Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/661740032974262274
    Post Reopened by Chris Sunami, virmaior
4 added 202 characters in body
source | link

I need help understanding a discussion of the accident fallacy from the following site: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

It describes the following as an example of the accident fallacy:

The Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saving one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin.

IsThe explanation from the site is this an accident fallacy?:

To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.

I found a definition saying this: 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But this wasis not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can beis automatically an accident fallacy?

Again, inThe same site also provides this argument:

The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

This is not being addresseddescribed as NOT being an example accident fallacy with the following explanation, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.":

Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.

So, I simply want to knowThis makes me wonder when accident fallacythe diagnosis of accident fallacy can be applied in the context of religious verses and when it cannot be. And actually how it works inWhat is the general connection withbetween this fallacy and religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

The Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saving one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin.

Is this an accident fallacy?

I found a definition saying this: 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But this was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accident fallacy?

Again, in this argument:

The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

This is not being addressed as an accident fallacy with the explanation, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accident fallacy can be applied in the context of religious verses and when it cannot be. And actually how it works in connection with religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

I need help understanding a discussion of the accident fallacy from the following site: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

It describes the following as an example of the accident fallacy:

The Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saving one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin.

The explanation from the site is this:

To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.

But this is not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law is automatically an accident fallacy?

The same site also provides this argument:

The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

This is described as NOT being an example accident fallacy with the following explanation:

Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.

This makes me wonder when the diagnosis of accident fallacy can be applied in the context of religious verses and when it cannot be. What is the general connection between this fallacy and religious verses?

    Post Closed as "unclear what you're asking" by Keelan, virmaior
3 added 162 characters in body; edited title
source | link

"Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saveing one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin." Is it an accedent Can the "accident" fallacy be applied to religious laws?

The Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saving one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin.

I found it asIs this an accedentaccident fallacy?

I found a definition saying this,: 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But itthis was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accedentaccident fallacy?

againAgain, in this argument: 'The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.'

The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

ItThis is not being addressed as an accedentaccident fallacy explainingwith the explanation, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accedentaccident fallacy can be applied in the context of religuousreligious verses and when it cannot be. And acctuallyactually how it works in connection with religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

"Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saveing one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin." Is it an accedent fallacy?

I found it as an accedent fallacy saying this, 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But it was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accedent fallacy?

again, in this argument: 'The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.'

It is not being addressed as an accedent fallacy explaining, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accedent fallacy can be applied in the context of religuous verses and when it cannot be. And acctually how it works with religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

Can the "accident" fallacy be applied to religious laws?

The Bible says,“thou shall not bear false witness”. So saving one hiding in my home from a killer is a sin.

Is this an accident fallacy?

I found a definition saying this: 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But this was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accident fallacy?

Again, in this argument:

The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

This is not being addressed as an accident fallacy with the explanation, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accident fallacy can be applied in the context of religious verses and when it cannot be. And actually how it works in connection with religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

2 added 94 characters in body
source | link

I found it as an accedent fallacy saying this, 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But it was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accedent fallacy?

again, in this argument: 'The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.'

It is not being addressed as an accedent fallacy explaining, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accedent fallacy can be applied in the context of religuous verses and when it cannot be. And acctually how it works with religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

I found it as an accedent fallacy saying this, 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But it was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accedent fallacy?

again, in this argument: 'The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.'

It is not being addressed as an accedent fallacy explaining, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accedent fallacy can be applied in the context of religuous verses and when it cannot be. And acctually how it works with religious verses?

I found it as an accedent fallacy saying this, 'To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.' But it was not so clear to me. Is it saying that assuming anything from a law can be an accedent fallacy?

again, in this argument: 'The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.'

It is not being addressed as an accedent fallacy explaining, "Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious."

So, I simply want to know when accedent fallacy can be applied in the context of religuous verses and when it cannot be. And acctually how it works with religious verses?

Source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy

1
source | link