Im looking for the definition of a messed up method of arguing.

[Traab]

We all know about strawman arguments, but I was wondering what this is defined as.

"Why are you wasting time trying to save the whales when there are children starving in the streets?"

Basically, dismissing your entire topic by saying there is something much worse out there they should be worrying about instead.

[Serpentine]

Heh. Did you get that from me? :smalltongue:
I'm not sure. I'd imagine it'd be something along the lines of a diversion tactic.

[invinible]

I think you are looking at this 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences.

[Wyntonian]

That kinda sounds like a weird cousin of a Perfect Solution Fallacy.

That's the "Helmet won't save everyone who gets in a bike accident, therefore we shouldn't promote their use" one. Just because something's not perfect or at the upper bounds of potential efficacy doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile.

This seems to be closely related.

[Traab]

No invin, I dont think thats the one, its not connected to the original argument in any way, its basically dismissing it as unimportant because there are worse things out there you could be taking care of instead. If you are talking about how much it sucks that you are failing out of school, this person would say, "How can you complain about school troubles when there are so many people out there that cant go to school?" If you are arguing that then they bring up starving orphans, if you bring up that they mention the inevitable death by pollution of our world. if you bring up that then they wonder how you can be so concerned with the death of earth when the entire cosmos will eventually undergo heat death. Basically, it doesnt matter what you are arguing about, what your goal is, or anything, to this person there is always something worse out there to be worried about, therefore your argument is invalid.

And Serp, you did mention it, but its been on my mind for some time now. Its a common thing done in the editorial/opinion page of my paper. It drives me nuts. The rebuttals just go, "How can you care about x when y is so much worse?! then they go off onto their own crusade topic and you cant help but wonder why they ever even mentioned yours in the first place.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The closest thing I can find is the Chewbacca Defense (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense), in which someone brings up something completely unrelated to your debate in order to try and get you to respond to that instead.

It sounds, though, that this guy figures that since in countless years the entire universe will die, it's not worth taking time to solve anything, but at the same time we shouldn't complain about anything either (or care about anything, or be happy about anything, etc.). He's either an ultra-enlightened zen master who has achieved complete inner piece, or a lazy douche who doesn't follow his own advice.

[Zrak]

Essentially, it's just non-sequitur. Their response does not follow from the statement made. I'm sure there's some specific definition in formal logic or whatever, but since I avoid formal logic in the hopes of retaining the ability to actually think, I wouldn't know that. :smalltongue:

Generally, though, it's the same basic tactic as responding to a point which one cannot refute with an unrelated argument designed to make oneself look better and one's opponent look worse; "I don't really know about the advisor's claim that the queen's brother is having an affair with the queen, but I do know that the last king melted peoples' eyes for fun," ideally followed by an implication that, by extension, the accuser supports eye-melting.

[invinible]

Than it would be this 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts.

[Hiro Protagonest]

"I don't really know about the advisor's claim that the queen's brother is having an affair with the queen, but I do know that the last king melted peoples' eyes for fun."

Uhh... I really hope that was either a typo, or some Egyptian Pharaoh inbreeding deal where she's married to a different brother. >_>

[Zrak]

It was an allusion, I just left out the names to keep the reference spoiler-free.

[Traab]

Than it would be this 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts.

This one is closer, but its still not quite there, its more like saying, "Ok, so you have two reasons for why babies shouldnt be eaten, but if you cant think of 5 then you obviously cant defeat my baby eating initiative." I actually think the answer from Zrak is closest so far. Maybe the answer isnt on a list of logical fallacies, but instead can be summed up with, "The other guy is an ass."

[Zrak]

I mean, I think it depends on whether or not it's used because The Other Guy doesn't have a better argument, or whether he's actually making the argument that something is trivial compared to other issues which could use attention. In other words, if it's just a non-sequitur deflection or if it's the argument that if there's an army of orcs smashing down the gates, changing the regulation grass length of official buildings may not be the most pressing matter.

