Click to confirm you are 18+

Logical Fallacies XI

Scott CunninghamNov 16, 2018, 9:05:27 PM

Hey hey! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part 11 of my series on here. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.

Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on...

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYEwUrE0ei2BAGc/giphy.gif

Finish The Job Fallacy

This is an interesting fallacy that typically is used against the working class that there is a job to be done. A certain action of standpoint must be held or continued and it cannot be questioned or debated because there is work to be done. It holds the notion that jobs don't have any meaning, but also shouldn't talked about or questioned. Typically those involve will internalize the job to make it apart of their own ethos and identity. The saying goes "our is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die." This is related to the the "Just A Job" fallacy where someone can invalidly reason why they do something because it's only a job, everyone needs jobs, and if they don't do it, someone else will.

The Free Speech Fallacy

This is an interesting one because this is primarily used by those challenging free speech restrictions in a provocative way. This is where you say something like "well it's a free country, I can say whatever I want to" instead of making an argument. While free speech is definitely ideal, using the ideals of free speech as an argument in place of actually making a claim is a fallacy. So if someone said I believe we should have some radical law introduced and someone says "why that sounds too extreme?" and they respond by saying well I have free speech so I can make these claims and that's why. It's not an actual response to the question. Pushing for your rights to free speech and freedom only makes sense if someone say you are not allowed to say the things you're saying because they disagree and not because they're illegal or even socially unacceptable. For example you cannot scream profanities in public because even though it's free speech, you're disturbing the peace and you'll get hit with some other law that you are in fact violating.

The Safe Place Fallacy

This is essentially the opposite of the previous free speech fallacy and this is one of my favorites because we see this so very often in today's media and largely from people on the left side of the political spectrum. This is the contemporary case of the free speech fallacy where someone says you are not allowed to freely speak on a subject, challenge or refute their views on it because it might make people too uncomfortable or trigger them and is meant to protect emotionally fragile individuals. Typically those who issue these calls for safety are to protect ideas that are discredited by science and have no evidence to support.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

This is more commonly known as self justification. It's another fallacy that largely separates the political left and right and is almost exclusively utilized by the left. This is the idea that when observing behaviors, the bad behavior or others is a result of their character while the bad behaviors of yourself or your tribe are caused by the environment. This is more of a collectivist verse individualist argument but those values are largely politically polarized now. However, it is in fact a fallacy to apply the same conditions and standards to one tribe and not another. For example: someone might say they get up late because they're neighbors are always partying late, well you could move or use ear plugs, or a multitude of others things, whereas the truth likely is that you're lazy or just like to sleep in. The problem is when you don't take responsibility for anything, you cannot improve yourself, grow up, or progress in life. So it is much better to rely on and value individual volition. There are legitimate cases where the environment causes bad behavior, but it will almost always be up to the individual to work to rectify that, including changing the environment you are in.

The Self Deprecation Fallacy

This is the opposite of the previous fallacy where instead of blaming the environment someone puts themselves down typically in hopes to attract denials of real evidence, support for their ideals, or praise in general. This can also be done accidentally through a genuine lack of self-esteem, but it is fallacious to gain support this way. You don't see this as much, but it is often used alongside self-justification.