5 ms·

fallacy of relative privation or to reframe your argument: Maybe it doesnt matter how mysoginistic the US is, maybe the real issue is how bad things are in th

fallacy of relative privation or to reframe your argument: Maybe it doesnt matter how mysoginistic the US is, maybe the real issue is how bad things are in the middle east. Does that sound like something you agree with? we should cease all effort to improve conditions for women in the US because all of that effort should instead be expended on improving conditions for women in the middle east? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_...

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I would say, it is hypocritical to worry about one's own cell phone bill to the exclusion of being concerned about other's real privation. I just caution: don't take yourself too seriously.
tptacek 11y ago
That's not the fallacy of relative privation. The F.R.P. addresses arguments that appeal to unrelated problems elsewhere in the world. It's a fallacy because it's illogical: it doesn't matter that kids are starving in Japan, because nothing you do with your raisin bran is going to change that. But it does not follow that local problems are more, or even equally, deserving of attention that foreign ones.
- unprepare 11y ago
  Maybe you have a solidly different understanding of that fallacy, but that lines up 100% from where i'm sitting. I'll even reword it into the right semantic order: "The US may have some minor societal issues, but its not as bad as africa, therefore those issues can be dismissed" What exactly is logical about claiming every problem in the US is able to be dismissed on the basis that its worse elsewhere - especially given that we are in a discussion about internal US demographics? How exactly is africa related to the growing proportion of elderly voters in the united states and the effects that has on youth populations?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    There is a difference between an argument that you disagree with and an argument that is fallacious. If a problem exists in a minor form in the US and in a gigantic form elsewhere, it may indeed be worthwhile to direct attention to the gigantic problem rather than the minor one. As well, it may not be. The argument is colorable. You can't dispel it by invoking some element of a list of fallacies. Your argument is a pretty good illustration of the problem I have with these catalogues of fallacies. You've discovered the fallacy of relative privation, as others have discovered, say, ad hominem, and concluded that relative privation is a fallacy. No, that's not the point! As with ad hominem, it can be used fallaciously, but it is not inherently so.
    - unprepare 11y ago
      logical fallacy: >A logical fallacy is an error in the logic of an argument that prevents it from being logically valid but does not prevent it from swaying people's minds Can you show me the logic of the argument in a manner that makes sense? heres what i see: 1. elderly population is becoming ever larger part of electorate 2. this is causing an imbalance, as in the past new generations began influencing the political sphere earlier, as the older generations were much thinner 3. this imbalance is evidenced by political support for a youth focused populist candidate (heres where maybe im missing something) 4. this imbalance doesnt exist because its not as bad as africa. To me, its a straight up non sequitur let alone a FRP - on its face fallacious in more ways than one. On one hand we have a discussion about internal demographics in the US, and then here we have a counter argument proposing that the problems are not real based on the fact that someone has it worse. This isnt an argument i disagree with - I am not somehow implying that the US has it worse than africa. I am purely saying that bringing africa into a discussion about internal demographics and specifically age demographics of voters, is fallacious (i mean the commentor literally responded to political unrest of a population segment with 'at least there is no one starving'). Hopefully you can present the argument in a way that clarifys what i may be missing.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        The context of this thread is the idea that support for Bernie Sanders stems in part from the fact that if the injustices he talks about aren't addressed, there might be an armed revolution in the US. You are free to believe that's the case, but you cannot invoke the fallacy of relative privation to transform it into an open-and-shut argument. I'm not doing anything to improve this thread at this point, so I'm bowing out now.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

I would say, it is hypocritical to worry about one's own cell phone bill to the exclusion of being concerned about other's real privation. I just caution: don't take yourself too seriously.

tptacek 11y ago

That's not the fallacy of relative privation. The F.R.P. addresses arguments that appeal to unrelated problems elsewhere in the world. It's a fallacy because it's illogical: it doesn't matter that kids are starving in Japan, because nothing you do with your raisin bran is going to change that. But it does not follow that local problems are more, or even equally, deserving of attention that foreign ones.

unprepare 11y ago
Maybe you have a solidly different understanding of that fallacy, but that lines up 100% from where i'm sitting. I'll even reword it into the right semantic order: "The US may have some minor societal issues, but its not as bad as africa, therefore those issues can be dismissed" What exactly is logical about claiming every problem in the US is able to be dismissed on the basis that its worse elsewhere - especially given that we are in a discussion about internal US demographics? How exactly is africa related to the growing proportion of elderly voters in the united states and the effects that has on youth populations?
- tptacek 11y ago
  There is a difference between an argument that you disagree with and an argument that is fallacious. If a problem exists in a minor form in the US and in a gigantic form elsewhere, it may indeed be worthwhile to direct attention to the gigantic problem rather than the minor one. As well, it may not be. The argument is colorable. You can't dispel it by invoking some element of a list of fallacies. Your argument is a pretty good illustration of the problem I have with these catalogues of fallacies. You've discovered the fallacy of relative privation, as others have discovered, say, ad hominem, and concluded that relative privation is a fallacy. No, that's not the point! As with ad hominem, it can be used fallaciously, but it is not inherently so.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    logical fallacy: >A logical fallacy is an error in the logic of an argument that prevents it from being logically valid but does not prevent it from swaying people's minds Can you show me the logic of the argument in a manner that makes sense? heres what i see: 1. elderly population is becoming ever larger part of electorate 2. this is causing an imbalance, as in the past new generations began influencing the political sphere earlier, as the older generations were much thinner 3. this imbalance is evidenced by political support for a youth focused populist candidate (heres where maybe im missing something) 4. this imbalance doesnt exist because its not as bad as africa. To me, its a straight up non sequitur let alone a FRP - on its face fallacious in more ways than one. On one hand we have a discussion about internal demographics in the US, and then here we have a counter argument proposing that the problems are not real based on the fact that someone has it worse. This isnt an argument i disagree with - I am not somehow implying that the US has it worse than africa. I am purely saying that bringing africa into a discussion about internal demographics and specifically age demographics of voters, is fallacious (i mean the commentor literally responded to political unrest of a population segment with 'at least there is no one starving'). Hopefully you can present the argument in a way that clarifys what i may be missing.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      The context of this thread is the idea that support for Bernie Sanders stems in part from the fact that if the injustices he talks about aren't addressed, there might be an armed revolution in the US. You are free to believe that's the case, but you cannot invoke the fallacy of relative privation to transform it into an open-and-shut argument. I'm not doing anything to improve this thread at this point, so I'm bowing out now.