Speaking of logical fallacies, there are two that keep cropping up with more and more frequency.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Moreso than the other logical fallacies common on DU.

There's the one about the first amendment. Person A says something stupid or offensive or obnoxious or wrong. Person B criticizes person A. Person C argues that person B is attacking person A's first amendment right to free speech. I don't know if this logical fallacy has a name. Reductio ad absurdum maybe. It's certainly absurd. Reductio ad irstfae mendmentae.

Then there's the comparison of two unlike things. Oh, you support throwing shoes at President Bush? Well then you support throwing shoes at Obama too! That's also absurd.


If I had a nickel for every time I saw those fallacies, just today, I'd chuck those nickels at the assholes making those fallacies.

[elleng]

1. Good points.

As to first amendment, can't call it 'logical' because person C doesn't recognize that there's no STATE ACTION involved, in addition to the fact that mere criticism PROTECTED under the 1st amendment, in no way VIOLATES it.

Throwing shoes could BOTH be considered examples of 'protected speech,' depending on circumstances.

[stillcool]

2. Black or white, all or nothing...

Like right and wrong, and laws are absolutes. I wonder if people really live like that, or if they are so good at rationalizing the words are meaningless.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. A is to C as B is to A= Pierce Logic

(A(B)) (B(C)) premises
(A( B (B(C)) )) (B(C)) Iteration
(A( B (B(C)) )) Erasure in Even
(A( B ( (C)) )) Deiteration
(A( B C )) Double Cut
(A(C)) Erasure in Even



Does that help?


I thought it would!!!

[Berry Cool]

4. Actually, the First Amendment one is stupid but not just for the reasons you say.

It's stupid because the First Amendment doesn't apply to Internet speech. (Not that censorship laws do either, but in any case it's beside the point.)

However, it's a very common fallacy across the Internets that if one expresses disagreement with someone else's opinion, or tells someone that he has his facts wrong, this constitutes "censorship."

It's baloney, of course.

[readmoreoften]

5. Completely agreed. The absurd "they have a right to free speech" gets me too.

"Well, do I have a right to disagree with their free speech, numbnuts?" Completely absurd. There's a difference between "free speech" and "everything that falls out of someone's mouth needs to be respected as a cherished bon mot..."

[MedleyMisty]

6. You see the free speech one a lot in threads about the ignore function

I am not sure how one could make a legal case that choosing to not see someone's posts violates their right to free speech.

[tledford]

7. You couldn't. eom