Logical fallacies to avoid when discussing #me-too
Emotion can cloud our better rhetorical skills, so I have made a “cheat sheet” that will remind us of some common logical fallacies to avoid, with specific examples taken from the #me-too debate.
** "Straw-man" fallacy**
Mis-representing someone else’s argument, in order to make it easier to present your own argument as valid
“All men aren’t rapists. I’M not a rapist. This movement is unfair to men.”
** "Slippery slope" fallacy**
If we allow option A to happen then it will result in scenarion C. Therefore we should not allow option A.
“If we start believing too many rape allegations, then due process will fall by the wayside and prisons will be full of unjustly accused men.”
** "Ad hominem" fallacy**
Attacking the individual making the argument instead of their argument
“Women put themselves in dangerous situations where they are at a higher risk to be raped. They should accept blame for turning themselves into victims.”
** "Appeal to authority" fallacy**
Using the opinion or position of an authority or institution in place of an actual argument
Harvey Weinstein cited “sex addiction” as the cause of his behavior, invoking imagined protection by referencing conditions outlined by the medical/psychiatric communities.
** "False Cause" fallacy**
Postulating that there is a real connection between two situations and that one is therefore the cause of the other.
“Women should not dress so slutty. It is because of the way they dress that men feel invited to rape them.”
** "Black or White" fallacy**
Presenting two scenarios as the only two possible outcomes when in reality there are many more
“Men are either rapists or non-rapists. I am not a rapist so there is nothing I need to change about my behavior towards women.” (The movement is about more than rape, but also about respect of boundaries. This includes inappropriate behavior)
** "Anecdotal" fallacy**
Citing personal experience or an isolated incident as a replacement for solid rhetoric, especially to disprove a more solid argument
“I knew this one woman, who accused her partner of rape and it turned out to be a lie. You just can’t believe all of this stuff.”
** "Appeal to emotion" fallacy**
Striving to evoke an emotional response in place of an actual argument
“This is Bill Cosby we are talking about! We all grew up listening to his comedy skits on our record players! This guy is an American classic, we have to protect his legacy!”
** "Personal incredulity" fallacy**
stating that because one finds something difficult to believe that it is most likely not true
“One guy is supposed to have raped that many women? That just seems like some type of conspiracy to me.”
** "The fallacy" fallacy**
stating that because a point has been poorly made, that it is most likely entirely wrong.
This might be the most important one for this platform.
Not everyone has taken the time to educate themselves on how to use proper logic when engaging in debate.
Some things just evoke too much of an emotional response from us.
However, just because we might slip up and commit a logical fallacy, that does not invalidate all the points that we might have made: we are all humans prone to error, and we could probably make the most headway by learning to accept one another’s faults whenever possible.
All the same, striving to become better at correct argumentation is something that (let’s be honest) just about everyone in this day and age could spend a lot more time on.
I hope that this was an educational read.
The reason that I wrote it was that there are a lot of pressing issues that the citizens of the world need to discuss, but find it difficult to do so because we end up angry at the other side of the table for making “bad” arguments.
Hopefully, learning to make a “good” argument, and recognize fallacies for what they are will help alleviate this anxiety and make for better communication.
Do you have pencil, paper, and a thought in your head? Then you can cartoon!
Be sure to enter my weekly cartooning contest #cartoon-off. Otherwise, try to stop by and support the talented contributing cartoonists! We have a great blend of first time cartoonists and veterans!
9 #Steembasicincome shares in prizes, 3 categories.
https://steemit.com/cartoon-off/@corpsvalues/fourth-weekly-cartoon-off-contest-guest-judge-veryspider-this-week-sbi-shares
The weekly cartoon contest is sponsored by @corpsvalues, in the spirit of giving back to the Steemit community and fostering growth.
@corpsvalues is a US military veteran who does artwork to promote discussion and healing to those involved in wars, and is an avid cartoonist and writer. He does all of his own artwork in his posts, which range in topic from comic to tragic. He firmly believes that artwork is for everyone, backed by studies that have shown how artwork builds and mends neural pathways in our brains. For him, this competition is a mission to bring as many people as possible into visual creativity and foster the continued work of those already doing it.
.jpg)
Thanks for the follow-up post. These are great examples! It makes sense to me what you are trying to say - please correct me if my interpretation is wrong: these fallacies shift the conversation away from the issue at hand and attempt to distract, discredit, or confuse in order to try and “win” an argument by ensuring it doesn’t even take place to begin with. I see the same thing happen with the immigration debate (oh that’s not actually happening, those photos are taken out of context) and the gun control debate (oh those are crisis actors). Now you’re no longer arguing about immigration or gun control, you’re arguing about fake news vs. reality. Clever way to win a fight: don’t even fight that original fight. I can see I shifted the conversation yesterday by leaning on a few of these fallacies. I will try not to do that right out of the gate again.
