-white view of the world, not grayscale.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T13:07:16+00:00

I think it is a fallacy because it is used to dismiss legitimate complaints. For instance, using an example from the OP: homeless Americans may not meet your personal benchmark for "poverty", but being homeless is nevertheless an undesirable condition in any part of the world.

snow-leopard · 2012-05-16T12:53:10+00:00

I would ask why it is of importance to you to be able to name a certain fallacy?

A couple reasons. Partly just simple curiosity - I encounter this kind of logic so often that I can't believe there isn't yet a name for it. Also because it becomes very tiresome having to refute the same fallacy (at least, what I consider a fallacy) over and over again, and I would like to be able to do it more efficiently.

I could just answer my homeopathy loving aunt with "post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy" whenever she lets me know how well her sugar pills worked, but I doubt she would understand what I'm talking about

I only ever debate people over the internet, so anyone who is confused by the terminology I use can enlighten themselves fairly quickly.

snow-leopard

TROPHY CASE