Podcast Common logical fallacies used in debates
- Thread starter Petunia
- Start date
As a JW we had a “Theocratic School” to learn how to speak about our faith.
But I never learned about these fallacies, like the straw man fallacy.
I’m sure this technique was used - but more in talks than in literature. I can’t remember a specific example, but I do remember that some speakers liked to ridicule other ideas or groups and the audience laughing about it. It often made me uncomfortable.
Even today in the media it’s often used, as we noticed with the COVID jab (“you must be an anti-vaxxer”).
If we recognize it by ourselves and others we can have a more meaningful discussion.
If anyone ever notices that I use it, please let me know!
Petunia
But I never learned about these fallacies, like the straw man fallacy.
I’m sure this technique was used - but more in talks than in literature. I can’t remember a specific example, but I do remember that some speakers liked to ridicule other ideas or groups and the audience laughing about it. It often made me uncomfortable.
Even today in the media it’s often used, as we noticed with the COVID jab (“you must be an anti-vaxxer”).
If we recognize it by ourselves and others we can have a more meaningful discussion.
If anyone ever notices that I use it, please let me know!
Petunia
My personal view: willfully moving the goalposts is dishonest and unfair.
But coming out of a cult, we want to define our own beliefs. Without our previous fixed convictions we can feel vulnerable and it takes time to develop our own thoughts. In this process we can - unknowingly - commit this fallacy.
It’s okay to define, redefine and refine your beliefs.
It’s also okay to say that someone has a good argument - it doesn’t mean he/she is right in everything or that you are wrong in everything.
A friendly and respectful discussion can help you understand what your position is and how to formulate it respectfully without moving the goalposts.
Petunia
At any rate being pro- or anti- vaxxer is mostly irrelevant to whatever argument is at play. This is and ad hominem at best, or completely superfluous at worst.As a JW we had a “Theocratic School” to learn how to speak about our faith.
But I never learned about these fallacies, like the straw man fallacy.
I’m sure this technique was used - but more in talks than in literature. I can’t remember a specific example, but I do remember that some speakers liked to ridicule other ideas or groups and the audience laughing about it. It often made me uncomfortable.
Even today in the media it’s often used, as we noticed with the COVID jab (“you must be an anti-vaxxer”).
If we recognize it by ourselves and others we can have a more meaningful discussion.
If anyone ever notices that I use it, please let me know!
Petunia
More than debate fallacy was used. Threats, intimidation, and virtue signaling were in play as well. The shot record was proof of you care about others.