3 ms·

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 or

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.
    - unprepare 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. Ok, then is this an argument for or against that idea? >I'm sorry to say that but there is no real injustices in western countries. Everybody has food, education, a minimal healthcare and even luxury products like smartphone or TV. It sounds to me like they are: >dismissing a complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the original argument. But sure, maybe its a real argument. Maybe campaign finance reform in the US doesnt exist as an issue, because when i go home i know theres still food in the cupboard. Maybe because i can go to an emergency room if i get shot and they'll care for me before knowing if i have insurance, that means that black people getting murdered by police officers isn't an injustice. Maybe given that i have a smartphone, ever rising costs of engaging in a legal battle dont favor the wealthy, and that doesnt represent a legal system based on economics rather than justice Maybe since my country has a public education system and i was able to learn to read and write, that means that my country doesnt criminalize the mentally ill. And since someone in africa doesnt have those advantages, any injustice they face is real. I honestly cant see a way to read these comments that dont fit the exact definition of relative privation. Are you saying that the other commentor was saying that campaign finance reform is not an issue because campaign finance reform is needed even more greatly in africa? Or as you saying they meant an armed revolution is not possible in the US given that countries worse off are not engaged in armed revolution currently? Those are the most generous reads of the comment i've been able to come up with. I appreciate the discussion, have a good one
  - 11y ago

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.
  - unprepare 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. Ok, then is this an argument for or against that idea? >I'm sorry to say that but there is no real injustices in western countries. Everybody has food, education, a minimal healthcare and even luxury products like smartphone or TV. It sounds to me like they are: >dismissing a complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the original argument. But sure, maybe its a real argument. Maybe campaign finance reform in the US doesnt exist as an issue, because when i go home i know theres still food in the cupboard. Maybe because i can go to an emergency room if i get shot and they'll care for me before knowing if i have insurance, that means that black people getting murdered by police officers isn't an injustice. Maybe given that i have a smartphone, ever rising costs of engaging in a legal battle dont favor the wealthy, and that doesnt represent a legal system based on economics rather than justice Maybe since my country has a public education system and i was able to learn to read and write, that means that my country doesnt criminalize the mentally ill. And since someone in africa doesnt have those advantages, any injustice they face is real. I honestly cant see a way to read these comments that dont fit the exact definition of relative privation. Are you saying that the other commentor was saying that campaign finance reform is not an issue because campaign finance reform is needed even more greatly in africa? Or as you saying they meant an armed revolution is not possible in the US given that countries worse off are not engaged in armed revolution currently? Those are the most generous reads of the comment i've been able to come up with. I appreciate the discussion, have a good one
- 11y ago