Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Find-the-fallacy game

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Find-the-fallacy game

    How many logical fallacies can you find in the attached photo?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1525600_10152449914875968_177487419_n.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	74.6 KB 
ID:	11080  
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 01-04-2014 at 09:19 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Vivid misleading and appeal to emotion jump right of the page at me.

    Then there seems to be a slight ad hominem by the labe "activists" compared to moms.

    The statistics don't support the claim of parents loosing their children to guns. ( years ago I wrote an op-ed entitled Forget Gun Control We Need Parent Control, tongue in cheek statement to show statistically children die at the hands of their mothers at a tremendously higher rate than firearms).
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    What jumped out at me the most is what I would (possibly not accurately) describe as a false dilemma. The statement seems to assert that the choice is either guns or children - obviously that is not the case. There are more than these two options, and they are non-exclusive. The suggestion that one must chose one or the other, and that the options are conflicting, is false.

    The statements also seems to improperly generalize the "sides" of the issue. It imposes that one is either a gun activist, or a mother, and that the two groups are pinned against each other. In actuality, though, many mothers are gun activists, and I'm sure that the vast majority of them are both for their guns and their children. Perhaps even for their guns because they're for their children. I'm not sure how to identify this though as any particular logical fallacy, perhaps someone can help identify. It may be several.
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Oh yea good catches!

    I like this game there should be more like. Helps sharpen the mind in catching the fallacies.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Not losing gun rights will not cause the losing of children. I would go so far as to argue the opposite. GGs with guns at Sandy Hook would have caused FEWER deaths among the children.

    I blame the anti crowd for the scale of the carnage (and actually the very existence of that carnage) at Sandy Hook.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Not losing gun rights will not cause the losing of children. I would go so far as to argue the opposite. GGs with guns at Sandy Hook would have caused FEWER deaths among the children.

    I blame the anti crowd for the scale of the carnage (and actually the very existence of that carnage) at Sandy Hook.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    +1 And I was sickened how they danced in the blood of our children to push their agenda.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...e_single_cause
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy (eg "valuing guns above children is wrong, therefore gun control will win").
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

    The number of fallacies kind of depends on how you interpret the argument. If it's just making a prediction about whether gun control or gun rights will win, which is the weakest reading, then it contains relatively few fallacies. It seems implicit that it's also arguing for gun control on a moral basis, though. In that case you can add straw man, since parents (ostensibly) care about their children as children, whereas gun owners care about guns less as things-in-themselves than because of their functions (preservation of life and liberty, acquisition of food, recreation, etc). So the comparison would really be more like:

    Parents care about losing their kids
    Gun owners care about losing their rights, freedoms, lives, food sources, and hobbies.

    I think this sort of excluded "why" is maybe its own unique kind of fallacy. Maybe it should be called the politicians fallacy. When arguing to ban, tax, or regulate something, it is treated purely as a thing-in-itself with no actual function or material benefit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    What jumped out at me the most is what I would (possibly not accurately) describe as a false dilemma. The statement seems to assert that the choice is either guns or children - obviously that is not the case. There are more than these two options, and they are non-exclusive. The suggestion that one must chose one or the other, and that the options are conflicting, is false.

    The statements also seems to improperly generalize the "sides" of the issue. It imposes that one is either a gun activist, or a mother, and that the two groups are pinned against each other. In actuality, though, many mothers are gun activists, and I'm sure that the vast majority of them are both for their guns and their children. Perhaps even for their guns because they're for their children. I'm not sure how to identify this though as any particular logical fallacy, perhaps someone can help identify. It may be several.
    The false paradigm.

    I caught that too, thinking that, "Wait, most of us pro-gun people want our guns to be able to keep 'our' children protected."
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-05-2014 at 02:06 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Brace View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...e_single_cause
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy (eg "valuing guns above children is wrong, therefore gun control will win").
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

    The number of fallacies kind of depends on how you interpret the argument. If it's just making a prediction about whether gun control or gun rights will win, which is the weakest reading, then it contains relatively few fallacies. It seems implicit that it's also arguing for gun control on a moral basis, though. In that case you can add straw man, since parents (ostensibly) care about their children as children, whereas gun owners care about guns less as things-in-themselves than because of their functions (preservation of life and liberty, acquisition of food, recreation, etc). So the comparison would really be more like:

    Parents care about losing their kids
    Gun owners care about losing their rights, freedoms, lives, food sources, and hobbies.

    I think this sort of excluded "why" is maybe its own unique kind of fallacy. Maybe it should be called the politicians fallacy. When arguing to ban, tax, or regulate something, it is treated purely as a thing-in-itself with no actual function or material benefit.
    Wow thank you, all good stuff. I did consider after posting that some "inference" is needed in order to consider the statement by MDA "an argument" but, when you take a step back, IDK, I think it's pretty clear that it's meant to persuade. The only question that really came up in my mind is, who? I began to question if the goal is really to appeal to non-followers (perhaps I'm over-estimating the intelligence or character of the general public), or primarily just to already-followers (who probably eat the posted picture up and allow it to appeal directly to their emotions) in order to garner more money.

    If someone find another good picture or quote (not from a post here, don't want a bash-fest or flame war) you could post and we could keep the thread going with fresh content to analyze/criticize/critique Might be fun brain exercise. I think I've learned something from every single post so far in this thread
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    How many logical fallacies can you find in the attached photo?
    All of them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    The false dilemma is an artifact of the dialectic, of a thesis holding ONE ONLY antithesis from which to synthesize the conclusion. One antithesis excludes all of the middling ones, the excluded middle. The failure and fallacy of the Hegelian Marxian dialectic.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    All of them... along with being an " Oxymoron"

    My .02

    Best regards.

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 01-04-2014 at 08:50 PM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •