What do you think is the most common logical fallacy used in this subforum?

[realibrad]

I think I disagree - there probably isn't, really, a fundamental, entirely-logic-based way to decide 'the truth' regarding at what age one attains adulthood with the ability to make adult choices. It's always going to be a culture-dependent question (though I suppose improved scientific knowledge about brain-development comes into it a bit).

And hence it's commonplace for such arguments to involve references to the inconsistencies we have about the topic. E.g. here it used to be allowed to join the army (and even, at one time, be sent into combat, though that changed at some point) at 16, while you couldn't vote or buy alcohol till 18 (but you could consent to sex at 16). People noted that was a bit inconsistent. Generally the trend, though, has been to slowly increase the age for 'adulthood' for most things, but there's always been an odd-mishmash of age-cut-offs and I don't think it's fallacious for people to argue there should be some consistency there.

Its nice to see someone that gets it. If a system for judging things causes inconsistent outcomes, then maybe the system should be examined. Does not invalidate anything directly, but, it seems reasonable to examine the framework.

Signing up to die at 16 and limiting alcohol until 18 seems inconsistent at face value. You are disallowed from comparing them because they are different by the rules of smog.

 

[realibrad]

Not unless she used that as her argument. If her argument was basically 'I want to limit the age of vaping because I hate smoking and want to do everything I can get away with to limit it' it has nothing to do with sex or age of consent, it is about limiting vaping with arbitrary rules. Logic only has to be internally consistent, not externally.

If you are going to use logic to change and or limit external things, then your internal logic should be sound.

If she wanted to end smoking for no other reason to end smoking, that would be illogical. It only becomes logical if she believes its to reduce harm. That makes it implied.

You are now creating a strawman to justify your whataboutism. That was not her argument. You are creating a argument for her to argue against. You can argue against her premise (I think vaping should be limited because I hate smoking) by questioning the validity of that statement, but it is a logical fallacy to say 'what about sex' to that argument.

I created no such strawman in my discussion with her. I did not give you ever detail of a 2 hour discussion. She told me that she wanted to limit vaping and smoking because she thinks its harmful to people and young people are not able to make sound decisions.

BTW, you are proving my earlier post. You are throwing out fallacy claims to try and invalidate what I have said.

 

[HomerJS]

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Issac Asimov

Above..

#bothsides - projecting your shortcomings onto others

illogical fallacy - accusations/assertions without any basis of fact or based on a dis-proven claim. This bugs the crap out of me.

 

[dank69]

You are wrong. They are connected because of the underlying belief that young people should be protected from themselves. I think you are proving my point perfectly.

If you believe vaping should be limited to people 18yo or older, then you are doing so because you think vaping is or could be harmful. You thus want someone to have sufficient maturity to be able to weigh the pros and cons of their decision. The same thing is true for the age of consent when it comes to sex. The issue then becomes if you believe the age of consent for sex should be younger than the age of vaping, you should have a reason for why.

Both are age limits because you think they are harmful. The question then becomes why do you think one is more harmful than the other. Turns out, she thinks sex has a bigger risk than vaping, and shifted her position. Sex was not used to disprove her previous position. You just cant see how they are connected so you say they are not. Your limitations are your own, and not always shared by others.

How is sex harmful?

 

[sandorski]

A....

I just had a discussion with my girlfriend ....

Logical Fallacy of Pussy - You don't have it, you're wrong.

 

[dank69]

Most conversations don’t take place in a strict logical — and thus logical fallacy-sensitive — environment. Providing context, pointing out inconsistencies, those are fair game in most casual interactions. And I love Haspel’s relevant aphorism:

​

​

“If A does X, and you ignore it, and B does X, and you condemn it, one may infer that you have more interest in A and B than in X.” Aaron Haspel​

Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy your stay here.

 

[realibrad]

How is sex harmful?

Multiple ways, but mainly its physical and emotional. Financial also has a role if you get pregnant, but, that brings in birth control and what not.

The reason we have age of consent laws are to protect people who are not ready to deal with the ramifications of their actions. Your body may not be physically ready for things like penetration. People are also not completely dispassionate when having sex, and so casual sexual relationships for young people can be hard to deal with.

 

[realibrad]

Logical Fallacy of Pussy - You don't have it, you're wrong.

This probably ruins the joke, but was it about me not having a girlfriend, or not having a vagina and thus not being able to be right because I dont have a vagina?

 

[dank69]

I think I disagree - there probably isn't, really, a fundamental, entirely-logic-based way to decide 'the truth' regarding at what age one attains adulthood with the ability to make adult choices. It's always going to be a culture-dependent question (though I suppose improved scientific knowledge about brain-development comes into it a bit).

And hence it's commonplace for such arguments to involve references to the inconsistencies we have about the topic. E.g. here it used to be allowed to join the army (and even, at one time, be sent into combat, though that changed at some point) at 16, while you couldn't vote or buy alcohol till 18 (but you could consent to sex at 16). People noted that was a bit inconsistent. Generally the trend, though, has been to slowly increase the age for 'adulthood' for most things, but there's always been an odd-mishmash of age-cut-offs and I don't think it's fallacious for people to argue there should be some consistency there.

Science has determined the age and it is 25. That is the age when prefrontal cortex development is finished. The prefrontal cortex is where consequential reasoning is performed.

However, the government doesn't care because if they raise the age to join the military to 25, a lot fewer people are going to join. All of our other laws will eventually catch up to this age limit once the science can no longer be denied. Something like smoking, because of the high probability of lifelong addiction will be raised to 25. Something like alcohol that has a lower probability of lifelong addiction may remain at 21 or adjusted slightly according with the risk.

 

[pmv]

Any logical argument is only as good as it's premises. Start with premises that are opinion and you end up with a conclusion that is an opinion. Logic give us a way to test that the conclusion is internally sound to the premises. It tells us nothing about how true it is to the outside world.

If something eats kibble it is a cat.
If a dog gets hungry enough it will eat kibble.
Therefore some dogs are cats.

This is a logical argument that proves that some dogs are also cats. It is perfectly logical, and stupid.

But this isn't an argument about establishing facts, it's an argument about establishing a consensus regarding what a society's rules should be on an issue where rules vary significantly between societies. I see nothing illogical about drawing someone's attention to the different age limits that apply to different topics, when they all relate to the central point of 'at what age can someone accept adult responsibilities'. People might conclude that there's a basis for different ages, but it's valid to draw attention to the fact that such variation exists. (And I think it's interesting that there seem to be two slightly-different trends there, one to increase the 'rights' a young person has to do things, and another to increase the degree of protection they have, and those two social trends, while not directly in conflict, can sometimes pull in different directions - e.,g. it's now definied as child pornography if the subject of a sexual image is under 18, while the age of consent for sexual activity remains at 16...I don't think that's actually inconsistent, but it does reflect two different ways of looking at things, rights vs protection)

 

[Jaskalas]

Thread derailment is a common issue, if not a fallacy.

Shame we cannot just branch off on a new subject without disturbing the original thread. That may be one of Reddit's advantages, though it does come with trade offs. Maybe forum software needs a third option where we continue these flat page based views, but finds a better way to manage and/or filter these sub-threads.

 

[dank69]

Multiple ways, but mainly its physical and emotional. Financial also has a role if you get pregnant, but, that brings in birth control and what not.

The reason we have age of consent laws are to protect people who are not ready to deal with the ramifications of their actions. Your body may not be physically ready for things like penetration. People are also not completely dispassionate when having sex, and so casual sexual relationships for young people can be hard to deal with.

You are conflating harmful with risk. What kind of physical harm?

Emotional harm? Literally anything in exactly the wrong circumstance could potentially cause emotional harm? Please give me an example of emotional harm that could be caused by sex that could not be just as easily caused by numerous other actions that you would never dream of limiting.

Risk of pregnancy can essentially be reduced to zero. This is a case for making unprotected sex with a minor illegal but not protected sex.

 

[pmv]

Science has determined the age and it is 25. That is the age when prefrontal cortex development is finished. The prefrontal cortex is where consequential reasoning is performed.

However, the government doesn't care because if they raise the age to join the military to 25, a lot fewer people are going to join. All of our other laws will eventually catch up to this age limit once the science can no longer be denied. Something like smoking, because of the high probability of lifelong addiction will be raised to 25. Something like alcohol that has a lower probability of lifelong addiction may remain at 21 or adjusted slightly according with the risk.

