There’s a type of argument that seems generally fallacious that I’ve seen a bunch recently, and I’m sick of it.
It goes like this:
A: I think that when people do X, there’s a tendency for Y to happen
B: Wait but can you precisely define exactly what is and is not X? Here are a bunch of examples, please categorize each of them precisely as X or not-X. If you can’t, then X has no meaning, and your whole claim is groundless.
Here’s a recent example.
What’s so irritating about this is that there’s almost no meaningful concept in the human experience which is so rigorously defined that you can’t come up with borderline cases. “I don’t want to live next to a thief” “But what about someone who stole bread to feed his starving family? Is he a thief or not?”.
If we can’t ever discuss anything without being able to fully and 100% accurately define all our base terms down to being able to instantly categorize every possible example, we’ll never discuss anything.
There are certain types of discussions in which in fact it is quite reasonable to discuss how rigorously definable and sortable certain terms are. For instance, if a white separatist wants to pass a law saying no black people can live in his town, then the burden of proof is on him to come up with a rigorous definition that can be applied to potential residents (plus of course he’s racist). But that doesn’t mean that any discussion anyone ever has about race can instantly be ended by pointing out that not everyone fits neatly into “black, white, Asian or Latino”.
A major way to win internet arguments is not to win at logic, but rather to make your opponents do a lot of pointless work. In that way, saying something slightly dumb - and making your opponents cover a lot of tedious, obvious rhetorical ground, can be a better strategy than coming up with a counterargument.
I think this is the same kind of argument that people trot out when you say something like, “Traffic in Calgary is terrible!” and they all race in to tell you that no, traffic in Calgary is not terrible because it’s much worse in New York or Boston or Toronto or Vancouver or wherethehellever. My answer to that is, “Just because one thing is worse doesn’t make this thing not bad.”
Now I can’t figure out if that is the same kind of thing or not.
Hey, I’m still trying to figure out if I qualify as a potential serial killer because my parents died when I was young and I was taken in by my aunt and uncle. But they didn’t actually ‘adopt’ me, so does that mean I’m okay? I mean its only the kids who were actually (shudder!) ‘adopted’, who turn into serial killers, right?
So, I’m good? In spite of my occasional lapses into murderous rage?
I don’t even think that’s a fallacy. I think it’s a non-sequitur. Or maybe a strawman, in that they’re arguing against the claim “Traffic in Calgary is the worst in the world”, which you did not make.
It’s the fallacy of The Excluded Middle. Just because the most terrible traffic maybe in New York doesn’t mean that the traffic in Calgary isn’t absolutely terrible. Terrible traffic is not a toggle switch, it’s a continuum.
Why, yes! Absolutely, I will put aside the flamethrower! See? I’m a reasonable person - it’s not like I was adopted or something crazy like that!
A little switchblade in the pocket, you know - just in case it turns out that YOU’RE adopted - well that’s okay right? Just a little insurance…y’know, never know if someone may have grown up in an unfriendly environment where, yeah - sure, of course, THEY LIKED YOUR COUSINS BEST! no big deal… :mad:
