Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should this be a fallacy?

Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 12:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

Well, there isn't really a clear fallacy -- it's just ipse dixit, so it has to be justified. And why is this in the DDO forum?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 12:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

I'd say it's just a bare assertion... He's trying to say that you made a false analogy, but only stated that you were wrong without explanation.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:10:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:50:18 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

Well, there isn't really a clear fallacy -- it's just ipse dixit, so it has to be justified. And why is this in the DDO forum?

I wasn't quite sure where to put it. Where should it go?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:03:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:54:32 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

I'd say it's just a bare assertion... He's trying to say that you made a false analogy, but only stated that you were wrong without explanation.

Fair enough. I think they were trying to suggest that what I said implied that slavery and the issue of debate were tantamount to one another though.

My issue is really this: Reductio ad absurdum implies a logical consequence of a premise, not an equality of worth. I stated that justification via tradition implied that slavery should be maintained, and was told I was comparing that atrocity with the phrase "under God" being mandatory. This is, in my eyes, erroneous.

If you would, allow me to provide a better example.

Disclaimer: I do not condone the view of the person I am defending. I disagree with the criticism directed at her, as I believe it is wholly inaccurate.

https://www.youtube.com... (Time stamp 11:30-12:45)

In this instance, a youtuber by the name of iEmannuela was criticized because she utilized examples of school shootings and pedophilia when discussing homosexuality. Her contention was (shown here - 8:37) was that an innate emotion does not justify an action. She argued that this logic leads to the justification of horrendous acts. Instead of dispelling the notion that LGBT activists stand solely on this foundation, EssenceofThought took her words as a way of stating that the two acts are comparable, and proceeded to send diatribes galore her way.

I feel that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of her intent, and wholly farcical. Would you agree?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:20:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

http://www.txstate.edu...

False analogy.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:29:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

I'm not really sure where that would fall under a logical fallacy. First of all, it wasn't exactly an argument. The way you worded it makes it just sound like more of an opinion, and that's all the audience member meant for it to be. So at least in my opinion, putting it under the title of "logical fallacy" just seems little extreme. Aside from that, I think the audience member was really just asking for you to clarify your position (which of course, I can piece together what you mean, but the relation is pretty loose since the two have literally one thing in common). Unless of course you originally had used more words, then that last statement was moot. Basically my problem right now is not being their to witness the comment. But from the information you've provided, there's no real logical fallacy or reason to find it logically fallacious.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:34:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

Just so it is clear where my bias lies, I am totally against the statement 'under god' being used in the pledge. That being said...

Disregarding the facepalm-inducing silliness of the bolded statement, best I can think of for the underlined statement is maybe an appeal to emotion. Maybe. Depends on how it was said. Doesn't qualify as a strawman, you did compare the two after all.

So possible appeal to emotion is the best I can come up with. That might not even apply though. Since you paraphrase the statements it is hard to tell.

He doesn't explain why it is erroneous to compare the two as some others have pointed out but I am sure he would have if you had asked, since there are a multitude of reasons for thinking so. Like I said I agree with you on this issue, you just used really crappy reasoning. Sorry.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:20:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

http://www.txstate.edu...

False analogy.

See bolded underlined italics.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:50:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:34:27 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

Just so it is clear where my bias lies, I am totally against the statement 'under god' being used in the pledge. That being said...

Disregarding the facepalm-inducing silliness of the bolded statement, best I can think of for the underlined statement is maybe an appeal to emotion. Maybe. Depends on how it was said. Doesn't qualify as a strawman, you did compare the two after all.

Ironically, this is actually what I was trying to dispel. Is it actually a comparison, or is it simply reductio ad absurdum? I feel as though it is strictly the latter. As such, I am not attempting to state that the ideas are tantamount to one another, but are both entailed by an appeal to tradition.

This was not the sole argument for the removal of the words, but a rebuttal against the idea that tradition justifies it.

So possible appeal to emotion is the best I can come up with. That might not even apply though. Since you paraphrase the statements it is hard to tell.

He doesn't explain why it is erroneous to compare the two as some others have pointed out but I am sure he would have if you had asked, since there are a multitude of reasons for thinking so. Like I said I agree with you on this issue, you just used really crappy reasoning. Sorry.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry that this isnt actually answering your question, but...

Slavery WAS an important part of colonial America.
"Under God" was not in the pledge until the mid 1900s during the cold war.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:50:13 PM, Nac wrote:
Ironically, this is actually what I was trying to dispel. Is it actually a comparison, or is it simply reductio ad absurdum? I feel as though it is strictly the latter. As such, I am not attempting to state that the ideas are tantamount to one another, but are both entailed by an appeal to tradition.

You are beginning to go off-topic by trying to justify your own statement rather than state why you think the audience members statement was a fallacy.

This was not the sole argument for the removal of the words, but a rebuttal against the idea that tradition justifies it.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:12:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:29:44 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

I'm not really sure where that would fall under a logical fallacy. First of all, it wasn't exactly an argument. The way you worded it makes it just sound like more of an opinion, and that's all the audience member meant for it to be. So at least in my opinion, putting it under the title of "logical fallacy" just seems little extreme. Aside from that, I think the audience member was really just asking for you to clarify your position (which of course, I can piece together what you mean, but the relation is pretty loose since the two have literally one thing in common). Unless of course you originally had used more words, then that last statement was moot. Basically my problem right now is not being their to witness the comment. But from the information you've provided, there's no real logical fallacy or reason to find it logically fallacious.

She was more objective in her statement. It is a bit of a habit of mine to qualify my statements with statements such as "I feel" or "I think." Apologies for the confusion.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:20:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 3:06:29 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:50:13 PM, Nac wrote:
Ironically, this is actually what I was trying to dispel. Is it actually a comparison, or is it simply reductio ad absurdum? I feel as though it is strictly the latter. As such, I am not attempting to state that the ideas are tantamount to one another, but are both entailed by an appeal to tradition.

You are beginning to go off-topic by trying to justify your own statement rather than state why you think the audience members statement was a fallacy.

The reason I proposed that her statement was a strawman was because I think the audience member misrepresented my contention. You seem to echo her impression, however, so I am curious if you think that what I proposed was an actual comparison or not. I think to state as such is fallacious, hence the question I asked and my rationale for my answer.

You also seem to believe that this was my contention against keeping the words in the pledge, which was not entirely true.

My apologies if it feels as though I am derailing the conversation, but I disagree that I am doing any such thing.

This was not the sole argument for the removal of the words, but a rebuttal against the idea that tradition justifies it.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 3:20:55 PM, Nac wrote:
The reason I proposed that her statement was a strawman was because I think the audience member misrepresented my contention. You seem to echo her impression, however, so I am curious if you think that what I proposed was an actual comparison or not. I think to state as such is fallacious, hence the question I asked and my rationale for my answer.

Yes, I do.

You also seem to believe that this was my contention against keeping the words in the pledge, which was not entirely true.

No, I don't.

My apologies if it feels as though I am derailing the conversation, but I disagree that I am doing any such thing.

Eh, didn't seem like you were derailing. I think derailing implies that it was intentional.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 4:49:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 3:58:43 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:20:55 PM, Nac wrote:
The reason I proposed that her statement was a strawman was because I think the audience member misrepresented my contention. You seem to echo her impression, however, so I am curious if you think that what I proposed was an actual comparison or not. I think to state as such is fallacious, hence the question I asked and my rationale for my answer.

Yes, I do.

Could you please elaborate? To me, the statement implied a logical consequence, not a assertion of equal depravity. If we justify maintaining the phrasing solely by way of tradition, then it is special pleading to state that another action is not justified by said means. You may certainly add more criteria for justifying an action, but failing to do so allows any and every action with said trait to be treated in the exact same manner.

This shared trait does not make those two actions tantamount to one another. Neither does acknowledging this shared trait.

This logical leap is why I feel the individual who made this statement was fallacious.

I am now curious to hear your reaction to this line of reasoning, since you appear to share her impression of my argument.

You also seem to believe that this was my contention against keeping the words in the pledge, which was not entirely true.

No, I don't.

Apologies for the misconception, then.

My apologies if it feels as though I am derailing the conversation, but I disagree that I am doing any such thing.

Eh, didn't seem like you were derailing. I think derailing implies that it was intentional.

Interesting. I can see where you are coming from with this interpretation, but I disagree.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 3:12:01 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:29:44 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

I'm not really sure where that would fall under a logical fallacy. First of all, it wasn't exactly an argument. The way you worded it makes it just sound like more of an opinion, and that's all the audience member meant for it to be. So at least in my opinion, putting it under the title of "logical fallacy" just seems little extreme. Aside from that, I think the audience member was really just asking for you to clarify your position (which of course, I can piece together what you mean, but the relation is pretty loose since the two have literally one thing in common). Unless of course you originally had used more words, then that last statement was moot. Basically my problem right now is not being their to witness the comment. But from the information you've provided, there's no real logical fallacy or reason to find it logically fallacious.

She was more objective in her statement. It is a bit of a habit of mine to qualify my statements with statements such as "I feel" or "I think." Apologies for the confusion.

Ah well, I'm not necessarily saying she's right, but I'm still not sure there's technically a logical fallacy in there.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:12:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:50:18 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

Well, there isn't really a clear fallacy -- it's just ipse dixit, so it has to be justified. And why is this in the DDO forum?

ipse dixit - Nice. I have to say, I have not heard that since H.S. I don't think I have run across that more than once or twice in my entire LIFE.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 4:49:36 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:58:43 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:20:55 PM, Nac wrote:
The reason I proposed that her statement was a strawman was because I think the audience member misrepresented my contention. You seem to echo her impression, however, so I am curious if you think that what I proposed was an actual comparison or not. I think to state as such is fallacious, hence the question I asked and my rationale for my answer.

Yes, I do.

Could you please elaborate? To me, the statement implied a logical consequence, not a assertion of equal depravity. If we justify maintaining the phrasing solely by way of tradition, then it is special pleading to state that another action is not justified by said means. You may certainly add more criteria for justifying an action, but failing to do so allows any and every action with said trait to be treated in the exact same manner.

Comparing things does not mean you think that two things are the same in all regards. That's just a misunderstanding of the definition of the word compare.

To illustrate with an analogy, you said penguins and pigions both have wings, that does not imply you think they can both fly. But if you say penguins and pigeons both have wings you ARE comparing them.

In this analogy:

Penguin="under god"
Pigion=slavery
Flying=evilness

This shared trait does not make those two actions tantamount to one another. Neither does acknowledging this shared trait.

That was kind of her point...

This logical leap is why I feel the individual who made this statement was fallacious.

Extend.

I am now curious to hear your reaction to this line of reasoning, since you appear to share her impression of my argument.

She didn't make any argument by the way, she just made a comment about yours. Whoever you were responding to was the one making an argument.

Eh, didn't seem like you were derailing. I think derailing implies that it was intentional.

Interesting. I can see where you are coming from with this interpretation, but I disagree.

Don't care.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:57:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry that this isnt actually answering your question, but...

Slavery WAS an important part of colonial America.
"Under God" was not in the pledge until the mid 1900s during the cold war.

I understand that. It was more about the idea behind the phrase than the phrase itself. Though we do have the establishment clause within the first amendment, the Declaration of Independence does presuppose a creator within its first paragraph,(http://www.archives.gov...) indicating that there was a role played by theism.

You are correct that this part is less integral then slavery, though. I was, more or less, attempting to recreate the conversation had, without changing information I felt was relevant at the time of the OP.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:22:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:39:57 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:20:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

http://www.txstate.edu...

