If someone says to me “The risks you perceive do not exist” that isn’t reassuring. What I hear is that person saying, “It scares me to consider those risks, so I’m going to pretend they don’t exist. You, therefore, will be alone in mitigating them.”
It would be much more reassuring for someone to say, “I don’t think that risk is very likely to happen, but since it could happen, here is an idea I have about how we could react to it.” Then I would know I am not alone in considering the situation from all possible angles before making a decision.
Yeah. You’re right. I mean, I think logic/rationality has been abandoned at the point where he’s comparing my concerns to that of being worried about aliens. He’s just staying calm and provoking me rather than crying or yelling. But it’s not a good pattern for either of us.
For the record, most jurisdictions do not require permission for a sublease or assignment unless explicitly indicated in the underlying lease agreement.
A more serious issue is that your renters’ insurance policy will very likely deny coverage if anything happens to or because of the materials in your garage.
Plus, there’s the practical stuff: will these people have access to the garage at all times? What if you need to put some furniture in there? Can you lock the interior door from the garage to the home?
This is interesting. I’m not saying that the likeliest scenario is that someone stores drugs or guns in our garage. I agree with my husband, that the likeliest scenario is that nothing goes wrong.
But if something went wrong (drugs, guns, dead bodies, roaches, damage to their property, stolen property, etc) - and it is entirely possible that it could - the pitfalls of the venture will not have been worth the benefits to us.
I don’t have to be certain that a catastrophe will occur in order to decide that the risk of catastrophe makes the venture not worth it.
Do you really think it’s a mental illness to consider the worst case scenario of something when making a decision? Genuinely curious. To me it seems like a sensible part of the decision-making process.
We don’t have renters’ insurance. The garage is detached.
That’s interesting about it not being actually illegal to sublet unless it’s stated in the lease agreement. I don’t know where the lease agreement we signed is, so I can’t check.
Honestly, if that’s the case, the only way to break this cycle is to simply refuse to engage him when he’s arguing that way. If he’s really doing it to frustrate you, why would you think that a superior argument will all of a sudden win him over?
“What you’re saying is making me feel belittled. I’d rather not discuss it until we can talk about it in a more productive way”.
On catastrophising, and therapy, I am a student/patient/benefitee of DBT, so perhaps a quick look at where it stands as a cognitive distortion might be interesting.
NB: This has jack-all to do with your side of the table in your OP, nor particularly much, despite appearances, with your husband (unless your husband is psychotic, which would rule it out anyway). I cite it since the topic came up.
If I may (and this is the first time I have posted something like this), take a look at the mnemonic DEAR MAN, which is in the context of interpersonal effectiveness, as doped out by dialectical behavior therapy. It’s easier said than done, but I have found it superb in such situations, from the most mundane (returning a package/meeting someone important and you’re nervous) to crazy fights when at least in post-mortem you can try to figure out what the hell went wrong.
For what it’s worth: a rented house (admittedly, not just garage) in my neighborhood burned down thanks to a combination of fireworks, bullets and meth ingredients stored in the garage and one of the bedrooms. The house burned to the ground, in part because the firefighters were not about to go charging into a house full of explosive devices and caustic chemicals. They played it safe and focused on keeping the fire from spreading.
But for purposes of this argument, I’m in the same camp as everyone else in thinking that there’s no particular logical fallacy being committed here. What we have is a basic disagreement either on the facts (of the risk) or of the appropriate response (even if you agreed on the amount of risk, you might disagree about how to mitigate it).
To address this in a purely logical manner, then, is going to require some way to measure both the risk and the cost of the countermeasures. It’s also fair to factor in emotional costs: for example, if you family heirlooms burn up, the dollar cost may be low compared to the emotional cost. In this sense, what you really need is statistics. My one example is not actually useful to either of you because it doesn’t provide any information that would allow you to calculate/estimate either risk or cost. In fact, I’ll be you I can find a news story about a house that would have burned down except that a renter noticed a problem and informed the landlord. So you see that individual data points (anecdotes) are not particularly useful to your discussion. You really need statistics.
I think it’s called “Your husband is totally a dick.” That happens sometimes too.
I think you have deeper problems that whether or not to rent your garage. If your husband manages disputes with you in this way, then he is not being an equal partner in your marriage. He is acting like a bully.
And you need to learn how to have a dispute without breaking down into tears just because he’s behaving like a dick. If he doesn’t just talk over you and he gives you a chance to speak, you need to be able to calmly explain to him why he is wrong, and to stick to it without emotion. Every relationship has disagreements, but if an argument over garage rental can send you into yelling or crying, what do you do when you have a real argument about a real emotional issue?
For what it’s worth, I think your concerns about the garage are quite valid. But as I said, I don’t think that’s the real issue here.
Roddy
Google “meth storage units california” and see how many hits come back.
In my part of the world (midwest) this is a major problem, and quite common–the bad guys store their glassware, chemicals, etc., somewhere else (for much the same reason as mobile meth labs are frequently in rented/borrowed/stolen vehicles: it’s somebody else’s property that gets seized or polluted or blown up [or all three]).
This may or may not be a problem in your locale, and local law enforcement can probably provide you some statistics.
Much of this depends on your tolerance for risk–you’re already doing without renter’s insurance, so apparently you have a high tolerance. If your tenant does something really stupid, you could end up owing your landlord for the entire value of the property, and unlike aliens, that really happens.
I disagree with this. And in general, I disagree with the casual way in people are quick to tell unknown people involved in situations that they have only the vaguest understanding of, that their spouses are jerks. That is not helpful, as a general rule.
I think it’s most likely that the guy is severely underestimating the likelihood that drugs/guns or things of that sort will become issues. From his perspective, it’s not much more likely than aliens landing in the garage. From that vantage point, it’s not a very bad logical error.
The problem is that he’s wrong about these facts. But there’s no reason to read anything more into it than that, let alone to go about convincing his spouse of it.
Argument by analogy is very dangerous, in my experience, because it’s very easy to come up with a superficially appropriate analogy to make the other side look stupid, far easier to come up with the analogy than it is to deconstruct a faulty one.
In forums like these, most people are pretty solidly dug in to their positions, and are unlikely to change, and there’s really no consequence if they don’t. So it’s really just guys having a good time batting things around and/or trying to impress people who are not necessarily part of the discussion. So tossing over something that the equally-entrenched other guy will just bat back over the net doesn’t advance the argument that much.
But when it comes to spouses, you need to come to a resolution and the goal is to actually convince the other person that you’re right and get them to see things your way, and they presumably have some amount of flexibility on their end as well. An analogy can be helpful.
As a pure question of logic, Left Hand of Dorkness has got it. It’s a false analogy - comparing one thing to something that isn’t of the same nature or magnitude.
From your point of view he’s using a false analogy to trivialise your argument by comparing it to something that is ridiculous. False analogy is an informal logic error, so it’s always up for debate whether the analogy is in fact reasonable. In this case he thinks your concerns are not justified, so he’s comparing them to something obviously not justified to make the point. From your point of view the concerns are justified, so his comparison is what is ridiculous.
Yes. Furthermore analogies never prove anything. They are useful as a teaching tool, but not as an argument as they are not an exact parallel. That’s what makes them an analogy.
You are getting upset at a rhetorical technique. It’s called ridicule and dismissal. At a rhetorical level, you lose when you freak out. But since this is part of a relationship, those rules don’t apply as much.
On the substance, ISTM that team watergallop needs to learn more about the law. I’m a cautious guy: my temperament would be to research the risks before making the proper call. (That has a downside too, sometimes known as “Paralysis via analysis.”)
There’s one thing dudes forget- some “fallacies” are just bad arguing. Others are rules for High School debate clubs- you use the “fallacies” to try to get the “Judge” to give your side 'points". It’s a game. In most cases, here IRL using there is committing Argumentum ad logicam.
For example- “argument to authority” is, IRL, very often a excellent point during an argument.
Even this rather excellent site here sez that **Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority)**At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one’s position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.
Many, many times dudes have tried to “win” a argument here or on other boards by pointing out the other guy has made a false logical argument, which would be a point against him… in a High school debate club. However, this is real life. You don’t have to “prove” things by “pure logic”. You can experiment, ask an expert, etc.
Generally, when outside a formal debate, someone falls back on claiming you have committed a logical fallacy, they are being a dick- and usually wrong to boot.