4 ms·
> That depends on whether you are endorsing it or not. You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not fol
by woodman 11y ago
> That depends on whether you are endorsing it or not.
You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. Ironically, use the word otherwise often betrays one's own cognitive biases.
As far as my endorsement, I don't think I could state my position any more clearly than I already have: "...maybe we should reconsider the wisdom in granting some small portion of our freedom to every other voter. 42% of Americans believe in ghosts..."
- pessimizer 11y ago> You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. You have yet to make an argument that "representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny." If you had, it wouldn't be a just world fallacy.
- woodman 11y ago> You have yet to make an argument that... Correct, I have no interest in arguing that position. Any highschool graduate should immediately recognize "majority tyranny" and the political theory that it is connected to. If I had argued the virtue of representative democracy, it might have been biased by the just world fallacy, but I haven't - so it wasn't.