False analogy.

See bolded underlined italics.

Fair enough, but his premises are so obvious they don't really need to be stated. It's like reminding the teacher something he already knows. I'm sure the teacher knew he was being a bit over the top, and the student had to remind him of it. I have faith in the student to provide premises if the teacher disagrees with his assertion.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:36:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:22:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:39:57 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:20:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

http://www.txstate.edu...

False analogy.

See bolded underlined italics.

Fair enough, but his premises are so obvious they don't really need to be stated. It's like reminding the teacher something he already knows. I'm sure the teacher knew he was being a bit over the top, and the student had to remind him of it. I have faith in the student to provide premises if the teacher disagrees with his assertion.

I agree.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 7:40:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 5:17:58 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:49:36 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:58:43 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:20:55 PM, Nac wrote:
The reason I proposed that her statement was a strawman was because I think the audience member misrepresented my contention. You seem to echo her impression, however, so I am curious if you think that what I proposed was an actual comparison or not. I think to state as such is fallacious, hence the question I asked and my rationale for my answer.

Yes, I do.

Could you please elaborate? To me, the statement implied a logical consequence, not a assertion of equal depravity. If we justify maintaining the phrasing solely by way of tradition, then it is special pleading to state that another action is not justified by said means. You may certainly add more criteria for justifying an action, but failing to do so allows any and every action with said trait to be treated in the exact same manner.

Comparing things does not mean you think that two things are the same in all regards. That's just a misunderstanding of the definition of the word compare.

"To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken" (https://ahdictionary.com...)

Although I will not call your interpretation wrong because it disagrees with my citation, it is fair to point out that mine has support as well. There are multiple definitions, and I simply used the first while you used the second. I do apologize for the confusion.

With this misunderstanding sorted, do you feel that I compared the two actions by this definition?

To illustrate with an analogy, you said penguins and pigions both have wings, that does not imply you think they can both fly. But if you say penguins and pigeons both have wings you ARE comparing them.

In this analogy:

Penguin="under god"
Pigion=slavery
Flying=evilness

Extend. (Mind if I use this? Much more descriptive than the response I use when repeating myself).

This shared trait does not make those two actions tantamount to one another. Neither does acknowledging this shared trait.

That was kind of her point...

I think she stated the exact opposite. I acknowledged the shared trait, and she claimed I compared (1st definition, otherwise it would be irrelevant in exposing a perceived error, from my view at least) one to the other.

This logical leap is why I feel the individual who made this statement was fallacious.

Extend.

Extend.

I am now curious to hear your reaction to this line of reasoning, since you appear to share her impression of my argument.

She didn't make any argument by the way, she just made a comment about yours. Whoever you were responding to was the one making an argument.

As I stated in my response to Jonbonbon, I botched the paraphrasing. She was stating that it was farcical as a matter of fact, but I saw that as irrelevant. Thanks again, Jon for showing why that was wrong.

Eh, didn't seem like you were derailing. I think derailing implies that it was intentional.

Interesting. I can see where you are coming from with this interpretation, but I disagree.

Don't care.

And you are entitled to see it that way. It is just ironic to me that this foreshadows our failure to understand each other's definitions at a juncture crucial to the discussion. I adore these little "eureka" moments, even when I am slow on the pick up.

To relate this to the above conversation, please cite your definitions as I have so that we can end this trivial game of talking past one another.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 7:58:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

To a certain extant I would say it is a straw man. You never make the claim that "under god" is equivalent to slavery. You simply offer slavery as an example of something which was a cornerstone of the nation, but was later abolished. It also important to remember that "under god" was only added in the 1950s as a way of distancing ourselves (the US) from the "godless commies".
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 8:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 7:58:45 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

To a certain extant I would say it is a straw man. You never make the claim that "under god" is equivalent to slavery. You simply offer slavery as an example of something which was a cornerstone of the nation, but was later abolished.

