Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality: Difference between revisions
New page: ==Straw Man== The Straw man is a common [http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html logical fallacy], in which the opponent builds an exaggerated, caricatured or ludicrous version of yo... |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Make sure to point out association fallacies, in which an opponent may say that, for e.g. ''most swingers (who are sexually liberated people) think lowly of sex with minors''. This would be ''honor by association'', i.e. the swingers, with whom the ultimate title of 'sexual liberation' is identified 'think lowly' of our most important arguments, which must therefore be false ideals of liberation. The opponent might as well say that house music is dire, since classical musicians (the 'only true musicians') supposedly denounce it as so. The 'swinger' argument is also faulty because it assumes that such people are the model for sexual liberation, when in fact they are just one ''subculture'', one thread of the cloth. The argument also puts beliefs into our swingers' heads, when in fact, they may be even more liberal than most regarding child sexuality. If this is so, maybe we are more entitled to this fallacy! | Make sure to point out association fallacies, in which an opponent may say that, for e.g. ''most swingers (who are sexually liberated people) think lowly of sex with minors''. This would be ''honor by association'', i.e. the swingers, with whom the ultimate title of 'sexual liberation' is identified 'think lowly' of our most important arguments, which must therefore be false ideals of liberation. The opponent might as well say that house music is dire, since classical musicians (the 'only true musicians') supposedly denounce it as so. The 'swinger' argument is also faulty because it assumes that such people are the model for sexual liberation, when in fact they are just one ''subculture'', one thread of the cloth. The argument also puts beliefs into our swingers' heads, when in fact, they may be even more liberal than most regarding child sexuality. If this is so, maybe we are more entitled to this fallacy! | ||
A ''guilt by association'' fallacy would work similarly. For example, [[Nikki Craft]] attempts to discredit the late [[Ralph Underwager]] by referring to his interview with [[Paidika]], and [[Paul Okami]] by suggesting that undesirable groups use his work to their advantage. None of this alters the arguments' merit. | |||
==Others== | ==Others== | ||
Other fallacies include personal attacks, circular arguments, non sequiturs, appeals to popularity, authority, pity and emotion. You will automatically pick up on a lot of these, but it is best to read up on [http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html logical fallacies], so that you can increase your vigilance, and avoid making a confused or emotional comment yourself (maybe in response to a logical fallacy that you 'can't quite put your finger on'). | Other fallacies include personal attacks, circular arguments, non sequiturs, appeals to popularity, authority, pity and emotion. You will automatically pick up on a lot of these, but it is best to read up on [http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html logical fallacies], so that you can increase your vigilance, and avoid making a confused or emotional comment yourself (maybe in response to a logical fallacy that you 'can't quite put your finger on'). | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 18 June 2008
Straw Man
The Straw man is a common logical fallacy, in which the opponent builds an exaggerated, caricatured or ludicrous version of your argument. They may simply parade the stupidity of the straw man, or take what you said out of context, and then argue against it. An example of parading / floating a straw man is as follows:
- "The censorers are coming! They're going to stop the free exercise of "luring" little kids into pornography or sex slavery! GAWD HELP US ALLL!1111" (DaninGraniteCity, IIDB, 2006)
In a more dangerous example, someone may establish that you are trying to force yourself upon children, by relaxing the age of consent (in fact, you advocate no law that requires children to behave sexually at all). They may then build a detailed critique of such a straw man, i.e. they will burn the straw man. Always point out that they are arguing aimlessly, and don't try to defend opinions that have been attributed to you via the straw man. Criticise the assumptions that they make, and maybe even take what they say to it's ludicrous, logical conclusion, i.e. a rational straw man.
Association Fallacy
Make sure to point out association fallacies, in which an opponent may say that, for e.g. most swingers (who are sexually liberated people) think lowly of sex with minors. This would be honor by association, i.e. the swingers, with whom the ultimate title of 'sexual liberation' is identified 'think lowly' of our most important arguments, which must therefore be false ideals of liberation. The opponent might as well say that house music is dire, since classical musicians (the 'only true musicians') supposedly denounce it as so. The 'swinger' argument is also faulty because it assumes that such people are the model for sexual liberation, when in fact they are just one subculture, one thread of the cloth. The argument also puts beliefs into our swingers' heads, when in fact, they may be even more liberal than most regarding child sexuality. If this is so, maybe we are more entitled to this fallacy!
A guilt by association fallacy would work similarly. For example, Nikki Craft attempts to discredit the late Ralph Underwager by referring to his interview with Paidika, and Paul Okami by suggesting that undesirable groups use his work to their advantage. None of this alters the arguments' merit.
Others
Other fallacies include personal attacks, circular arguments, non sequiturs, appeals to popularity, authority, pity and emotion. You will automatically pick up on a lot of these, but it is best to read up on logical fallacies, so that you can increase your vigilance, and avoid making a confused or emotional comment yourself (maybe in response to a logical fallacy that you 'can't quite put your finger on').