5 ms·

Then I'd say you either don't know how tragic the situation in Uganda is, or you have no sense of proportion.

davidgerard 13y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as "The "not as bad as" argument, or the fallacy of relative privation, is a form of the moral equivalence fallacy that takes note of the existence of things that are worse than what is actually under discussion - for different purposes, as outlined below. It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong; being fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other, usually worse, actions."
- gocarsno 13y ago
  I don't see how that's relevant.
  - duaneb 13y ago
    Just because Uganda is "worse" than opposing gay marriage does not imply that opposing gay marriage is at all positive.
    - gocarsno 13y ago
      Which is not what I said or even implied. I said the situation in Uganda can't be considered "close" by any stretch of imagination to the situation in California until recently, before gay marriage was legalized. I also implied reaction should be proportionate to the degree of wrong. How the heck did you infer "opposing gay marriage is positive" from that?
      - duaneb 13y ago
        > How the heck did you infer "opposing gay marriage is positive" from that? You're a random person on the internet, I personally wouldn't rely on any implication to be clearly communicated. When in doubt, be explicit. This is even more important in threads (like these) where people run around with their heads on fire.
- cgrubb 13y ago
  Isn't there a false dilemma fallacy? Who invented all these fallacies? They seem to be unavoidable.
  - steve-howard 13y ago
    There's the fallacy fallacy, which says "just because you can match an argument to a fallacy doesn't mean you've proven anything": http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy
    - eurleif 13y ago
      It seems to be saying "you can't prove the conclusion of the argument is false", not "you can't prove anything". You can still prove the argument is invalid.
- jkrems 13y ago
  Topic is an incorrect statement made in the article. This statement implied that Eich's actions were promoting outlawing homosexual relationships. There are countries where such laws still exist. Mentioning them and noting that there's a difference between facing prison for being in a homosexual relationship (which the article implied was something Eich was trying to achieve) and not being able to marry a same-sex partner is absolutely relevant. That's not a "logical fallacy". Calling it a logical fallacy on the other hand is.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  No one is making that argument. The GP comment said "it's close enough" to the situation in Uganda for his purposes. Goscarsno just claimed that that's not true at all (which I believe is correct - the situation in Uganda is objectively far worse.) No one is making the argument that you are objecting to or using a worse situation to justify anything. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman
jrs99 13y ago
I think the opposite. To consider that not allowing gay marriage is a HUGE denial of equal rights to gays. Not just flippantly saying "They can't get married, but they're still alive, right?" Maybe thinking that it's ALL tragic is the best point of view in moving this world forward.
adl 13y ago
Baby steps, you have to start somewhere. (You know, the "First they came for the same sex marriage...", and all that).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as "The "not as bad as" argument, or the fallacy of relative privation, is a form of the moral equivalence fallacy that takes note of the existence of things that are worse than what is actually under discussion - for different purposes, as outlined below. It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong; being fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other, usually worse, actions."

gocarsno 13y ago
I don't see how that's relevant.
- duaneb 13y ago
  Just because Uganda is "worse" than opposing gay marriage does not imply that opposing gay marriage is at all positive.
  - gocarsno 13y ago
    Which is not what I said or even implied. I said the situation in Uganda can't be considered "close" by any stretch of imagination to the situation in California until recently, before gay marriage was legalized. I also implied reaction should be proportionate to the degree of wrong. How the heck did you infer "opposing gay marriage is positive" from that?
    - duaneb 13y ago
      > How the heck did you infer "opposing gay marriage is positive" from that? You're a random person on the internet, I personally wouldn't rely on any implication to be clearly communicated. When in doubt, be explicit. This is even more important in threads (like these) where people run around with their heads on fire.
cgrubb 13y ago
Isn't there a false dilemma fallacy? Who invented all these fallacies? They seem to be unavoidable.
- steve-howard 13y ago
  There's the fallacy fallacy, which says "just because you can match an argument to a fallacy doesn't mean you've proven anything": http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy
  - eurleif 13y ago
    It seems to be saying "you can't prove the conclusion of the argument is false", not "you can't prove anything". You can still prove the argument is invalid.
jkrems 13y ago
Topic is an incorrect statement made in the article. This statement implied that Eich's actions were promoting outlawing homosexual relationships. There are countries where such laws still exist. Mentioning them and noting that there's a difference between facing prison for being in a homosexual relationship (which the article implied was something Eich was trying to achieve) and not being able to marry a same-sex partner is absolutely relevant. That's not a "logical fallacy". Calling it a logical fallacy on the other hand is.
Houshalter 13y ago
No one is making that argument. The GP comment said "it's close enough" to the situation in Uganda for his purposes. Goscarsno just claimed that that's not true at all (which I believe is correct - the situation in Uganda is objectively far worse.) No one is making the argument that you are objecting to or using a worse situation to justify anything. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman

jrs99 13y ago

I think the opposite. To consider that not allowing gay marriage is a HUGE denial of equal rights to gays. Not just flippantly saying "They can't get married, but they're still alive, right?" Maybe thinking that it's ALL tragic is the best point of view in moving this world forward.

adl 13y ago

Baby steps, you have to start somewhere. (You know, the "First they came for the same sex marriage...", and all that).