3 ms·
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to understand, I'll restate the logical fallacy a bit more formally: Person A believes thing 1.
by xiaoma 9y ago
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to understand, I'll restate the logical fallacy a bit more formally:
Person A believes thing 1.
Person A believes thing 2.
Therefore people who believe 1 also believe 2.
This line of reasoning can be rhetorically powerful but it's flawed and, IMO, toxic to the discussion.
- zimpenfish 9y ago> the far-right (and to some extent the MRA movement since there's a strong overlap What I actually said was: People in set A believe thing 1. People in set B believe thing 2. There is a strong overlap between set A and set B. You'll note there's nothing about a causal connection, only a correlation. [edit for formatting]