This forces person B to explain this to person A instead of discussing why or why not they think people shouldn't use that word.
Understanding red herring fallacy free#
Person A: "Freedom of speech! I have a right to state my opinion! This is censorship!" What is actually communicated is "I can say what I want", but person A has conflated that simple concept with the concept of free speech or worse yet: censorship. Person B criticises Person A's use of a slur. Person A: " Nazis are marching on the streets, we need to stop them from spreading fascist ideas!" Person B: "Islamic extremism also spreads fascist ideas, why don't you criticize them?" The fitting response would be: "because they're not marching the streets at this moment, fighting for more acceptance.".By eliminating sexual innuendo from the media, we can prevent its need."
Understanding red herring fallacy plus#
Logic chopping is essentially quibbling plus unnecessary philosophy. Logic chopping occurs when often-useful yet time-consuming and often-misunderstood tools of logic (such as converting arguments into syllogisms) are either (a) required of from the speaker, making them waste time rather than make their points, (b) used to disguise the true meaning of a statement, or (c) to turn a simple issue into a complex and difficult philosophical argument. Quibbling applies almost any time when there's more argument over what someone meant than over whether it's true, except when someone's completely incomprehensible. Quibbling occurs when a very small part of a person's argument, often the extremely precise meaning of a word, is focused on, rather than the argument as a whole.
0 kommentar(er)
