5 added 137 characters in body
source | link

Most of the examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. If you don't like any music, you won't like Country music. The intelligent are often educated and have had more exposure to classical music. Dwelling on past failures is something depressed people often do.

But the converse of a true statement (in these cases only a likely one) is not logically connected to it. If A then B does not mean if B then A. (And A making B more likely does not mean B makes A more likely.)

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The final two areone is more straightforwardly just an unwarranted generalizationsgeneralization.

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay. He says this talking to a room that contains almost exclusively married men...)

Most of the examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. If you don't like any music, you won't like Country music.

But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The final two are more straightforwardly unwarranted generalizations.

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.)

Most of the examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. If you don't like any music, you won't like Country music. The intelligent are often educated and have had more exposure to classical music. Dwelling on past failures is something depressed people often do.

But the converse of a true statement (in these cases only a likely one) is not logically connected to it. If A then B does not mean if B then A. (And A making B more likely does not mean B makes A more likely.)

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The final one is more straightforwardly just an unwarranted generalization.

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay. He says this talking to a room that contains almost exclusively married men...)

4 added 137 characters in body
source | link

These twoMost of the examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. But If you don't like any music, you won't like Country music.

But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The final two are more straightforwardly unwarranted generalizations.

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.)

These two examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.)

Most of the examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. If you don't like any music, you won't like Country music.

But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The final two are more straightforwardly unwarranted generalizations.

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.)

3 added 28 characters in body
source | link

These two examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

My(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.)

These two examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.

These two examples actually seem to be "affirming the consequent", otherwise known as arguing from the converse.

If you hate black people, then you will probably not support BLM. If you oppose women in politics, you will probably oppose a given woman in politics. But the converse of a true statement is not logically connected to it.

The "If-Then" form suggests this is more likely to arise from a fallacy that starts from a an obvious deduction, than broader categories like hasty generalization or black/white. And it is much easier to point out because it is formal in nature.

But one cannot really tell these apart without reading the source's mind. Because living in a black/white world implies affirming the consequent works (because if a => b always implies not a => not b, then it implies b => a) which permits a huge range of corresponding hasty generalizations, (because being logically connected in any way makes all the connected ideas equivalent).

The bullying aspect is a secondary 'piggyback' fallacy that guards the first one. Foreclosing a valid line of inquiry because pursuing it may have consequences for the speaker is a separate fallacy, not related by form to the primary one. It is known as 'argument ad baculum' -- 'arguing with a club'. The added tone is meant to make you avoid arguing at all, because arguing at all opens you to threat, in this case loss of reputation due to labeling. That increases the odds you will not controvert the main fallacy.

(My favorite argument ad baculum from recent history is Reagan's press secretary arguing that the CDC should not spend time and money to gather and publish statistics on the AIDS epidemic because nobody wants them -- anyone who asks for them must be gay.)

2 added 343 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link