Conflating the actions of a person with the values of a group is a fallacy. It contains elements of Cherry Picking, Fallacy of Composition, and Ad Hominem.
I wasnât saying that itâs correct to do so. My point is precisely that the public tends to not distinguish, and I think itâs perfectly legitimate to be bothered by this and feel especially frustrated because your views are being invalidated by the wider public due to an incorrect assumption.
I think you and I have different interpretations of the word âlegitimate.â Oxford says âconforming to the law or to rules; ⌠able to be defended with logic or justification.â I guess it is technically true if you are allowing for the possibility of fallacious logic.
Yes, people make faulty logical conclusions all the time. Iâm not saying those people are bad or internally inconsistent. But if such a stance drives someone away from a cause area in which they could have had a tangible positive impact, that is a suboptimal outcome.
Dave, now you are cherry picking.
Oxford also states âfor which there is a fair and acceptable reason. SYNONYMS valid, justifiable.â
And there are âfair and acceptable reasonsâ to be bothered by people that donât care about the impact that predictable, âfaulty logicalâ conclusions of the public have on their behavior resulting in âsuboptimal outcomeâ.
Itâs a fair assumption that a great proportion of the general public does not distinguish between people and cause. If you truly want the cause to succeedâor have optimal outcomeâyou should care about mitigating that risk and not blame suboptimal outcome on logical fallacies of others.
Please donât âshouldâ on meâor anyone else for that matterâJulian. Itâs disrespectful.
I feel that educating people about logical fallacies is the way forward. But I am curious to hear what you or others propose that doesnât simply enable people to perpetuate existing behaviors.
Conflating the actions of a person with the values of a group is a fallacy. It contains elements of Cherry Picking, Fallacy of Composition, and Ad Hominem.
I wasnât saying that itâs correct to do so. My point is precisely that the public tends to not distinguish, and I think itâs perfectly legitimate to be bothered by this and feel especially frustrated because your views are being invalidated by the wider public due to an incorrect assumption.
I think you and I have different interpretations of the word âlegitimate.â Oxford says âconforming to the law or to rules; ⌠able to be defended with logic or justification.â I guess it is technically true if you are allowing for the possibility of fallacious logic.
Yes, people make faulty logical conclusions all the time. Iâm not saying those people are bad or internally inconsistent. But if such a stance drives someone away from a cause area in which they could have had a tangible positive impact, that is a suboptimal outcome.
Dave, now you are cherry picking. Oxford also states âfor which there is a fair and acceptable reason. SYNONYMS valid, justifiable.â
And there are âfair and acceptable reasonsâ to be bothered by people that donât care about the impact that predictable, âfaulty logicalâ conclusions of the public have on their behavior resulting in âsuboptimal outcomeâ.
Itâs a fair assumption that a great proportion of the general public does not distinguish between people and cause. If you truly want the cause to succeedâor have optimal outcomeâyou should care about mitigating that risk and not blame suboptimal outcome on logical fallacies of others.
Please donât âshouldâ on meâor anyone else for that matterâJulian. Itâs disrespectful.
I feel that educating people about logical fallacies is the way forward. But I am curious to hear what you or others propose that doesnât simply enable people to perpetuate existing behaviors.