I don't think 'the science' is as clear-cut as that. I don't believe there's a simple cut-off for all forms of 'maturity', no matter what the brain-scanners tell us. That actually relates to a pet gripe of mine about the excessive biological reductionism that is now fashionable (see also finding 'genes' for everything and reifing the idea of 'IQ' as some intrinsic property of a person, that can be ordinarily ranked). That's an ideological trend of our era.

Just try raising the voting age to 25 and see how far you get!

(Though I do think the age for driving should be raised from 16 to 30...with a cut off at the other end of 65...but I'm in a minority of one, on that one).

 

[pmv]

Thread derailment is a common issue, if not a fallacy.

Shame we cannot just branch off on a new subject without disturbing the original thread. That may be one of Reddit's advantages, though it does come with trade offs. Maybe forum software needs a third option where we continue these flat page based views, but finds a better way to manage and/or filter these sub-threads.

Some thread topics just run out of steam. If another subject comes up, it comes up. This thread was raised from the dead anyway!

 

[dank69]

I don't think 'the science' is as clear-cut as that. I don't believe there's a simple cut-off for all forms of 'maturity', no matter what the brain-scanners tell us. That actually relates to a pet gripe of mine about the excessive biological reductionism that is now fashionable (see also finding 'genes' for everything and reifing the idea of 'IQ' as some intrinsic property of a person, that can be ordinarily ranked). That's an ideological trend of our era.

Just try raising the voting age to 25 and see how far you get!

(Though I do think the age for driving should be raised from 16 to 30...with a cut off at the other end of 65...but I'm in a minority of one, on that one).

The science is actually pretty clear cut in that very little brain development continues after the age of 25.

 

[pmv]

The science is actually pretty clear cut in that very little brain development continues after the age of 25.

'Brain development' is not the be-all-and-end-all of emotional and intellectual adulthood, and it doesn't determine the moral-and-political question of who gets to make choices. It's a bit of data to be taken into account along with everything else (I agree with that much), but it's not decisive. Again, there's that reductionism, that says changes only count if brain-scanners can see them.

 

[realibrad]

You are conflating harmful with risk. What kind of physical harm?

No. Depending on the sexual act, the orifice may not be ready to accommodate penetration. Depending on the object used, you may cause internal damage.

Emotional harm? Literally anything in exactly the wrong circumstance could potentially cause emotional harm? Please give me an example of emotional harm that could be caused by sex that could not be just as easily caused by numerous other actions that you would never dream of limiting.

Younger people, especially teenagers are flushed with hormones. These cause lots of erratic behavior as sex triggers emotions that are usually quite new to young people. Look at how relationships are among adults and you can see how sex plays a role there.

As I said, people are not devoid of emotions, and dealing with some emotions can be damaging if you are not in the right place with the right tools. Its why rape can be so damaging beyond the physical.

Risk of pregnancy can essentially be reduced to zero. This is a case for making unprotected sex with a minor illegal but not protected sex.

So then would you be okay with sex with a minor that could not result in pregnancy? Homosexual relationships have a zero chance, but I doubt that you would be okay with a 30yo and a 12yo engaging in sexual acts.

Again though, this should not be part of the main focus as it will branch off and not further the previous points.

 

[realibrad]

'Brain development' is not the be-all-and-end-all of emotional and intellectual adulthood, and it doesn't determine the moral-and-political question of who gets to make choices. It's a bit of data to be taken into account along with everything else (I agree with that much), but it's not decisive. Again, there's that reductionism, that says changes only count if brain-scanners can see them.

@interchange

You might have more insight to bring to this.

 

[WelshBloke]

Disingenuous posts. Thats my main problem.

Be honest in your arguments. Arguments made here aren't going to change government policy or public attitudes towards things so whats the point in dishonestly twisting fact and spinning like a motherfucker? It's also blatantly obvious when people are posting things with motives other than to discuss the posted story.

I like discussing things with people I don't agree with but it becomes less than fun when they start being weaselly.

 

[Moonbeam]

realibrad: If you are going to use logic to change and or limit external things, then your internal logic should be sound.

M: If you are going to water your yard in a drought area you should at a minimum use a timer. If you have a critique of the logic on another what is the value of stating some truth if you don't show also how the argument you are opposing denied it. What do you mean by change or limit things and how did he do that. What in his argument was internally unsound?

r: If she wanted to end smoking for no other reason to end smoking, that would be illogical. It only becomes logical if she believes its to reduce harm. That makes it implied.