My view, exactly. Would you happen to know if this specific line of reasoning has a formal name other than a strawman? I was unsure if it had a specific name.

It also important to remember that "under god" was only added in the 1950s as a way of distancing ourselves (the US) from the "godless commies".

SNP1 kind of beat you to it. I responded to her earlier in this thread. To summarize:

1. I was more focused on providing an accurate rephrasing with all information I saw as relevant than on correcting what I said. I did read that the phrase was only placed in the pledge in the 1950s, but that was not what I chose to contest when attacking contentions.

2. I also felt that theism played some relevant part in the formation of America, since it received mention in a noteworthy document (citation in my response to SNP1).

Thanks for correcting me, though.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 9:19:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 8:10:22 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/13/2015 7:58:45 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

To a certain extant I would say it is a straw man. You never make the claim that "under god" is equivalent to slavery. You simply offer slavery as an example of something which was a cornerstone of the nation, but was later abolished.

My view, exactly. Would you happen to know if this specific line of reasoning has a formal name other than a strawman? I was unsure if it had a specific name.

I don't know of any specific fallacy but you could look it up. There are a bunch for different situations.


It also important to remember that "under god" was only added in the 1950s as a way of distancing ourselves (the US) from the "godless commies".

SNP1 kind of beat you to it. I responded to her earlier in this thread. To summarize:

1. I was more focused on providing an accurate rephrasing with all information I saw as relevant than on correcting what I said. I did read that the phrase was only placed in the pledge in the 1950s, but that was not what I chose to contest when attacking contentions.

2. I also felt that theism played some relevant part in the formation of America, since it received mention in a noteworthy document (citation in my response to SNP1).

Thanks for correcting me, though.

Sure thing.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 10:41:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 9:19:56 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/13/2015 8:10:22 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/13/2015 7:58:45 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

To a certain extant I would say it is a straw man. You never make the claim that "under god" is equivalent to slavery. You simply offer slavery as an example of something which was a cornerstone of the nation, but was later abolished.

My view, exactly. Would you happen to know if this specific line of reasoning has a formal name other than a strawman? I was unsure if it had a specific name.

I don't know of any specific fallacy but you could look it up. There are a bunch for different situations.

I don't even know what to search for specifically, though. Aside from looking through a massive compendium, I see no way to find it through independent searching. I was hoping, however, that someone knew its formal name, if the statement is fallacious.

Do you have a good alternative? I am eager to know.


It also important to remember that "under god" was only added in the 1950s as a way of distancing ourselves (the US) from the "godless commies".

SNP1 kind of beat you to it. I responded to her earlier in this thread. To summarize:

1. I was more focused on providing an accurate rephrasing with all information I saw as relevant than on correcting what I said. I did read that the phrase was only placed in the pledge in the 1950s, but that was not what I chose to contest when attacking contentions.

2. I also felt that theism played some relevant part in the formation of America, since it received mention in a noteworthy document (citation in my response to SNP1).

Thanks for correcting me, though.

Sure thing.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 10:48:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:22:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:39:57 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:20:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

http://www.txstate.edu...

False analogy.

See bolded underlined italics.

Fair enough, but his premises are so obvious they don't really need to be stated. It's like reminding the teacher something he already knows. I'm sure the teacher knew he was being a bit over the top, and the student had to remind him of it. I have faith in the student to provide premises if the teacher disagrees with his assertion.

To be quite honest, I sincerely think her statement was fallacious, and see no such premises validating her conclusion.

But I acknowledge the possibility that I am simply ignorant. After all, the only way to deny said possibility is to be omniscient. So please, display the flaw in my argument. Assume I am ignorant, I implore you, because I want to know the answer, and cannot see it right now. Point out the obvious premises, so the answer may be revealed.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:00:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:48:01 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:22:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:39:57 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:20:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

http://www.txstate.edu...

False analogy.

See bolded underlined italics.