[Serpentine]

The False Dichotomy seems like it could be part of it, with the implication that if you're thinking about X then you must be incapable of worrying about Y.

[Kindablue]

Or that you have to pick one and ignore the other. It's definitely a non sequitur.

[Starwulf]

I have it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[SaintRidley]

In some circles, this sort of argument is referred to as the "Dear Muslima" argument after a particularly stupid response to the Rebecca Watson elevator incident (in short, prominent person says "Shut up, American feminists, because there are worse abuses of women in countries on the other side of the world, so any misogyny you experience is not worth consideration and you should be directing your energies there to combat REAL misogyny").

These arguments always take the form of saying that we should do nothing about X problem right now because (in the eyes of the person making the argument) Y problem is bigger. Therefore, X cannot be solved until Y is solved. And if, by chance, Y is solved, there's always a Z that comes up to prevent X from being put under consideration.

It rolls false dichotomy, non sequitur, and the perfect solution fallacy into one big ball of awful. I don't think there's any formal fallacy that quite captures it all at once, so I just go with the above.

[Zrak]

I don't really think reductio ad absurdum applies, here. Reductio ad absurdum would be responding to "Save the whales? If we never let any whales die, there would be no room for anything else!"

Which seems absurd until whale overpopulation crushes your family.

[Traab]

In some circles, this sort of argument is referred to as the "Dear Muslima" argument after a particularly stupid response to the Rebecca Watson elevator incident (in short, prominent person says "Shut up, American feminists, because there are worse abuses of women in countries on the other side of the world, so any misogyny you experience is not worth consideration and you should be directing your energies there to combat REAL misogyny").

These arguments always take the form of saying that we should do nothing about X problem right now because (in the eyes of the person making the argument) Y problem is bigger. Therefore, X cannot be solved until Y is solved. And if, by chance, Y is solved, there's always a Z that comes up to prevent X from being put under consideration.

It rolls false dichotomy, non sequitur, and the perfect solution fallacy into one big ball of awful. I don't think there's any formal fallacy that quite captures it all at once, so I just go with the above.


YES! That is it precisely!

[Serpentine]

Looks like a variant of Moral Equivalence (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence).

[Kindablue]

It rolls false dichotomy, non sequitur, and the perfect solution fallacy into one big ball of awful. I don't think there's any formal fallacy that quite captures it all at once, so I just go with the above.

I agree, but to be pedantic: all logical fallacies are just specific kinds of non sequiturs--that their conclusions don't follow from their premises is what makes them fallacious.

[SaintRidley]

I agree, but to be pedantic: all logical fallacies are just specific kinds of non sequiturs--that their conclusions don't follow from their premises is what makes them fallacious.

True enough.

[Dr.Epic]

The Chewbacca Defense?

[Asta Kask]

It's a false dichotomy. You can do both.

[ProudGrognard]

How about this? Just take your pick

Schopenhauer 's eristic dialectics (http://tinyurl.com/dfjaer)

[The Succubus]

Why are you sitting here making strawman arguements when there are whales starving in Africa? :smallmad:

[Socratov]

Oh, no, my favorite is the Ad Hominem. So wrong, yet so effective :smallbiggrin:

[Skeppio]

I've heard of it before, I think under the name "Appeal to worse problems". I found a TvTropes link: LINK (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems)

[Chen]

It can be a false dichotomy under the assumption you can only worry about one or the other.

However, it can also be a valid argument in a way. Imagine I want to save the whales and propose we create some foundation for that. The argument "why bother with that when we have children to save" can be valid since the resources necessary to create said foundation are in fact limited. We cannot in fact do both which removes the false dichotomy.

Without elaborating the argument is generally not valid. But dismissing an issue because of supposed more important issues can be legitimate in some cases.

[Sipex]

In all honesty, everyone I know just calls that 'being a jerk'.

