i’ve been Googling for an hour and my brain hurts reading all the Latin names of logical fallacies. I guess I need more coffee! I’m sure people here will recognize this fallacy right away.
I was having an online discussion with someone about the healthcare situation. After I presented my position, he had nothing left to say but:
“Well, if you don’t like the healthcare here, you’re free to go to Canada!”
What’s this called?
Thanks!
Avoiding the question?
False? Americans, on the whole, are not free to move to Canada at will.
A form of false dichotomy, maybe?
Other general examples of this fallacy that I can think of:
-If you don’t like it here, you’re free to leave.
-If you are not with us, you’re against us.
Ah! that’s it! thanks a lot, now I can let this guy know that he’s a douchebag (Ad Hominem)
I don’t have an answer, but this might help.
It’s also a thought-terminating cliche.
Fallacy of the excluded middle. He’s neglecting that there are more than two choices.
Related to false dichotomy is excluded middle. Basically it’s a false dichotomy with more than two options.
Famous Example: “Jesus Christ said he was the son of God, therefore he was Lord, lunatic, or liar!”
Flaw: There are other options. He was misquoted, or the gospel writers were lunatics or liars, or he was taken out of context, or… etc. ad nauseum.
ETA: Or what Tom Tildrum said.
It’s called lying because that is not usually an option. It is now fairly complicated to immigrate here now.
It reminds me of the 50 year old Jules Pfeiffer cartoon in which after a lengthy debate with a telephone operator (remember them) the complainant was told, "If you don’t like us you can always go to one of our competitors. I have always remembered that and now I have done so.
Back in the 60s, a good friend of mine was told by her parents, “Love it or leave it.” Immigration to Canada was a lot easier in those days and eventually she did. The parents then said they didn’t really mean it.
The fallacy of the excluded middle has nothing to do with neglecting that there are more than two choices.
I agree that ‘false dichotomy’ covers what the OP is referring to in general terms. However, I think one could also take the view that the OP isn’t really dealing with a logical fallacy at all. There’s no ‘reasoning’ on offer, that one might assess and consider fallacious. The person he’s talking to is just either unable to offer a reasoned position or unwlling to, and is indulging in a rhetorical flourish, a way of trying to score a cheap point without actually offering any reason, logic or coherence.
Well, it doesn’t necesarily need to be a logical fallacy, it’s simply wrong. You hear that a lot. “If you like how X country does it better, then you’re free to move there!” - uh, no, actually, getting citizenship and/or visas is actually a complicated process. Most countries only want to take on applicants that have special skills that add significant value to their society.
Sounds right to me. Or maybe you’d specify it as the “amll-or-nothing fallacy” or “black-and-white thinking”: that the only responses (in this case, to the American healthcare system) are total acceptance or total rejection.
It may be worth pointing out that arguing that something is true by eliminating all alternatives is a valid form of reasoning. (As Sherlock Holmes famously said, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”). The syllogism:
P or Q is true.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is true.
is a perfectly valid argument, but like any valid argument it can yield a faulty conclusion if the premises aren’t true.
Isn’t it also a non sequitur? Presumably, someone who does like the healthcare system in the US is equally free to go to Canada.
Funny thing is that I am a Canuck so I really can go back to Canada if I wanted to (in the states currently). He didn’t know that though.
I still think the thought-terminating cliche is a good way to view this because the comment seeks not so much to offer options so much as to dismiss the argument, which is ostensibly about health care reform.
I would agree that false dichotomy *could *apply, but false dichotomy is a bit simplistic for this situation. The OP’s opponent’s response is not *even *a fallacy, it’s dismissing the argument altogether. There is no logical refutation of your position. It is not an argument at all, merely misdirection.
I don’t think this is a logical fallacy so much as a rhetorical device. Allow me to illustrate.
Assertion: Everyone in the country should have affordable health care.
Argument: A society with a conscience ensures that every citizen has adequate food, shelter, clothing, and health care. If everyone has health care then society will be more economically productive.
Logical Refutation: A capitalist free-market economy ensures that everyone has assets according to their economic contributions to society, and health care should be no exception
Fallacy of false dichotomy: Either everyone must pay for their own health care, or I will be taxed to pay for health care of others.
Rhetorical device: Fuck you, you commie!
Yes, I agree with CookingWithGas that ‘false dichotomy’ is not really appropriate here. I would argue that it even gives the rebuttal more credit than it deserves.
What exactly were you arguing? If the general form of the exchange was:
you: healthcare should be reformed for reasons x, y and z.
other guy: if you don’t like it you can move to Canada.
then I would just respond with, “how is my freedom to move to Canada relevant to the claim that healthcare should be reformed?”
His claim was not fallacious, just irrelevant.