Timeline for Is it a logical fallacy to falsely assume that two subsets of a population, with conflicting viewpoints, have a significant intersection?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2017 at 19:02 | vote | accept | Bridgeburners | ||
| Jun 20, 2017 at 1:49 | answer | added | Jayson Virissimo | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 21:18 | comment | added | user9166 | No, still not. We currently have Congressmen and have had Presidents who make those arguments, pretty much as supplied. You really need a better example, where the intersection cannot be filled by citing a given example, say, Nixon. Generalizing from a few examples to 'Conservatives' is unfair, but that is not part of your argument. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 20:45 | comment | added | Bridgeburners | @Coinfold I agree with you that it's not an example of the flawed argument I'm illustrating to say that conservatives are inconsistent for wanting to ban drugs and not wanting to ban guns. But it is an example of the argument if you stipulate that they appeal to the reasons illustrated in the quote for banning drugs and not banning guns. It may also be a straw man to even assume they use those arguments in the first place, but assuming you've heard some variant of those arguments from different sources it's then an example of the fallacy I'm asking about. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | Conifold | I am not sure that your example fits the fallacy you are describing. It is known from polls that many conservatives favor both banning narcotics and not banning guns. Pollsters usually ask a number of questions, not one at a time, and correlate the data, there is no need to assume a correlation. This said, holding both views is not necessarily inconsistent, there can be reasons that justify banning one but not the other, indeed reasons that follow from conservative social philosophy (e.g. self-reliance and its impairment by drugs). | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 20:06 | history | edited | Bridgeburners | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 18, 2017 at 14:49 | history | edited | Bridgeburners | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Jun 18, 2017 at 2:59 | history | asked | Bridgeburners | CC BY-SA 3.0 |