[Dr.Epic]

why Are We Talking About This When We Could Be Eating Chocolate!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Mewtarthio]

However, it can also be a valid argument in a way. Imagine I want to save the whales and propose we create some foundation for that. The argument "why bother with that when we have children to save" can be valid since the resources necessary to create said foundation are in fact limited. We cannot in fact do both which removes the false dichotomy.

In that case, though, the argument should be rephrased so as to emphasize that there is, indeed, a conflict between the two goals. Saying "Why are you saving the whales when our children are starving?" simply indicates that you personally don't care about whales. A proper argument would be "But if we stop hunting whales, what will we feed our children? They're hungry enough as it is!" This allows the other party to suggest ways of ameliorating your concerns, making his position more palatable (in the above example, he could suggest alternative sources of food, or provide statistics indicating that whale meat is actually not a staple food).

Now, there is one type of situation where simply appealing to a greater danger, regardless of its relevance, is justified: Namely, when the greater danger requires immediate action, and even discussing the lesser issue could expend valuable resources ("Stop arguing about who gets to keep the stupid pen; the building is ON FIRE!"). Note that this is still technically a logical fallacy, and the argument should ideally be allowed to continue once the danger is past (assuming the participants survive).

[Zrak]

I think you might be misunderstanding. It's not that the two goals conflict because whale meat is a staple food, or anything of the kind. Two goals could arguably conflict because the amount of resources which can be devoted to either problem is limited; every dollar spent doing one thing is a dollar less spent doing the other thing, regardless of what either is. Therefore, it is valid to argue that another goal, which requires expenditure of the same limited resource to be achieved, is more important than whatever someone else is advocating. In other words, opportunity costs are a real thing and warrant consideration.

[thubby]

I think you might be misunderstanding. It's not that the two goals conflict because whale meat is a staple food, or anything of the kind. Two goals could arguably conflict because the amount of resources which can be devoted to either problem is limited; every dollar spent doing one thing is a dollar less spent doing the other thing, regardless of what either is. Therefore, it is valid to argue that another goal, which requires expenditure of the same limited resource to be achieved, is more important than whatever someone else is advocating. In other words, opportunity costs are a real thing and warrant consideration.

the counter to this is that the marginal benefit falls like a rock.

suppose we make ALL charity about helping starving children. there would still be starving children. now suppose 10 thousand more dollar become available. it wouldnt do much, if anything.
give it to the whale people and they could do a LOT more than they could with nothing.

the objective, then, is to find where the marginal benefits of whales and kids are equal.
yes, we need a whale-to-starving-child ratio.

[OracleofWuffing]

I'd just call it irrelevant, because children are annoying and whoever's speaking hasn't established any benefits to feeding them whales. :smalltongue:
Edit: Come to think of it, though, if we saved whales, we would have more whales to feed to children, so it's a counterproductive irrelevancy at that.

As the example is phrased, though, it's probably an Appeal to Emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion).


Why are you sitting here making strawman arguements when there are whales starving in Africa? :smallmad:
Your attack on us is the real straw man here; let's be serious. (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=516)

[WarKitty]

Your attack on us is the real straw man here; let's be serious. (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=516)

I see what you did there.

[pendell]

We all know about strawman arguments, but I was wondering what this is defined as.

"Why are you wasting time trying to save the whales when there are children starving in the streets?"

Basically, dismissing your entire topic by saying there is something much worse out there they should be worrying about instead.

I'm thinking you may be looking for Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) , which roughly translates to "irrelevant conclusion" . You're failing to address the matter in question. I.e., the fact that worse evils exist doesn't mean that lesser evils are irrelevant.

A related version is the red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring), a deliberate attempt to change the subject away from the issue at hand.

It might also be an appeal to pity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity) or an appeal to ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule), making the subject out to be ridiculous or effectively waving a diseased poster child as a distraction from the issue at hand.

