04-19-2016, 07:52 AM
Day 60,
I've beginning to see through Ben Shapiro's rhetorical points; he is very good at using Complex Questions (a fallacy), Oversimplified Generalizations (an inductive fallacy), odd hypothetical questions, as well as Galt's Gallop (confusing your opponent) to win debates.
The thing is that nobody calls him on it, which is why he has the allure of an untouchable. With certain topics such as religious freedom, his biases become clear, at the expense of rational discourse (see above).
I still wouldn't be able to take him on in a debate in the moment, primarily because I don't speak fast enough, but give me 5 years.
I think that I've invented a new type of logical fallacy, called:
The "If Things Were Different, Things Would Be Different" Fallacy.
Definition: When somebody corners you into an unrealistic hypothetical, and forces you to argues based upon the premises of the hypothetical alone.
Example: If a rich person had been born poor instead of rich, they clearly wouldn't be able to cut it in the real world, based upon their actions as a rich person.
Adequate Response: "If I had been poor, life's vicissitudes would have pushed upon me differently, and so I'd have adapted as a poor person. But there's no real way of knowing unless I'd have been poor to begin with."
I've beginning to see through Ben Shapiro's rhetorical points; he is very good at using Complex Questions (a fallacy), Oversimplified Generalizations (an inductive fallacy), odd hypothetical questions, as well as Galt's Gallop (confusing your opponent) to win debates.
The thing is that nobody calls him on it, which is why he has the allure of an untouchable. With certain topics such as religious freedom, his biases become clear, at the expense of rational discourse (see above).
I still wouldn't be able to take him on in a debate in the moment, primarily because I don't speak fast enough, but give me 5 years.
I think that I've invented a new type of logical fallacy, called:
The "If Things Were Different, Things Would Be Different" Fallacy.
Definition: When somebody corners you into an unrealistic hypothetical, and forces you to argues based upon the premises of the hypothetical alone.
Example: If a rich person had been born poor instead of rich, they clearly wouldn't be able to cut it in the real world, based upon their actions as a rich person.
Adequate Response: "If I had been poor, life's vicissitudes would have pushed upon me differently, and so I'd have adapted as a poor person. But there's no real way of knowing unless I'd have been poor to begin with."
UMS v2 Journal (current) || Overcoming Fear 5.75G Journal
