What fallacy would this be?
Posted on: February 26, 2009 - 4:59am
Offline
What fallacy would this be?
The best I can put is:
That by explaining WHY somebody did something, you thereby condone or sanction that action.
For example, John punches Dave. I point out that Dave was mocking John, and then somebody else says that I think Dave deserved the punch.
The best I can think of is non-sequitur, but is there a specific name for this one?
- Login to post comments
Hmmm.
I can't think of how this would be a specific fallacy, as formal fallacies require a formal argument, and there's no argument here, just a leap of logic. Informally, yeah, it's potentially a few things. It could be an equivocation, where the reason(1) (cause) for the punch is replaced with the reason(2) justification for the punch. It is certainly a nonsequitur. It could potentially be an ac hominem, depending on the conclusion to the argument. Is someone saying that because you feel Dave deserved the punch, your point of view is invalid? That would be a form of attacking you to prove a point.
Anyway, like I said, without an actual formal argument, it's um... an informal fallacy to call it a fallacy.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm not sure if that's a good example. Humans have rules for what behaviors are justified. Hitting is wrong unless done in self defense. So it seems your just saying it was OK by the rules for human behavior.
But I know what you're getting at. When a horrific crime occurs, the commentators will say "We just can't understand evil or some people are just bad". But if they defend it, they may talk about the reason why. So it's like everything we don't understand just goes into the religious/superstitious domain.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Yeah, isn't this one called "two wrongs don't make a right"?
LOL
But seriously, I think the fallacy you're looking for is Red Herring, the supposed justification is introduced to divert attention from the subject under discussion - the original action.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Aw Jeez, so maybe the argument is simply that Pineapple thought Dave deserved the punch? But, that would just be a naked assertion, unless the person was relying on what Pineapple stated. Then, it would be a non sequitur and equivocating explaining why John punched Dave with believing that Dave deserved it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Yeah.. whatever the "argument" is, it's so bizarre and just wrong that I can't even guess what it is.
1. Pineapple stated that there is an explanation for the punch
2. Therefore, Pineapple condones the punch.
?!? Really???
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism