What's the Most Annoying Logical Fallacy in Relationships to You?
Greetings-
For me, relationships are about Respect. I really have to have Respect for my partner, mostly in the intelligence department. Once I lose respect for my partner, the relationship is pretty much already over. What I respect most are Logic and Intelligence, with a heavy dose of 'Common Sense'.
The fastest way that a partner of mine can lose my respect, is by using the -TU QUOQUE- fallacy (appeal to Hypocrisy). Tu Quoque is latin for "You too". It is basically, 'a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior'. This is especially harmful to relationships for obvious reasons.
This is probably my most grating to hear fallacy and will pretty much guarantee the relationship is over.
What is your most annoying Logical Fallacy to hear from your partner during an argument/discussion?
it sort of reminds me of that story about the guy who got thrown out of the public swimming pool, for pissing in the pool.
He protested 'but everyone pisses in the pool'
the attendant replied 'Not from the high diving board'
needed to go back and find this...
man... I recently separated, though looking back... hard to pinpoint to one. I must confess we were probably both guilty of several at different points.
forget annoying, that shit can be straight up destructive.
Very destructive.
Yes that poster is grand. I have the cards too. Great little graphics to leave behind in comments :)
#logiczombie is now #hive-171744
I am a noob at steem. I guess I need to tag the hive-171744 instead of #logiczombie then! No wonder it wouldn't go in there.
No worries, that was a good test. I just now figured it out myself.
Also,
The Tu Quoque tactic includes the added "benefit" of "the liar's dividend".
The liars dividend is earned by making a high-profile claim or accusation, which, even if categorically disproven later, the retraction is almost never "headline news" and as such, the majority of readers/viewers will continue to believe the original accusation.
For example,
Click to watch 5 minutes,
Exactly! That is a great example of why it is my most hated in a relationship setting. The point is always evaded no matter what, and a great deal of time wasted in a futile attempt to 'right' the 'wrong', never to return to the original point...
My favorite example of "Tu Quoque" is the following
A movie patron shuffles up to the ticket taker holding a burger bag and a large drink, the usher calmly and politely mentions, "I'm sorry, but the theater has a policy of -no-outside-food-or-drink-". The patron, in a huff, grumbles and says, "that other patron over there, who's walking into one of the movies brought in their own food!"
The usher, calmly and politely explains, "it doesn't matter if someone else is breaking the rules, I must remain at my post, so I have no ability to investigate your claim (accusation) at this particular moment in time, but I would kindly ask that you either finish your meal outside the theater or place it in the nearby bin before entering".
A very similar argument was promulgated recently in the headlines. When it was pointed out that Trump implicitly requested specific favors in exchange for pending monetary aid, instead of actually defending himself, he instead chose to attempt to distract the press (and everyone else) by suggesting that Biden (that other guy over there) "did the same thing" (Tu Quoque).
It doesn't matter if someone else committed the same crime as you "and got away with it".
That's NOT a defense. It's a RED-HERRING.
Another example would be,
Imagine what would happen if, in the middle of a criminal trial, the defendant, who is facing a charge of murder, blurted out in open court, that the prosecutor had also committed murder.
First off, that unsupported claim (accusation/bald-assertion) does not prove the prosecutor is ACTUALLY guilty of murder.
And second, even IF that claim was 100% REAL-TRUE-FACT, that still has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the defendant's case.
This trial is not the proper time or the proper place to make such a claim.
The defendant should present any evidence they have to the police and the police will decide if that case should be investigated on its own merit.
Stating opinion as FACT.
Also known as "the modal fallacy".
It is the most pervasive and insidious logical fallacy.
"A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false." - This is also known as APODICTIC TRUTH.
Many have built their entire philosophical foundation on this fallacy (conflating opinion with fact, which is a category error, also known as "the modal fallacy").
Congratulations @oldoneeye! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPVote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
@oldoneeye, keep up the good work!