So, I have a bit of a problem with the “slippery slope”, “no true Scotsman”, and “genetic” listed as fallacies.
Slippery slope: the supposed fallacy being that “X” will lead to “Y”, therefore we shouldn’t do “X”. Except, that is a perfectly correct and consistent logical reason, therefore not a fallacy. The reason is because if you destroy the logical barriers around an idea, then you will have to accept everything that comes until the next logical barrier. So, for example: if you believe that a baby is still a baby the day before it is born, then birth is not a logical boundary and you must land on another logical barrier. If you think that a baby is a baby when it’s heart starts beating, then your logical barrier is the beating heart. If you agree that people can be alive without beating hearts, then your only remaining logical line is conception. This has also played out in the marriage area, if you remove the definition of marriage, then anything that people want as marriage will be “marriage”. Since then we have seen people marry themselves, their pets, a dolphin, a tree, and multiple people. It’s a logical outcome and therefore, not a fallacy.
No true Scotsman: the problem here is the lack of gatekeeping. If you were to say, “People who want long term Anarchy, don’t want a dictator to rule with an iron fist.” that would be obviously true. If someone then said, “But I want long term Anarchy, and I want a dictator to rule with an iron fist”. That’s just incorrect, you can’t want both Anarchy and dictatorship, these are mutually exclusive ideas. But if you say, “People who truly want long term Anarchy, don’t want a dictator to rule with an iron fist.” then it falls into the no true Scotsman “fallacy”. If a group should be defined by a trait, then people who don’t have that trait are not part of that group. That shouldn’t be a question.
Genetic: the idea that information should be dismissed if it’s from a bad source, is absolutely correct. If a person who lies to you about everything comes to you with new information, you can’t trust them, they’re a liar, so you dismiss the information. So, should we listen to Dr. Fauci, who lied about whether or not the science (at the time) supported the wearing of masks and later admitted that he said “no, masks don’t help” because he didn’t want to run out of them for the healthcare workers? Should we listen to an admitted liar? What else is he lying about?
Good stuff especially about the “slippery slope.” How many fuckin’ decades did the LGBTQRS2-3s in this country cry out for a “free and equal voice,” decrying the “slippery slope” when people said it would lead to acceptance and forceful indoctrination of countless other, degenerate activities?
It's worth noting that some of these are context specific. Slippery slope in particular is a fallacy in that X leading to Y doesn't necessarily make X intrinsically bad but that doesn't mean that in real conditions, you shouldn't avoid doing X so you don't end up with Y.
A note for all to learn these so you can crush your opponents when you debate.
So, I have a bit of a problem with the “slippery slope”, “no true Scotsman”, and “genetic” listed as fallacies.
Slippery slope: the supposed fallacy being that “X” will lead to “Y”, therefore we shouldn’t do “X”. Except, that is a perfectly correct and consistent logical reason, therefore not a fallacy. The reason is because if you destroy the logical barriers around an idea, then you will have to accept everything that comes until the next logical barrier. So, for example: if you believe that a baby is still a baby the day before it is born, then birth is not a logical boundary and you must land on another logical barrier. If you think that a baby is a baby when it’s heart starts beating, then your logical barrier is the beating heart. If you agree that people can be alive without beating hearts, then your only remaining logical line is conception. This has also played out in the marriage area, if you remove the definition of marriage, then anything that people want as marriage will be “marriage”. Since then we have seen people marry themselves, their pets, a dolphin, a tree, and multiple people. It’s a logical outcome and therefore, not a fallacy.
No true Scotsman: the problem here is the lack of gatekeeping. If you were to say, “People who want long term Anarchy, don’t want a dictator to rule with an iron fist.” that would be obviously true. If someone then said, “But I want long term Anarchy, and I want a dictator to rule with an iron fist”. That’s just incorrect, you can’t want both Anarchy and dictatorship, these are mutually exclusive ideas. But if you say, “People who truly want long term Anarchy, don’t want a dictator to rule with an iron fist.” then it falls into the no true Scotsman “fallacy”. If a group should be defined by a trait, then people who don’t have that trait are not part of that group. That shouldn’t be a question.
Genetic: the idea that information should be dismissed if it’s from a bad source, is absolutely correct. If a person who lies to you about everything comes to you with new information, you can’t trust them, they’re a liar, so you dismiss the information. So, should we listen to Dr. Fauci, who lied about whether or not the science (at the time) supported the wearing of masks and later admitted that he said “no, masks don’t help” because he didn’t want to run out of them for the healthcare workers? Should we listen to an admitted liar? What else is he lying about?
Good stuff especially about the “slippery slope.” How many fuckin’ decades did the LGBTQRS2-3s in this country cry out for a “free and equal voice,” decrying the “slippery slope” when people said it would lead to acceptance and forceful indoctrination of countless other, degenerate activities?
It's worth noting that some of these are context specific. Slippery slope in particular is a fallacy in that X leading to Y doesn't necessarily make X intrinsically bad but that doesn't mean that in real conditions, you shouldn't avoid doing X so you don't end up with Y.