0

To me the language in the following statement suggest a logical fallacy of some sort. I am not skilled in such matters, so I thought that someone in this forum might provide some insight.

Thanks for any thoughts.

If you are not willing to..[series of terms and condition] then you will not [mandates]

3
  • 1
    Could you give an example? It is hard to say what sorts of sentences you have in mind. Like "if you are not willing to follow the rules then you will not enter this establishment"? And please explain what you think the fallacy might be.
    – Conifold
    May 5 '20 at 23:33
  • The only fallacy I see here is that the speaker does not necessarily have the authority to make rules. "If you won't stop speaking, you will exit the room" is true when stated by a judge in court, who has people on hand who will remove you. It is a pretense when someone just wants you silenced and is trying to give you an unenforceable order. I am not sure it is ever a fallacy. Mandates may have rhetorical force, but they are not part of an argument. May 7 '20 at 19:45
  • @Mike To notify the people that commented on your question you have to comment right after on your question with their name like I just did with your name then they are notified. To comment on an answer you can just leave a comment.
    – polcott
    May 8 '20 at 1:37
1

(1) If you are not willing to..
(2) [series of terms and condition]
(3) then you will not [mandates]

(1) Would seem to assume a volitional act and you lack the volition for this act.
(2) Would seem to assume unsuccessful attempts to change your volition.
(3) Then the act requiring your volition will not occur.

When we construe it this way there is no fallacy or other error.

4
  • Thanks for your replies. The suggested topics have an intuitive appeal. Straw Man. Slippery Slope. I like the court room analogy. I thought about if-then statements. It is the uncertainty that leaves me uneasy about the construction. Consider this open-ended take please: If you are not willing to shut up then you will not be allowed back into the court house. Ultimately, hopefully, the logic here will end up in front of real Federal Court Judge. Too hard to explain more in such limited space.
    – Mike
    May 8 '20 at 0:52
  • @Mike To notify the people that commented on your question you have to comment right after the question with their name: like I just did with your name then they are notified. To comment on an answer you can just leave a comment.
    – polcott
    May 8 '20 at 1:35
  • 2 Like this? Do I have it right now?
    – Mike
    May 10 '20 at 18:58
  • @Mike If you do a web-page search using ^F for this "add a comment" you will find three different places to make a comment. The place here only reaches me. If you want to answer Conifold you have to go up to the first "add a comment" and then put a "@" directly in front of his name the same way that I did this for your name.
    – polcott
    May 10 '20 at 19:11
0

Depends on context but most likely Slippery Slope fallacy or Straw Man fallacy.

As explained pretty well by Purdue University Online Writing Lab:

"[The Slippery Slope fallacy] is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either."

Also explained by Purdue:

"[The Straw Man fallacy is when] the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position."

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.