While watching the presidential debates, my wife enjoyed tearing apart all the arguments made by both candidates, as almost everything each one said used logical fallacies to prove their points. In discussions about orientation, both sides of the argument are also prone to use logical fallacies, so I thought it would be useful to list some of them here and how they are used as inappropriate arguments.
This first post will discuss the "limited choice" fallacy. When someone artificially limits the options of a choice (usually to just two options) then they are falling into a limited choice fallacy.
The cliche is when someone says "If you are not for us, then you are against us." The argument fails because the presence of unspoken options makes the conclusion invalid. In the orientation discussion, arguments such as "A vote for gay marriage is a vote against families," and "A vote against gay marriage is a vote for bigotry," are prime examples of the limited choice fallacy. A vote for or against a particular gay marriage bill could mean a lot of different things that have nothing to do with families or bigotry. In fact, an opinion for or against the concept of gay marriage does not make one either anti-family or a bigot. There are lots of complications in peoples lives that contribute to such opinions and decisions, and using fallacious arguments will only drive away real communication.
This is why it disturbs me to see some comments on blogs insisting to know someone's stand on some issue or another. Any answer given is often used as a way to invoke fallacious logic and cut off discussion. As we talk about the issues, we need to avoid the limited choice fallacy.
Would this also be an example? - - be married to someone of the opposite sex and have children, or you don't get into the Celestial Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteMost logical fallacies are distortions of sound logical statements. The limited choice fallacy is often a false dichotomy. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't true dichotomies. A seed either germinates or it doesn't.
DeleteIf someone made that statement to me, I would think that it was more of a contortion of the truth than a logical fallacy, because it is not supported by LDS scripture. If that statement were true, then little children who die would be left out of the Celestial Kingdom. I have friends who cannot have children, and some who never marry. Do they have hope of entering the Celestial Kingdom? I think that the doctrine is quite clear that they do.
Okay then this - Be in a gay relationship and you can't get into the Celestial Kingdom.
DeleteWhile I understand what you are trying to say, you are not understanding the nature of this logical fallacy. The fallacy is not that there are few choices, but that other valid choices are ignored. For example, consider the statement "I either provide power to my computer or it won't work." Just because I've limited myself to one action and one consequence, it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy would be "I either plug my computer into that outlet right now, or just throw my computer away, because it will never get power!" The statement is ignoring many perfectly valid options.
DeleteSo, no, the statement you refer to is not logically fallacious. It is a statement of action and consequence that may or may not be true, but it is not an example of the limited choice fallacy.
Hi, just wanted to tell you, I loved this blog post.
ReplyDeleteIt was funny. Keep on posting!