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

[zinfamous]

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.

It's not inconsistent. Having sex is a decision that requires two adults (or sub-adults, as the topic addresses). Smoking and drinking are, essentially, decisions that an individual makes on their own, where the consequences can indeed affect others, especially with Drinking, at the age where young people, who are also new (and woefully terrible) drivers, can absolutely impact the lives of others, without their participation in the decision-making.

Choosing to serve is a decision that you make about your own body: if it is truly worth sacrificing so that a handful of assholes that you will never meet and clearly don't give a shit about you can see short-term gains on their energy stocks--assuming you are talented enough to murder a bunch of brown people that, unfortunately for them, happen to live on top of some precious precious energy.

Obviously, that decision can also impact your parents and family and such--assuming they actually care about your survival.

In the end, the only way to effectively create this barriers (laws) is to define a certain age. It is going to vary from individual to individual, culture to culture, but across the population it seems to be a fair assessment.

 

[sandorski]

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.

That's the Strawman Fallacy.

 

[zinfamous]

Works well for them like Democrats want open borders.

Democrats: "stop guessing people and obey the constitution and our laws"
Republicans: "YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS FOR ILLEGALS!"

Democrats: "Pro-choice!"
Republicans: "DEMOCRATS WANT TO MURDER BABIES!"

 

[dank69]

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.

Object used? We are talking about consensual sex between two minors. Obviously anal sex carries more risk for damage but those risks can be mitigated by education. Two minors could bludgeon each other to death with baseball bats, but we don't go outlawing baseball for minors. You have to show reasonable potential for long term damage from an unacceptable percentage of encounters without extenuating circumstances..

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.

So please give 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, like I asked for.

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.

Yes, we are not discussing minor/adult interactions because now you introduce consent issues and the risk goes way up for control issues. Way way up.

 

[zinfamous]

That's the Strawman Fallacy.

It's like a strawman but it isn't: The strawman is a real example or issue, whereas what I am talking about is an invention of an argument--it doesn't even exist. But the strategy is the same, essentially.

It's like phantom strawmanning.

 

[realibrad]

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.

I would point you to the posts from Smog where he disagrees with you. He does think that its whataboutism. He believes that me pointing out something that I see as inconsistent is a fallacy. I would also highlight that my post was down voted for what I suspect is someone that agrees with Smog.

I agree with your racism vs emails example, but, clearly not everyone agrees with you. It becomes almost impossible to have a discussion here when people like him and others jump in and start claiming fallacies.

 

[interchange]

@interchange

You might have more insight to bring to this.

There was a time when psychoanalysis wasn't offered to older adults because it was believed their development had ceased. That time is no longer, but it wasn't because of some silly brain scan.

 

[dank69]

It's like a strawman but it isn't: The strawman is a real example or issue, whereas what I am talking about is an invention of an argument--it doesn't even exist. But the strategy is the same, essentially.

It's like phantom strawmanning.

The definition of straw man fallacy does not make a distinction between the two. It is a deliberate mischaracterization of your opponent's position.

 

[realibrad]

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.

Here is an even better post.

Even funnier is that the person that upvoted his post saying I was using a fallacy also upvoted your post saying I was not. Go figure eh?

 

[realibrad]

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.

Tell you what, why dont you and wolf hash that out. He seems to believe I was doing something valid, and you do not. I think you two would have an interesting discussion that would disconnect me and my biases.

 

[realibrad]

It's not inconsistent. Having sex is a decision that requires two adults (or sub-adults, as the topic addresses). Smoking and drinking are, essentially, decisions that an individual makes on their own, where the consequences can indeed affect others, especially with Drinking, at the age where young people, who are also new (and woefully terrible) drivers, can absolutely impact the lives of others, without their participation in the decision-making.

Choosing to serve is a decision that you make about your own body: if it is truly worth sacrificing so that a handful of assholes that you will never meet and clearly don't give a shit about you can see short-term gains on their energy stocks--assuming you are talented enough to murder a bunch of brown people that, unfortunately for them, happen to live on top of some precious precious energy.

Obviously, that decision can also impact your parents and family and such--assuming they actually care about your survival.

In the end, the only way to effectively create this barriers (laws) is to define a certain age. It is going to vary from individual to individual, culture to culture, but across the population it seems to be a fair assessment.

The topic I had with her was vaping, and underage sex.

I believed her to have an inconsistent view because she thought vaping was harmful, as well as leading to more harmful smoking activities as to why it should be limited to 18 or older. That is inconsistent with her views on underage sex. That is because the same justifications she gave for limiting vaping seemed to apply to underage sex as well. I was questioning her system of establishing the rules for those two things.

 

[realibrad]

Object used? We are talking about consensual sex between two minors. Obviously anal sex carries more risk for damage but those risks can be mitigated by education. Two minors could bludgeon each other to death with baseball bats, but we don't go outlawing baseball for minors. You have to show reasonable potential for long term damage from an unacceptable percentage of encounters without extenuating circumstances..

I used object because it would encompass more than just a penis. Given how complex sex and people are, it seemed useful. Fingers as well as other sexual objects seemed to apply here, so I said objects.

Two minors could shoot people, which is one reason why guns are limited when it comes to children. A minor could run someone over with a truck, which is one reason why minors are limited when it comes to driving.

So please give 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, like I asked for.

I already did. With sex brings emotions which young people may not be fully able to handle. That can cause emotional harm.

Yes, we are not discussing minor/adult interactions because now you introduce consent issues and the risk goes way up for control issues. Way way up.

How can a child consent to another child, but not an adult.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

No doubt there are such cases of malice to be found.
Yet I've also seen that ad hominem used against cases of honesty.

Twisting fact? People often do not share a common truth or set of facts. While both cannot objectively be true, they are both true for the people who believe them. Because they are approaching a discussion from their own perspective. Their own varied history and education, or lack thereof. And who is presenting them an alternative? That dreaded "other" person. Psychological barriers abound in that scenario.

Then, if one is seeking a true and honest debate - a public internet forum with a bunch of strangers is difficult. As there's a certain time investment needed to carefully read and consider one's words, and/or to lookup and study references. Both your own and the other person. Then you have others stepping in to add their two cents and it clouds what may have been the start of a clear and focused conversation. Especially when it goes off topic and/or ad hominem.

Too often I fear there is zero patience or tolerance for those who are culturally different. Indignation over whether they should know better is counter productive, if ones goal was to maintain an open and honest dialog. I wonder if you are appreciative of the crossover and the potential to misidentify "twisting fact and spinning". I fear it downplays the challenges we face in finding common ground.

 

[dank69]

Here is an even better post.

Even funnier is that the person that upvoted his post saying I was using a fallacy also upvoted your post saying I was not. Go figure eh?

Just because I liked his post doesn't mean I agree with everything in it. I liked that post because the first statement was spot on.

The problem with your original comparison between vaping and sex is that it rides a fine line between honest question and dishonest fallacy. If you already knew that there were a lot of different factors that could contribute to a decision between when to allow sex vs. vaping, then yes, you are basically whatabouting the issue. If you didn't know then you are just really ... ignorant ... for lack of a better word I suppose.

 

[realibrad]

There was a time when psychoanalysis wasn't offered to older adults because it was believed their development had ceased. That time is no longer, but it wasn't because of some silly brain scan.

Thought so. If it were true, it would imply that people were unable to grow and or change after the age of 25 which would seem silly.

 

[realibrad]

Just because I liked his post doesn't mean I agree with everything in it. I liked that post because the first statement was spot on.

The problem with your original comparison between vaping and sex is that it rides a fine line between honest question and dishonest fallacy. If you already knew that there were a lot of different factors that could contribute to a decision between when to allow sex vs. vaping, then yes, you are basically whatabouting the issue. If you didn't know then you are just really ... ignorant ... for lack of a better word I suppose.

It is not spot on, for the reasons I gave. She was wanting to limit the age of vaping to 18 and above because of wanting to protect young people from bad choices. That would imply that the choices they would make would or could have negative outcomes. I also knew her position on the age of consent. She believes it should not be 18, but younger. Knowing she felt people under the age of 18 could make the decision to have sex, but not vape seemed inconsistent.

Thus, I was not ever about limiting vaping because of sex. His point was invalid as it had nothing to do with what was said. Your agreement of something invalid seems dumb.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

"Catch and release" is viewed as open borders. You're simply not agreeing on the terms used to describe it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would point you to the posts from Smog where he disagrees with you. He does think that its whataboutism. He believes that me pointing out something that I see as inconsistent is a fallacy. I would also highlight that my post was down voted for what I suspect is someone that agrees with Smog.

I agree with your racism vs emails example, but, clearly not everyone agrees with you. It becomes almost impossible to have a discussion here when people like him and others jump in and start claiming fallacies.

Smog may think it's "whataboutism" but that is not the type of argument that this label is typically applied. He may disagree with your vaping/sex analogy. If he thinks it's "whataboutism" then his definition of that term is atypical for how it is used. I think what happened is that you identified it as potential whataboutism and that framed his response. I bet if you had just made that argument, starting a thread on it without mentioning "whataboutism" then you would have had responses of agreement or disagreement depending on how people see the quality of your analogy, but likely the term "whataboutism" would never have been used.

Bear in mind that "whataboutism" is an informal term which, by definition, describes a fallacious form of reasoning. There is no valid form of it by definition. If your argument is valid, it's not whataboutism. In your initial post, you seemed to be suggesting that there may be valid and invalid forms of it.

 

[HomerJS]

"Catch and release" is viewed as open borders. You're simply not agreeing on the terms used to describe it.

If it were truly open borders there would be no catch. It would be like traveling from Maryland to Virginia.

 

[woolfe9998]

A little primer about "whataboutism." I had never heard the term until maybe last year. I thought it was literally coined to refer to arguments now common on the right during the Trump era. Evidently it's been used in modern political debate at least since the 1990's, but the term may actually date back hundreds of years.

It is closely associated with Russian propaganda, and is considered their primary tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

It's Putin's staple form of propaganda, and has recently become the single most repeated logical fallacy among American conservatives. This is not a coincidence.

 

[dank69]

I used object because it would encompass more than just a penis. Given how complex sex and people are, it seemed useful. Fingers as well as other sexual objects seemed to apply here, so I said objects.

It isn't useful because people can do all kinds of crazy things with objects with disastrous results without even venturing into the realm of sex so it adds nothing to the discussion. It muddies the water for no gain.

Two minors could shoot people, which is one reason why guns are limited when it comes to children. A minor could run someone over with a truck, which is one reason why minors are limited when it comes to driving.

You are framing these arguments very poorly. "Minors could shoot people" is indeed one reason why guns are limited when it comes to children, but it is one of many reasons that all combine to raise the overall risk level of mixing minors and guns to an unacceptable level. Same with driving. It isn't as simple as saying they can run someone over. It is more like they typically do not possess the cognitive and/or physical capability to operate a vehicle safely.

I already did. With sex brings emotions which young people may not be fully able to handle. That can cause emotional harm.

That is not an example. That is a vague assertion.

How can a child consent to another child, but not an adult.

For starters, consent included provisions for coercion and the adult brain puts the child in that situation at a distinct disadvantage. Minor/minor interactions may still have differences but they are not as exaggerated. Even a large enough difference in age could be problems within the band that we call "minor." Surely you can admit that a law where a person could go to jail for having consensual sex with another person the day before their 18th birthday but not the day after isn't really addressing the problem directly.

 

[woolfe9998]

Here is an even better post.

Even funnier is that the person that upvoted his post saying I was using a fallacy also upvoted your post saying I was not. Go figure eh?

You'd have to ask Dank about that, but based on what he's said in direct response to you, I'm guessing he agrees with Smog that your sex/vaping analogy is a bad one, but also agrees with me that "whataboutism" isn't the right term to describe your argument.

I will not enter the discussion about your analogy, because for me the issue you discussed with your GF is about who's right on facts, not logical fallacies. I have trouble discussing "vaping" in this context without getting into a discussion about the stark contrast between the manner in which vaping is portrayed in the media (alarmist - a ginned up "controversy") and what the actual research says on the subject.

It's pointless to discuss analogies and logic when people do not agree on the facts. That's the most important lesson in all of this. Facts matter first. Logic only enters into it when we agree on facts.

 

[realibrad]

Smog may think it's "whataboutism" but that is not the type of argument that this label is typically applied. He may disagree with your vaping/sex analogy. If he thinks it's "whataboutism" then his definition of that term is atypical for how it is used. I think what happened is that you identified it as potential whataboutism and that framed his response. I bet if you had just made that argument, starting a thread on it without mentioning "whataboutism" then you would have had responses of agreement or disagreement depending on how people see the quality of your analogy, but likely the term "whataboutism" would never have been used.

Bear in mind that "whataboutism" is an informal term which, by definition, describes a fallacious form of reasoning. There is no valid form of it by definition. If your argument is valid, it's not whataboutism. In your initial post, you seemed to be suggesting that there may be valid and invalid forms of it.

What I said was that people are claiming whataboutism when its not actually whataboutism.

"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."

As exemplified by Smog, people see whataboutism when its really just trying to understand. Whatever definition a person has, it should include the goal of trying to dismiss or invalidate a point. My example never attempted to do that, and should not have been claimed as whataboutism, but, I knew it would. You and others were able to see the difference, but, many are not. They see topic A, and any topic outside of A is labeled whataboutism.

 

[realibrad]

You'd have to ask Dank about that, but based on what he's said in direct response to you, I'm guessing he agrees with Smog that your sex/vaping analogy is a bad one, but also agrees with me that "whataboutism" isn't the right term to describe your argument.

Its not an attempt to show a whataboutsim. The point was to show how people think things are whataboutism, but, is not. That was the opening statement of my post.

 

[woolfe9998]

Its not an attempt to show a whataboutsim. The point was to show how people think things are whataboutism, but, is not. That was the opening statement of my post.

OK, I re-read your initial post, and I can see that you understand "whataboutism" as a fallacy by definition.

As you can see, I agree that the point you made to your gf was not whataboutism. It may still not be a very good analogy. As I said above in a paragraph I added to my post after you replied, I'm uninterested in examining your analogy because people need to get their facts straight before deciding what is and what isn't a valid analogy, and on the topic vaping, too many people simply do not have their facts straight. Since the thread is about logical fallacies, not the facts about vaping, I'm staying out of it.