All of these hit at it, none of them exactly address the precise fallacy you describe. Perhaps we could document it?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Wyntonian]

I'm thinking you may be looking for Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) , which roughly translates to "irrelevant conclusion" . You're failing to address the matter in question. I.e., the fact that worse evils exist doesn't mean that lesser evils are irrelevant.


I think it's this.

That said, I think Inlitteratus (Or Rudis?) Culus Fallacy is a good name for this.

[Anarion]

Hmm, naming a logical fallacy? I don't see enough difference here to call this other than a non-sequitur. It could be a bait and switch if it had more setup, but as is, it seems to be mostly just changing the subject to an irrelevant one.

Maybe we could call it the incommensurable evils fallacy? How does that roll off the tongue?


the counter to this is that the marginal benefit falls like a rock.

suppose we make ALL charity about helping starving children. there would still be starving children. now suppose 10 thousand more dollar become available. it wouldnt do much, if anything.
give it to the whale people and they could do a LOT more than they could with nothing.

the objective, then, is to find where the marginal benefits of whales and kids are equal.
yes, we need a whale-to-starving-child ratio.

There are a ton of great arguments to the "there's a bigger problem" complaint. Drop off in marginal benefit as you list is one. Another response is that marginal cost of the solution is higher for the worse problem, or even that the marginal cost of trying to figure out the marginal benefit annihilates the marginal benefit (this is when you have a problem and no idea what to do about it).

Or you could go all Adam Smith about it and point out that you're advocating for one thing, other people will advocate for their own problems and we can just let the invisible hand sort it all out. :smallbiggrin:

[Chen]

There are a ton of great arguments to the "there's a bigger problem" complaint. Drop off in marginal benefit as you list is one. Another response is that marginal cost of the solution is higher for the worse problem, or even that the marginal cost of trying to figure out the marginal benefit annihilates the marginal benefit (this is when you have a problem and no idea what to do about it).

The marginal cost/benefit can clearly just lead to more debate though. It doesn't get by the inherent argument that is "children are more important than whales" (continuing the same example). You then need to get into the details of how much you value children vs whales. If I say I value the life of even 1 human child more than the lives of ALL the whales, the marginal cost argument doesn't help. At this point the person arguing for whales needs to determine how they value whales with respect to starving children and you can presumably work out the appropriate cost that would be acceptable to them. Or you could argue as to why children should be more important than whales and such.

[Augmental]

Would this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_worse_problems) be it?

[willpell]

That kinda sounds like a weird cousin of a Perfect Solution Fallacy.

That's the "Helmet won't save everyone who gets in a bike accident, therefore we shouldn't promote their use" one. Just because something's not perfect or at the upper bounds of potential efficacy doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile.

But conversely, just because something has a beneficial effect does not necessarily mean it's worth the tradeoff. One could for instance argue that laws mandating helmet wearing represent excessively invasive government authority, or even that they are motivated solely by payoffs to a lobby funded by helmet-manufacturing companies (note that I am speaking rhetorically, not actually making this argument; that would be politics).

There is a big difference between what is theoretically best and what has the optimal ratio between "benefits or virtues" and "costs or consequences". So the rhetorical device Traab is looking for can be used validly; there are certainly valid perspectives that can claim that there's no point in saving the whales if the children all starve, and even if the argument is about whether to save the whales or not, bringing the starving children up as incentive for not saving the whales is not automatically wrong, though definitely rather clumsy at best. A strawmany by contrast would be flat-out wrong because it was never the arguer's contention at all.

(It would be wrong to bring up the second subject if it had literally no application to the first, but there world is interconnected enough that it is hard to ever say that two things have no relationship whatsoever. Perhaps Traab could have picked a better example, or perhaps not, but either way the fact that money, time, distribution-of-labor and such are coherent global realities means that saving the whales might directly cause the children to starve, or at least that you could argue for such a connection and attempt to prove that it's significant enough to worry about.)

EDIT - Er, sorry if I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said.

[WarKitty]

And this is why I hate fallacies.