-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Find-the-fallacy game
- Thread starter stealthyeliminator
- Start date
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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).
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).
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
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 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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Oh yea good catches!
I like this game there should be more like. Helps sharpen the mind in catching the fallacies.
I like this game there should be more like. Helps sharpen the mind in catching the fallacies.
eye95
Well-known member
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>
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>
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
+1 And I was sickened how they danced in the blood of our children to push their agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_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.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
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:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
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
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
All of them.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
All of them... along with being an " Oxymoron"
My .02
Best regards.
CCJ
My .02
Best regards.
CCJ
Last edited: