Across the country, conservative groups are working to pass anti-LGBT legislation that would bar transgender people the right to use public restrooms. The faulty logic at play is that transgender people are simply dressing up as the opposite gender to gain access to young boys and girls. This. Is. Not. Happening. But rather than take a moment of reflection and realize that what’s really at work…
Just pushed a bugfix for my sidebar script that prevents the original menu appearing when you load the page (which was really ugly).
To get it, tell your script managers to update to the new version, or if you want it immediately or are having issues, you can get it from: https://wuffleton.com/code/tumblrsidebar/
Thanks to @atiredtraumavictim ‘s informative post, I thought, why not make a post for people who aren’t in the position to watch these videos?
This post is going to help you understand arguments and help you improve your debate skills. I will only be addressing the videos seen in the post, so please check out the other links provided as well. The videos do a better job explaining what I’m explaining below though.
The Strawman Fallacy
A strawman fallacy is an argument that is being misrepresented. These fallacies are common because most of the time, people are just uneducated and don’t mean to make the argument lesser in information. It is a ‘less solid’ version of that actually argument and is easy to ‘knock over.’
Example:
Person A: I think it’s okay for artists to create and share content that might be ‘evil’ or ‘immoral,’ but I think maybe they should say that the art they made is displaying evil or immoral things.
Person B: Oh now we can’t show art depicting bad things without writing out some long paragraph about how what their art shows immoral things? That bad things are bad? I think creators can show and do whatever you want.
The strawman (person b) breaks down the conversation and really makes it into something it’s not, it makes it into a simpler and more ‘problematic’ version.
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Instead of arguing with someone’s viewpoints (good or bad), you are focusing on their character, doing so in trying to ‘debunk’ their views. Sometimes though, if the character and argument are directly related such as someone eating burgers and shaming people for eating burgers, then it’s okay to call them out.
But! Someone’s character does not make their view points wrong.
Example:
Person A: I think that eating a lot of burgers isn’t a good idea and you shouldn’t do it.
Person B: I just saw you eating a burger yesterday so your argument is invalid.
The Black and White Fallacy
This fallacy is where someone limits your choices and says that these choices are the only choices that can be selected, but other options exist. People who use this fallacy are saying that you’re either for their cause or against it and there are no in-betweens.
Example:
Person A: I want there to be more playable female characters in video games.
Person B: Then you must not want any men to be playable characters.
The Authority Fallacy
This fallacy means that people think if someone has a higher status, then they must be right and you must be wrong. This isn’t always the case. A bunch of scientists saying that an example theory is correct is not an authority fallacy if they provide evidence. If they do try and prove the theory correct and say it’s just because they are scientists, then yes, they are using a fallacy.
Person A: Woah! This product is really cheap in America, I wonder why that is.
Person B: My relative knows why, it’s because the product is cheap itself, it isn’t durable.
Person B is not the supposed relative and so may not actually know if that this is the case. The best way to go about these conversations is reading up on the thing yourself and providing evidence. Their relative make work in a field similar to what person A was talking about, but unless they have actually studied said subject, they don’t actually know.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy
Someone may say x thing is universal and someone could prove them wrong. The first person’s defense would be “well this isn’t a true x thing then.” It’s like saying no true gamer, animal lover, etc, would think said thing.
Person A: All cat people must hate dogs and dog people to actually be cat people.
Person B: But I’m a cat person and I don’t hate dogs.
Person A: Well then you aren’t a true cat person.
The Fallacy Fallacy
People who use this believe that because someone’s argument contains a fallacy, then it must be wrong or untrue. Someone could use good evidence in their argument, but their point isn’t really all that great.
Person A: Coldplay is a black metal band.
Person B: You don’t know what you’re talking about, so you’re automatically wrong. Coldplay isn’t a black metal band.
Person A: Your argument contained a fallacy, so you’re automatically wrong!
Person B is correct, but not in the right way. Coldplay isn’t a black metal band, but not because person A doesn’t know that.
The Texas Sharper Shooter Fallacy
The person using this fallacy ignores all information thrown against them unless it makes them look like they’re right.
Person A: More work fatalities happen to men, so they must care about women more than men in x jobs.
Person B: Well that’s probably because most of the jobs you are naming are mostly occupied by men.
Person A ignored the facts behind why most men die in the workplace in the jobs he was talking about.
Moving the Goal Posts Fallacy
Someone using this fallacy always changes the goal or the way the other person must be correct after the other person debunks the fallacy user. They keep changing what makes the other person right.
Person A: Technology hasn’t helped us advance.
Person B: Well there is information that proves otherwise.
Person A: Yeah, well not recently.
Person B: Yes there is, we didn’t used to have phones and now it’s easier to talk to people.
Person A: Well you’re wrong because that wasn’t as time relevant.
Rape is the only crime on the books for which arguing that the temptation to commit it was too clear and obvious to resist is treated as a defence. For every other crime, we call that a confession.
I’ve gotten more angry asks about this post than I have actual reblogs.
Imagine if other crimes were treated as such? “why did you kill this person?” “because his smug face and his voice were just too much for me to deal with and there was nothing I could have done to not shoot him. I mean, look at him, he wears suspenders for fucks sake!”
Fun story my history teacher told us: his grandfather during the industrial revolution walked past a flyer which said “looking for smart strong boys” so he went into the factory, said “i’m strong and smart”, and he had that job from age 13 to 78
and this is why they expect the younger generation to simply “get a job” ahh it’s so much clearer now
Here’s another fun story: My boss decided to slap my work phone number on all the ads we post looking for newspaper carriers. So I receive a bunch of calls from people looking for jobs. Working only part time, I’m not usually there when they call, so they have to leave a message and I take their info to pass on to my boss. Sometimes it can be weeks before my boss calls any of these applicants back, if at all. How the callers respond to not getting a callback varies. Most don’t do anything, but some call again. If the person sounds young, they may leave another message clarifying their qualifications and reaffirming their interest. If the person is old, and I can always hear it in their voice, they respond by getting mad, threatening to cancel their newspaper subscription, and occasionally swearing. The older generation is used to getting a callback, and an immediate one, so they throw a tantrum when they don’t get what they want.
And everyone calls Millennials entitled.
Mind. Blown.
I’m just gonna point out that this is from the onion
While the statistics are fake, the sentiment behind it is probably real considering how sassy the onion is.