But how do you recommmend we proceed when there are real secondary issues at hand? Such as whether or not women also have a responsibility to help avoid these situations? (Note: not blame for if it happens. I felt like you committed a fallacy of your own (false equivalence) by unfairly equating these two very different things).
At the risk of getting drenched by the Fallacy Falls, I’ll try to draw more parallels here to explain what I mean.
I lock my doors at night to reduce my chances of getting robbed.
I keep my car locked for the same reason.
I take my wallet with me when I go to the bathroom.
I use private browsing mode and log out of public computers when I use them to check my email.
I don’t buy or sell drugs on the black market.
I keep my hands on the steering wheel, talk politely to the officer, and wait patiently when I’m pulled over.
I don’t get in bar fights.
I don’t wear a Yankees hat in Boston 😅
If I didn’t do one of these things, and I got robbed, hurt, had my identity stolen, or was shot by a cop, do I bear any of the blame at all for that happening? I would say no. But could I have helped prevent it if I had been more careful upfront? Maybe. But I tell you what: I’m going to teach my kids to lock the doors, be respectful to cops, and not get hammered at strange parties.
So it is hard for me to let go of the feeling that everyone else excpet the woman is responsible for her own safety. Sorry I’m hung up on this, I just want to understand your position fully and I’m still not sure I do yet. Are you just saying that my thoughts here may have a kernel of merit but that it is only for after we deal with the big picture stuff? That this is like fixing a dented fender when your engine is spewing oil? I can get onboard with that.
That was great!!!!
When you went through and gave your list of ways that YOU avoid dangerous situations, that was perfect rhetoric! You stated the same exact premises that you did the first time, but just did it in a way so that you were using yourself to illustrate a point and carefully noted what you were doing, and why. This turned it from what could be perceived as "ad hominem" or "false cause" into you being gracious enough to use your own self to illustrate your point. This makes your point more convincing, and keeps both debating parties moving forward constructively.
Actually, having been through "couples counseling" as well, where you learn constructive ways to argue and discuss things, the same rules of logic apply, they are just differently labeled.
But basically, talking in a manner that isn't pointing a finger at someone and getting them needlessly riled up is not just the correct way to debate in a public forum, but also in relationships. It's all just being decent at communication, I guess.
Absolutely correct. The whole reason that we face-palm during political debates these days is because the candidates no longer make even the slightest attempts to follow these basic rules of debate. These fallacies were not made up by your high school debate coach. They have been in place for thousands of years, and were set in place by the Greek philosophers who recognized that before we could go about having a constructive conversation and pursuing deeper truths, that some ground rules had to be set as to how this would be done.
So, as much as I feel like the "grammar police" when I make a post like this, it's a lot more significant than spelling or syntax. If I am not taking these guidelines into consideration when I formulate an argument, then I either end up
a) making a self-defeating argument
b) devolving the argument into a hotbed of emotion and resentment, and nothing at all constructive is done
c) saying something that looks good on paper, but has no intellectual merit
d) causing Plato and Aristotle to roll over in their graves
So don't take this as me going after you personally either. You actually made a good argument that a good amount of thought went into. It's just that since I am the one who opened the "can of worms" with my original post, I feel some sense of obligation to help ensuing discussion be productive as possible.
Oh absolutely, agree with every word you just wrote! Glad I am tracking what you’re charting now!
Yes, “debates” these days.... not much debate in the ratings bonanza that was the last election cycle, that’s for sure! And certainly not on Facebook, either. Interactions like ours are a huge part of why I’m glad I’ve found steemit and why I’m here to stay.
Both issues are important, and the honest reality is that in two sides of any debate the subtle truth almost always lies somewhere between the two.
Take care and take responsibility is a very important lesson and concept. Don't be an asshole is essential for all men to learn. I was raised a certain way, and I recognize that others were raised differently. Men need to respect women, even women who don't respect themselves.
Or you can just stay out of the debate and game instead lol. Oh the internet…. What happened to you. things use to be so great.
Yeah... I do plenty of the "keep a low profile and game"
Here's some gaming fallacies for you:
"Things were better back in the day, they've ruined this game" (appeal to emotion)
"One guy solo'd that boss? That's impossible." (personal incredulity)
"I knew this one rogue who could only pull 1,500 dps in full raid gear: rogues just suck" (anecdotal)
"If we let them change the user interface, the entire game will devolve into The Purge" (slippery slope)
"You are either a paladin or not a paladin. Nuff said." (black or white)
"Your raid leader plays a female blood elf. And you actually listen to what he says?" (ad hominem)
Thanks for stopping by =p
Great workss