# What kind of argument is this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 15, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276 "2004-07-15T16:36:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/1 "2004-07-15T16:36:48Z")
I came across [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5069029&postcount=76) post today. I thought this type of argument by substitution was incorrect but I can’t seem to find any website that addresses this. Is this a logical fallacy, some other type of debating no-no, or is this type of argument valid? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/2 "2004-07-15T16:58:40Z")
It’s an analogy. It’s difficult or impossible to find/construct a perfect analogy, but some are certainly better than others. It’s not incorrect; the real question is how applicable is it? ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/3 "2004-07-15T17:05:17Z")
Really? The original post was dealing with gays and the quoted post substituted any homosexual reference with a reference to an ethnic minority. This seems to be an appeal to emotion or something and is done merely for shock value. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/4 "2004-07-15T18:34:10Z")
Really. If the analogy seems inappropriate to you, you might try to argue that it’s a _false analogy_ – but then you have to demonstrate how the two situations differ in a way that is relevant to the argument. A common objection to this _particular_ analogy is that homosexual couples cannot reproduce, and so the comparison is invalid. This itself is however a compositional fallacy, as it suggests that because some allowable marriages produce children, _all_ allowable marriages must produce children. Ability to reproduce is not recognized as a prerequisite for marriage. So it’s left for the other side to demonstrate why same-sex relationships are fundamentally _different_ from bi-racial relationships. The analogy is that prejudicial attitudes at one time resulted in legal barriers to certain romantic partnerships being recognized by law. It’s a valid argument, as far as I can see. Since we’re talking about formal logic with reference to gay marriage, it’s fun to watch its opponents run through the index of logical fallacies: slippery slope, appeal to consequences, prejudicial language, appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, and, again and again, begging the question. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/5 "2004-07-15T18:39:53Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > Really? The original post was dealing with gays and the quoted post substituted any homosexual reference with a reference to an ethnic minority. This seems to be an appeal to emotion or something and is done merely for shock value. Not necessarily. If the person who made the original quote agrees that the altered version is unacceptable, but maintains that the original version is OK, then it puts them into the position of having to explain the difference between what was there and what was substituted. I don’t know that I feel comfortable calling it an analogy, but I do think it’s a valid debating technique. ---
**Author:** ![brane\_damaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a587f6/32.png) [@brane\_damaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brane_damaj)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/6 "2004-07-15T19:03:00Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Since we’re talking about formal logic with reference to gay marriage, it’s fun to watch its opponents run through the index of logical fallacies: slippery slope, appeal to consequences, prejudicial language, appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, and, again and again, begging the question. Remind me to never argue with you about anything. ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/7 "2004-07-15T19:08:07Z")
Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/8 "2004-07-15T20:11:08Z")
**Sturmhauke** is putting words into **Shakes’** mouth, inventing and attacking an argument that Shakes never made; thats a **straw man** The comment about racial minorities does not logically follow from the Shakes comments; that’s a **non-sequitor** It takes the discussion into a totally different direction, discussing things that are irrelevent to the original topic, thats a **red herring.** ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/9 "2004-07-15T20:15:30Z")
I think I am going to read up on logical fallacies as some of you throw them around like they were required learning in grade school…oh what a wasted youth I had, playing sports and wooing girls :smack: ---
**Author:** ![brane\_damaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a587f6/32.png) [@brane\_damaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brane_damaj)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/10 "2004-07-15T20:28:09Z")
Here’s a really swell link with a bunch of different kinds of logical fallacies: [http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html](http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html) The site is dedicated to the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate and you can tell that by the examples, but it’s pretty cool. ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/11 "2004-07-15T20:51:23Z")
Thanks again. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-argument-is-this/255276/12 "2004-07-15T22:08:13Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > **Sturmhauke** is putting words into **Shakes’** mouth, inventing and attacking an argument that Shakes never made; thats a **straw man**. No, **Sturmhauke** never claimed that **Shakes** made any statements about interracial marriage, and what he did does not resemble a straw man. A straw man argument misrepresents your opponent’s position as something that’s easily refuted. For instance, when President Bush attempted to counter criticism of the invasion of Iraq by saying: > [@](#): > > There’s a lot of people in the world who don’t believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. This directly attacks a position that no-one has taken. **Sturmhauke** invited people to examine an analogy that _he_ was making. > [@](#): > > The comment about racial minorities does not logically follow from the Shakes comments; that’s a non-sequitor. No, it’s not. A non sequitur is a flawed argument, eg; “Gay people have a reputation for being well-groomed, _therefore_ they should be allowed to be married.” > [@](#): > > It takes the discussion into a totally different direction, discussing things that are irrelevent to the original topic, thats a **red herring.** Again, no. As you said, a red herring is introducing irrelevant material as a diversionary tactic. For example, if I were to say, “Sure, traditionally, marriages have been between people of opposing sexes, but gay people have a much stronger sense of community.” No connection between the two, but it changes the topic by tempting the other party to argue an unrelated point. **Sturmhauke** ’s post is arguably relevant, and invites people to examine how, if at all, the situations are different. There are still fairly young people walking around who can remember when “anti-miscegenatation” laws were finally overturned in the United States. Those laws were enacted in a similar spirit, and the rhetoric used by their proponents will sound awfully familiar to anyone who’s been paying attention recently. Comparisons to past restrictions on who may and may not be married are natural. Err… apologies for what may appear to be politicking in GQ – I’m trying to stick to discussing logic, but it’s hard to say “This is relevant because…” without sounding political. On reflection, I probably ought to have picked another “Straw Man” example, but it’s the first one that sprang to mind. Argh. And cheers, **Greenback**!