3 ms·

I'm making an argument by contradiction. Premise 1: X causes social tension is a reason for us to oppose X. Fact: Racial diversity causes social tension. Pre

I'm making an argument by contradiction. Premise 1: X causes social tension is a reason for us to oppose X. Fact: Racial diversity causes social tension. Premise 2: The person I'm arguing against doesn't believe racial diversity should be opposed. Conclusion: Maybe Premise 1 is wrong. But then using premise 1 as an argument against inequality is also wrong.

crdoconnor 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Although I'd prefer to call it "argumentum ad assume racism"
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  No. Association fallacy is a in b, a in c therefore b = c. My argument is a -> b, a -> c, c is false therefore a must be false, and the argument for b is also flawed.
woodandsteel 10y ago
You seem to be assuming that social tension has only one cause, so if racial division causes social tension, then income inequality doesn't. You also seem to be assuming it is not possible that income inequality might be one important cause of racial division.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm assuming nothing of the sort. According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid argument against something, this should be an argument against racial diversity. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.... (sadly it's paywalled) So we are faced with the following choices: a) you can oppose racial diversity AND inequality because both cause social tension, b) you can oppose neither (for this reason, at least), or c) you can be logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect about something. I choose (b). What do you choose?

crdoconnor 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Although I'd prefer to call it "argumentum ad assume racism"

yummyfajitas 10y ago
No. Association fallacy is a in b, a in c therefore b = c. My argument is a -> b, a -> c, c is false therefore a must be false, and the argument for b is also flawed.

woodandsteel 10y ago

You seem to be assuming that social tension has only one cause, so if racial division causes social tension, then income inequality doesn't. You also seem to be assuming it is not possible that income inequality might be one important cause of racial division.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm assuming nothing of the sort. According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid argument against something, this should be an argument against racial diversity. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.... (sadly it's paywalled) So we are faced with the following choices: a) you can oppose racial diversity AND inequality because both cause social tension, b) you can oppose neither (for this reason, at least), or c) you can be logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect about something. I choose (b). What do you choose?