M: This proves what argument and how does that argument relate to anything here? I don't need answers.

r: I created no such strawman in my discussion with her. I did not give you ever detail of a 2 hour discussion. She told me that she wanted to limit vaping and smoking because she thinks its harmful to people and young people are not able to make sound decisions.

M: How does his not knowing every detail affect anything he said?

r: BTW, you are proving my earlier post. You are throwing out fallacy claims to try and invalidate what I have said.

M: Surely you see what a silly argument that is. What if your arguments are invalid because they are fallacious in fact. You can't refute another person's points because you simply disagree.

 

[dank69]

'Brain development' is not the be-all-and-end-all of emotional and intellectual adulthood, and it doesn't determine the moral-and-political question of who gets to make choices. It's a bit of data to be taken into account along with everything else (I agree with that much), but it's not decisive. Again, there's that reductionism, that says changes only count if brain-scanners can see them.

What else contributes to emotional and intellectual adulthood beside the brain? What else determines the moral-and-political question of who gets to make choices?

 

[zinfamous]

Her reasoning for wanting to limit vaping has nothing to do with teen sex. Your 'what about' was indeed a logical fallacy. That fact that you managed to have an interesting conversation about it does not change that fact. You did not have a logical reason to dispute her reasoning. You could just as easily have said 'what about the chance that a meteor will hit them and they will never get the chance to see how Better Call Saul ends' and it would have made just as much sense and you could have still had a interesting conversation, because all conversations that are Breaking Bad adjacent are interesting.

Logic is not a method to have interesting conversations, it is a method to look for truth.

I like to think of "whataboutism" as the Socratic method. It's really just an excuse for endless assholery, and probably one of the big reasons that he was forced to kill himself. People seem to forget that no one really liked Socrates. His pupils were far more astute than he was.

 

[zinfamous]

anyway, glad this was bumped:

What is it called when you invent your opponent's position and argue against the invented position? It's the #1 conservative tactic ever since life was breathed into the pie hole of Fox news.

 

[HomerJS]

anyway, glad this was bumped:

What is it called when you invent your opponent's position and argue against the invented position? It's the #1 conservative tactic ever since life was breathed into the pie hole of Fox news.

Works well for them like Democrats want open borders.

 

[woolfe9998]

A lot of people seem to have a problem calling things logical fallacy while not understanding what is being done.

For example, people get energized when they see what they think is whataboutism. It could be that that was used to disprove a point, or, it could be an attempt for someone to understand the person's position. If you say A happens because of a set of reasons, but, B also happens which seems to conflict with A, then the what/how about B seems worthy of discussion. It could be that B is not actually in conflict with A, and that the underlying system that produces A and B is stable, or, maybe not. The moment people see B brought up, they label it whataboutism or Both sides and use that to dismiss it.

I just had a discussion with my girlfriend about how she wants vaping to have an age limit of 18, but, she thinks its okay for 17yo and 16yo to be able to have sex with others their age. The reason she said that was because she hates smoking and sees vaping as an extension. So when I asked "what about?" she could have reacted the same way many do here, but, she did not. We had a great discussion over dinner where we examined our values and their origins as best we could.

The term "whataboutism" is not generally used to describe the kind of argument you made to your GF. "Whataboutism" is a specific form of "hypocrisy" argument where you claim inconsistency by making a claim of false moral equivalence, and/or bringing up some past conduct which simply isn't relevant to the issue at hand. For example, when Putin is confronted about murdering journalists and other political opponents, he says, "what about racism in America!" Or for every Trump misdeed, there is an attempt to change the subject to "buttery mails." As often as not, it's less a form of "hypocrisy" argument and more an attempt to change the subject in order to avoid discussion of an inconvenient or unpleasant topic. If used in a distracting manner, it can also be called a red herring.

What you did was argue that her position on one issue was logically inconsistent with her position on another. This is a perfectly valid form of argument. Whether it's a sound argument in a given case depends on how analogous the juxtaposed positions really are. If your GF can identify important distinctions between vaping and sex such as would justify different age cutoffs, then your argument fails by factual premise, even though there is nothing wrong with its form.