Fair enough, but his premises are so obvious they don't really need to be stated. It's like reminding the teacher something he already knows. I'm sure the teacher knew he was being a bit over the top, and the student had to remind him of it. I have faith in the student to provide premises if the teacher disagrees with his assertion.

To be quite honest, I sincerely think her statement was fallacious, and see no such premises validating her conclusion.

But I acknowledge the possibility that I am simply ignorant. After all, the only way to deny said possibility is to be omniscient. So please, display the flaw in my argument. Assume I am ignorant, I implore you, because I want to know the answer, and cannot see it right now. Point out the obvious premises, so the answer may be revealed.

I don't really want to go into detail with it. I just went into way too much detail in another thread to explain why somebody was using a false analogy and what made it so. He also made a strawman which I just noticed, but that wasn't mentioned by the student. The strawman was that slavery was a part of the founding principles of America.

I think both made some assumptions though. I don't think "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance until the 20th century, and if my memory serves correct it was added as a response to the red scare.

writing in a stream of consciousness, so excuse me, and I'm not editing. Let me start over.
.
.
.
The teacher is probably just saying that an appeal to traditionalism with the "under God" portion of pledge of allegiance is fallacious, and the teacher is correct. The student hinted that this was a false analogy, but upon further reading it appears the teacher was merely explaining why am appeal to tradition doesn't work. There was no false analogy, I think I was mistaken. The teacher merely pointed out, why one specific argument doesn't work.

The student was wrong. It's not a false analogy, and the teacher was merely pointing out an appeal to tradition doesn't work. If the student wants to tell the teacher why he is wrong, he should explain why an appeal to tradition is not a fallacy in this instance, and I doubt he could do it, without special pleading.

My argument would be that we should keep things the same unless a good reason appears why we should change it, because change requires effort, while maintaining the status quo does not. However a true appeal to traditionalism, would mean arguing that "under God" should be removed and that the Cold War is over.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:19:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:41:33 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/13/2015 9:19:56 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/13/2015 8:10:22 PM, Nac wrote:
At 9/13/2015 7:58:45 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 12:36:57 PM, Nac wrote:
This is a paraphrasing of an argument I recently had in a classroom setting:

Me: We cannot justify the continuation of the phrase "under God" in the pledge solely by it being a cornerstone of our foundation. By this logic, slavery should still be legal.

The response of an audience member (classmate) was as follows:

Audience member: I feel it was erroneous to compare the words "under God" being in the pledge to slavery.

Disregarding my stance on the matter, is what the audience member stated fallacious? Is it already recognized as a fallacy? If so, what is it?

The closest guess I can come up with is a strawman, but it feels as though there is a more exact title for it.

To a certain extant I would say it is a straw man. You never make the claim that "under god" is equivalent to slavery. You simply offer slavery as an example of something which was a cornerstone of the nation, but was later abolished.

My view, exactly. Would you happen to know if this specific line of reasoning has a formal name other than a strawman? I was unsure if it had a specific name.

I don't know of any specific fallacy but you could look it up. There are a bunch for different situations.

I don't even know what to search for specifically, though. Aside from looking through a massive compendium, I see no way to find it through independent searching. I was hoping, however, that someone knew its formal name, if the statement is fallacious.

Do you have a good alternative? I am eager to know.

Really I'd just call it a straw man. Thats the closest term I can come up with.



It also important to remember that "under god" was only added in the 1950s as a way of distancing ourselves (the US) from the "godless commies".

SNP1 kind of beat you to it. I responded to her earlier in this thread. To summarize:

1. I was more focused on providing an accurate rephrasing with all information I saw as relevant than on correcting what I said. I did read that the phrase was only placed in the pledge in the 1950s, but that was not what I chose to contest when attacking contentions.

2. I also felt that theism played some relevant part in the formation of America, since it received mention in a noteworthy document (citation in my response to SNP1).

Thanks for correcting me, though.

Sure thing.